Talk:Climate change/Archived mediation responses

Initial question

Q: Anyone who feels there is an issue with this article, please write below the answer to the following question:-

What do you think would need to be included or excluded from the article in order for it to be NPOV, and for all of its content to be factual?

Answers:

The following discussion 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.

---

• I'm really, really sorry to be difficult, but I just can't parse your question. Do you mean something like "What do you think would need to be included or excluded in order for the article to be perfectly NPOV, and all the material to be factual?" Raymond Arritt 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, my wording was hopelessly backwards. I have corrected it; my apologies, and thanks a lot for pointing it out. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Given the complexity of the overall subject area, the best we can hope for is an adequate discussion of the current state of knowledge about "global warming, the physical phenomenon", as summarized by the IPCC (mostly in WG1), and endorsed by most scientific societies. I would include at most short pointers to articles covering the wider field. Everything else will make this article much to long and extremely unstable. --Stephan Schulz 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Global warming achieved FA status last summer and although it has been subject to edit creep over the months it remains a valid Featured article. Global warming is based on the science and should remain focused on the science with pointers to the various other aspects: political controversy, effects of and so forth. Scientific points of controversy should be included in accordance with undue weight considerations. The article is already stretching the length recommendations and obviously cannot include in depth discussion of all other aspects. Vsmith 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Although I would ideally prefer a more comprehensive article covering effects and policy responses, I've been convinced that this is not feasible in a single article, especially given that it's the policy implications that are the ultimate source of attempts to dispute the climate science. So I endorse the view of Stephan Schulz.JQ 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Certain users take very strong OWNership over this article, flatly reverting any significant changes to the article without regard to whether they are actually an improvement. Any time a change is disputed and removed, they revert it back in, and if a dispute tag is placed, they immediately remove it. These users insert statements into the article, without citation, that convey some kind of negative implication on or otherwise minimize the legitimacy of dissenting scientists, again without citation. This is all unacceptable. --Tjsynkral 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree with Tjsynkral. His description is right and accurate. The real problem is a small group of pro-warming editors who constantly and inappropriately edit, revert and delete any additions which are even slightly outside the existing scope of this article. There is not really an edit war here. There is a pro-warming faction which refuses any new topics or material for this entry. And there is a vast array of people trying to add new stuff. Some are simply ordinary editors, who are simply trying to edit in a normal fashion, but are constantly rebuffed. (There are also some editors who are part of an ongoing group of skeptics.)

