Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 28 March 2007

Global warming

Messages left at WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Meteorology, Natalinasmpf, and Blue Tie.

This article blatantly fails to meet FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e), i.e. neutrality and stability. Since the first week of March 2007, there has been an ongoing POV discussion on the talk page, culminating in an edit war the last few days. During this conflict, NPOV and weasel word tags were inserted and removed. Yesterday, a mediatation was initiated, after which the article soon had to be protected to contain the edit war. This article clearly cannot be labeled as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community under these circumstances. The fact that stability is no longer achieved needs no assertion. And as long as a significant minority (or perhaps even a majority) disagrees that the article is NPOV, we cannot define it to be as such. Nick Mks 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as a few of the weaselly words can be removed and some other minor points can be addressed, I think the NPOV can be dealt with fairly easily. It's up to the dissenters though to take the initiative and agree to remove the weasel words (or provide a source other than Misplaced Pages that reiterates the statements). On stability, I agree the article is not stable, and has not been for quite a while. ~ UBeR 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some todo I think is necessary.

• Shorten the lede (not long enough to warrant 5 paragraphs)
• Terminology is very short, compared to the other sections. It should be expanded or moved, IMO.
• Get sources for every statement
• Shorten further reading (if some of them are references, they don't need to be listed twice)
• Pre-human Global warming and Pre-Industrial Global warming should be further to the top. It doesn't make sense to have the earliest stuff be last
• Mitigation should be expanded, given how important of a topic it is
• Attributed and expected effects should be later on, given that they're in the future
• Re-read and re-write to ensure it flows well

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is just fine. The problem is that there is one group of people (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) who are interested in keeping this article factually accurate, well cited, 'etc, and another group of POV pushers who are interested in pushing their anti-global warming POV into this article (Rameses, Britannia, Blue Tie, 'etc). They don't have a leg to stand on, factually, so they complain of POV, because POV is subjective and therefore it's harder to show they are flatly wrong. Raul654 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. The users you mention (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) are the ones who are stubborn about introducing weasel words into the article yet they flatly refuse to provide a citation establishing consensus. These users appear to believe that WP:A doesn't apply to them. --Tjsynkral 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole article of sources available - the trouble isn't that they refuse to provide sources - it is that you refuse to accept them (even if cited on page). Subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen 09:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stubborn use of weasel words has been demonstrated (see this discussion as well as this one). William M. Connolley most notably said that he sees "no need for a precise definition of 'climate scientist'". And the idea of a consensus, being built from a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement, remains original research. --Childhood's End 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, "a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement" is pretty much the only way anyone establishes consensus isn't it, once those who want to have spoken? --BozMo talk 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, no. There exists no scientist on Earth that can wholly scientifically invalidate climate change predictions - they can only give opinions with regard to their specific fields of knowledge (climatology involves dozens of different fields of research). It could thus be that there are scientific agreement with regard to certain specific aspects of climate evolution, but when it comes to the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming, the idea of a consensus is OR. --Childhood's End 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence pretty much sums up the incredible huztpah of the "anthropogenic global warming is a lie" group. Even sceptical scientists now agree that human activities are resulting in a warming climate, but simply say that cannot ascertain how much. . The scientists in related fields that do contribute to the article are under almost constant barrage by those who obtain their opinions from information sources shaped by political and/or vested interests. I agree with Raul, Connelly, and others that this article is stable, balanced, and FA-worthy. --Skyemoor 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Research yes, but not original research surely? The whole point of the IPCC reports and vast list of signatories for their reports which give huge ranges in forecast and conclusion is that they are a consensus. You have to have a prejudiced view about the IPCC not to accept this: now please listen when I say that there may be all sorts of reasons to doubt the IPCC, but those reasons (valid though they may be) are where we are lacking notable sources, surveys of scientists and where we are in the realms of OR. There is not any kind of serious grouping (e.g. not more than for evolution) who oppose the IPCC conclusions as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem, BozMo, is the inclusion of what is either original research, a simple POV, or synthesis (counts as OR). If no source is saying it, why should we? If you can't find a reliable source that is saying what you are trying to include in the article, it's inclusion is meritless. It's really a simple idea, and I do not understand why a select few of you wish to gripe with this policy. ~ UBeR 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also about a misleading characterization of how the IPCC produces its reports. The contributors do not contribute to the whole reports, as the misleading concept of "climate scientists" wishes us to think. Each scientist contributes to a small part of them in his research field and has no scientific idea about the validity of the whole thing. --Childhood's End 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am listening, but synthesis AFAICT is only original research if it is done "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Without NPOV synthesis Misplaced Pages basically couldn't exist, we do it everywhere. So are you saying that the synthesis of IPCC is being done with a POV by WP editors, or that the IPCC reports themselves summarise with a bias or both? If the former, take me through what the IPCC summaries say. If the latter refuting a synthesis by a credible organisation is problematic and OR: lets find someone credible who has done it and quote them. --BozMo talk 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if you do not have a source outside of Misplaced Pages for something you are trying to include (for whatever reason), then do not add it! I'm honestly trying to make this as simple and basic as I can so I can illustrate my point. Misplaced Pages isn't about truth; it's about verifiability. If sources aren't saying, neither should we. ~ UBeR 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And what we have said dozens of times is that we even have quotes of sceptics saying there is a consensus they oppose. As for quoting other references in WP (if that's what you mean), we follow WP:SUMMARY. --Skyemoor 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This same old argument, even after I explained it to you? Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. (I can bold too, you know.) Here, I'll prove it to you with a quote: "Misplaced Pages and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. Can anyone who actually understands my logic here help me explain this simple point? I mean, I could explain how the WP:OR policy supports this conclusion, but if this simple idea cannot be grasped, I don't think it prudent to even bother. As for WP:SS, this applies to overly long sections that merit summarizing main points from what might be a more extensive article. It, of course, does not bar references in the article it's being summarized in. It does, however, limit it to sections, not leads. Read over the policy again. ~ UBeR 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You avoided acknowledging the point above about skeptics agreeing that there is AGW, just not sure how much. As for referring to other portions of WP, please quote the portion of WP:Summary that states that one cannot refer to references from spin-out articles in the lede. I have asked this same question before with no answer. --Skyemoor 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You avoid acknowledging I'm correct. I don't care which skeptics agree there is AGW (could they really be defined as skeptics, as such?), because so long as you aren't citing them, it means nothing to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages cares not for your original research, but rather verifiable data. If you're refusing to allow verifiability for what you're writing in Misplaced Pages, not much can be done. As for my discussion on WP:SS, maybe you're not looking hard enough. Try Talk:Global warming for starters. ~ UBeR 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Those skeptics who agree that there is some AGW are on the skeptic list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and I indeed cited 3 of them above (which you avoided acknowledging above). You have again refused to support your claim about the lede being limited to what can be referenced, so we are left without any basis for your claim yet again. --Skyemoor 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as stability here is the diff for the last 500 edits, to March 5. 500 edits in three weeks is not all that uncommon for a high profile article like this. Furthermore, if you look at the diff, the content itself has barely changed - it's almost exclusively confined to changing the style of the references. In other words, there is no stability problem here at all. Raul654 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that Raul is correct about stability. However, if my experience on that page is an indication, the reason it is stable is over-zealous protection by a few editors who will revert and remove contributions by other editors in short order. Hence, their contributions remain stable over time.