Note: If you simply get the pro-warming to stop rejecting every change in the status quo, then there will be no more edit wars, and no problem. By the way, they frequently reject entire sub-topics because of what they say it will do the "science". They ignore a growing consensus to make this entry a rreal overview, and to encompass several topics. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of those that would prefer that this article reflect the latest findings of the IPCC, or the widely held scientific consensus (as represented by their professional organizations and peer reviewed articles), with branching articles to cover other areas of concern as needed. Would also like to add that maybe this page could use a FAQ page linked at the beginning of the talk page (like the evolution FAQ) to minimize the same arguments from being made over and over. Sorry missed that; maybe it could use it's own box to set it apart? R. Baley 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A Global warming FAQ exists and is linked at the top of this page (though the link is possibly a little lost in amongst all the banners currently at the top); it could certainly use more work of course, so feel free to pitch in. -- Leland McInnes 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Echoing popular sentiment here: I'd like the article to provide an overview of the scientific aspects of global warming, without massive derails into what various people think about the subject. This isn't primarily an NPOV issue, in my opinion: it's simply a way of keeping the article manageable. Including the controversy would be much like a lengthy discussion of atheist arguments in the Christianity article. There is definitely a place for the controversy on Wikipedia, but this article isn't it. --Ashenai 06:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Three sentences may not be sufficient but here goes:
  • Per NPOV, alternative views should be respectfully included -- and this means both political and scientific views.
  • The topic is complex and the lengthy issues could be handled better by dividing them up: Science of Global Warming, Politics of Global Warming, Mediation Efforts for Global Warming, etc. with one page as a summary to sub articles and detailed discussion of the "debates" on the sub articles.
  • A lot of hard work has gone into the article by a select group of people with a strong point of view -- leading to Ownership issues and egregious hostility to other editors. --Blue Tie 10:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Blue Tie. (Not trying to reignite the debate; I am only indicating under those whom I agree with, to make things more efficient.) --Sm8900 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I do not think there is anything really missing from this article and think it is very roughly NPOV, however, I think it is way too long and (perhaps because of the contraversy) has the flow interupted by endless references even for obvious details and unnecessary caveats. --BozMo talk 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• My main concern is about using weasel-worded catchphrases such as "climate scientists" and "climate science". There is no precise definition for that concept and it is misleading (see this discussion as well as this one). A climatologist is a climatologist and a chemist is a chemist, period. These weasel words are used to give the false impression than any scientist who touched at some point some climate aspect in his field of expertise can actually scientifically support the whole IPCC conclusions, yet we know this to be impossible. --Childhood's End 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with having the focus of this article as scientific, as Global Warming is inherently a scientific collection, analysis, and reporting process. Scientific opposition to the consensus is a tiny minority, hence any significant mention in the article would apply undue weight. Political and vested interest opposition is outside the realm of science and belongs in it's own article. GW cause and effect are entirely scientific in nature, while mitigation alternatives are both scientific and engineering subjects. Selection of mitigation alternatives adds in politics, as nations forge (or refrain from participating in) multilateral arrangements to select and implement the mitigations. Discussions of conspiracies for and against would likely be their own articles (most likely Global Warming Controversy, if sufficient verifiable information can be acquired to warrant their inclusion. --Skyemoor 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis for you unilaterally deciding that this article should consist only of science. This is what i mean. you are actively suppressing legitimate edits by good-faith editors. This article touches on many topics, and there is no basis for you deciding only to include science just because that is what you want. --Sm8900 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I stated my opinion as to the nature of the article direction within the context of this group discussion, which is clearly within editors' rights on this talk page. I have made no unilateral decisions or judgements, so am puzzled by your unjustified criticism. Note that I have not attempted on any occasion to preclude your participation in these discussions. --Skyemoor 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I meant "you" as plural, meaning "you" the group, not "you" personally. I appreciate your constructive tone to me, and have no problem with you personally at all. Thanks for your helpful and informative reply. See you. --Sm8900 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• As a few others said, I'd like:
  • the article to focus only or essentially on the science aspect,
  • the science exposed here being the one endorsed by the IPCC, the AGU and most of the national academy of science in the world, relegating 'alternative' science, dissenters and controversy to annex articles (briefly introduced and properly linked from this one),
  • as a result of point 1, the references used here to be mostly peer reviewed science, exluding magazines, interviews, etc.... --Galahaad 17:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I second Galahaad. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article's scope should be primarily scientific, reflecting the current scientific consensus. Most of the ancillary details should be in their relevant subarticles, but the way those articles are linked together with this one should be improved. Things such as political and societal effects should receive about a one-paragraph summary, and use {{main}} links to point to the expanded details in the subarticles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• The standard here should be "Verifiability, not truth" and the requirement for "Verifiability, not truth" must extend to the work of the ReliableSources on whom the content of the global warming page must depend. That is, I propose that, to qualify as a ReliableSource for the global warming page, that ReliableSource must have Verified by the standards of the profession that the assertion to be made in the global warming page is factual. Too many of the proposed insertions to the global warming page are "fully attributable to ReliableSources" that blatantly violate "Verifiability, not truth" in their own writing. --Rednblu 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think in order for this article to be comprehensive it should deal with the topic of global warming, not just the topic of global warming science (and