I have already suggested a re-structuring of the article on the talk page. Other reviewers here have also suggested restructuring in this FAR. So it might be a reasonable idea. But it is rejected by the current guardians. --Blue Tie 02:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. The article is stable, as the diff shows. The NPOV and weasel tags are spurious. The medcabal case is irrelevant. I disagree with some of Hh:

• The lead can be re-paragraphed, but thats trivia
• Terminology needs to be high up to be useful; it was once a side-box and was better as such, IMHO
• There is no reason to list things in chronological order. Pre-human stuff is of minor interest and so is best low down
• Mitigation is a sub-article
• Attributed and expected is important so needs ot be near the top

William M. Connolley 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (belated sig - date wrong by about 2h)

Not to get in the middle of high emotions, but a factor in reviewing this article has to be how much of the article is or should be for Global warming as fact or against. People have used Undue weight as an argument, but that would presume that Global warming is believed by most people or scientists, or that that matters more than science. Science is not subject to peoples opinions or emotions, so perhaps this article needs extensive copyediting for neutrality rather than de-featuring. Judgesurreal777 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree what you said. Science is not a subject that allows emotions to take its course. They need facts and theories to back up the findings. This is why scientific journals (e.g. Nature) requires extensive scientific community peer review prior to publishing articles. OhanaUnited 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed any of the text in the article but have been around it reverting vandalism etc for a while. I supported the request for a review but the summary at the top of this FAR bears no relationship to the reality of the article. In my opinion the article easily meets the requirements for neutrality and stability (compare it to a random choice from a couple of months ago: it evolves slowly thats all). The problem with the article is that it represents a fair selection (tip of the iceberg) of the spectrum of scientific view and gives due weight to small minority views, whereas a small number of editors have repeatedly tried to get undue weight to these views. The article does not reflect my own views on Global Warming, but it does reflect consensus in the scientific literature as far as I can tell. This review will be useful if it achieves one thing: making other Wikipedians with a scientific background aware that a flagship article is in danger of being seriously undermined by a narrow interest group. The behaviour of the attacking minority has been raised repeatedly at WP:AN/I but they always manage to swamp the complaint with so much additional material nothing much comes of it. --BozMo talk 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is really too much personal attack and defense going on here. It should be about the article and its quality. I view it as a weakness of those declaring the article to be of high quality that they should personally attack the individual editing instead of focusing on the article and the facts. If these are in your favor, there is no need for personal attack.

As far as a "flagship" article.. it is very good, but it is not perfect. It has NPOV problems. It appears that the article is suffering from wp:own ownership problems. There is no baby being killed here, but perhaps the main editors of the article feel like they are under personal attack when their article changes. Other editors may suggest changes and these should not be immediately condemned as they are. The whole process on wikipedia is to discuss. It does not happen on this page though. Instead, new editors are insulted. This page is not so wonderful that it cannot be significantly improved. And if it would take the fall of a so-called "flagship" article to bring some civility to the talk page there then I would vote for that in an instant.--Blue Tie 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is >300 kb of talk page content in just the last three weeks. It does get "discussed", but a large part of that discussion is pointless because a number of people don't approach it in good faith but rather use the talk page merely to advocate for their own preconceived notions, without any concern for seeing the other side. I've followed global warming since way before it was featured, and I don't believe the presense (or absense) of the featured label will have any lasting effect on the amount of conflict it generates. Dragons flight 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and it is sad to think about. --Blue Tie 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This artical sucks. It is totally a position artical and should only have facts, not oppinions. Leave the opinions to the consumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.86.167.112 (talk • contribs).

What specifically is opinion in this article? It looks like there is a citation for most sentences, and only two "citation needed" tags. Overall, pretty good for a controversial topic. Gimmetrow 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the article should be featured -- yet. I believe it can be greatly improved in terms of structure (but perhaps not in content). I also believe that it is not exactly neutral. I believe that this is a matter of experts with too much depth in the subject and passion for the subject editing it. I would also add, that I have been falsly accused of being a POV pusher. That is a false charge. --Blue Tie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe a lot of the people complaining on this FAR about this article (specifically its neutrality) have no interest in doing productive work on the article. With their "help" this article would never have become a featured article. So claiming it's not a featured article "yet" is transparently ingenuine. Raul654 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A small POV section of editors (who come, go, and for the most part are replaced a few months later) have been waging war against this article for years now. It's been made a FA despite their efforts, and should stay that way. The controversy here has no correlation to reality. Mostlyharmless 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1. http://urnet.uah.edu/tempnews/climate.html
2. http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,472200,00.html