therefore fit for FA per WP:WIAFA). I believe what is in this article should be moved to an article titled something like Science of global warming or Global warming science (which, of course would promptly be promoted to FA) and then have the various main points summarized in the global warming article, which would also discuss relevant topics such as politics of global warming (Kyoto, legislation, political action, etc.), social issues (financial and economics, public opinions?, social mitigation, health effects, etc.), and of course the main science behind it. Of course, everything would still have to adhere to all of Wikipedia policies (thus not allowing junk and overflow, as scaremongered by some people), and I'm sure the article would be no more than 32K in size (better than current) and promoted to FA (thus having two articles FA: global warming and the science article!) ~ UBeR 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm thinking about what a general user would want from the article. I thing they would want to know what global warming is, ie the science of global warming. If they want to know what the Kyoto Agreement is, they would look up that article and so on. Likewise other social and political issues. Indeed they will probably come to this article after hearing about the politics of global warming in a news source. --Michael Johnson 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• And don't you think the general user would also visit greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect and mitigation and climate models if they wanted to know what they are? Your rationale is a little haphazard and overly selective. The general, lay user will want to know the broad picture of global warming, not just very narrow specifics that could be found in a more warranting article. ~ UBeR 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I guess that here we're being asked our personal opinion about the orientation that the article should take. MJ is entitled to his opinion as much as anybody else, and I don't say that because I share the same feeling ;-P. Actually, my view is that if I look for a Global Warming entry somewhere, I want to know what Global warming is and how 'it works'. I don't think the greenhouse gas, greenhouse effect articles answer this question totally, because they are not GW (and please don't misread this statement by concluding that I said that GW is not caused by greenhouse gas ;-) )! There was greenhouse gas and gh effect before GW, and there will be after. This is only the basic principle behind GW, but the article of GHG can not focus on GW. So these articles, as well as political, economical, societal etc .... articles related to GW could be introduced in the GW article for people interested in additional and more in depth information. But IMO, all of these article are extented topics, children of the GW process itself, but not to be put under the denomination Global Warming. But it's just how I see it of course :-) --Galahaad 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Might we move this conversation to a new section? -- With a title maybe something like "What the general user would like to see on the global warming page?" Apparently, a lot of us would like to discuss this. --Rednblu 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally object to being attacked in this context - I was responding to NT's request for an opinion. I'm really not interested in a long debate, I was simply responding with a personal opinion. If Uber wants to comment how about doing so without attacking other users. That is the point of mediation. --Michael Johnson 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It was not an attack. If you're looking to classify all criticism as attacks, so be it. But recognize that was also my own opinion. If you want to have your opinion and respond to Turnbull's questions, you can have them. I'm not denying you of that. And I'm fine with people just stating their opinions. I didn't necessarily see anywhere that we couldn't respond to them, but if that's what the people want, I'm fine with that too. ~ UBeR 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since when is "Your rationale is a little haphazard and overly selective." a personal attack? I fear the day when opposition to a viewpoint and constructive criticism is censored by the NPA police. The machine512 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe personal attack is a bit too strong term, but I guess the point here is that it isn't the place to debate. We are asked our opinion (possibly in a short format) and nobody should have to start a 15 pages debate to justify himself. So if you have an opinion about what should be or shouldn't be in the article, express it. But I don't think one should express our opinions on other's opinion here (somewhere else in the discussion page, sure!). What about deleting this current comment and the 2 previous ones (and maybe some other replies to opinions) to preserve clarity of the results of the poll? --Galahaad 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Retain current focus on (natural) science but shorten somewhat, rebalancing somewhat towards the correct science, ie de-skepticise a bit. Enforce NPA vigourously on talk and hold people strictly to the 3 sentence limit. Close the straw poll above and take notice of the result William M. Connolley 09:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article focused on the science, as per User:Galahaad, User:Stephan Schulz in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think the protected version is good. Actuarial science is science, and should be included as such. I agree with summary style, as long as the summaries cover their see-main articles, and don't exclude from them because they are not 100% climatology. James S. 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note It seems to me that a compromise between the proposals of UBeR and of Stephan Schulz is at hand's reach and would encompass most of the concerns expressed above. Focus on mainstream science with light "skeptic" material, remove the Kyoto and Stern Review stuff, and rename for "Science of global warming" or "Global warming science". Then create "Global warming" for a series of summaries of sub-articles about the different aspects of global warming. Imho, that will only leave the weasel word issue to be resolved. Be certain though that the sub-articles are not to be "owned" by the scientific editors (if any can be), are not to be focused on science, and are not restrained to be IPCC advertisement or to reflect at 100% what would be said in "Science of global warming". A controversy is double-sided and "undue weight", there, will warrant 50/50. --Childhood's End 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, I'm not trying to flood this article with "skeptic stuff." I just want a comprehensive article that touches on all the aspects of global warming duly. While, of course, science is a big part, it's time for it's own article so that we can summarize it concisely and make the current article more comprehensive. Rumors that this would create a gargantuan article are unfounded. ~ UBeR 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just tried to move to the next stage of the mediation process by reducing down the above comments through removing extraneous material, but User:UBeR just reverted me - I have left a message on his talk page. UBeR, would you mind if we proceeded with the mediation? Thanks. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (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.