The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After reading all the arguments, and every comment, I think it's fair to say that the only consensus garnered here is that global warming is controversial. The title of the article is clearly problematic; a significant amount of editors requested a rename if the article was to be kept, and considering that the no consensus closure will default to keep, I would suggest all parties work to find a suitable rename. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The question to ask ourselves: Is a list such as this one anything other than a POV-push?

In my opinion, any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment i dont like the article name. it implies that all the scientists listed are opposed to a single, monolithic assessment of global warming. since we know that there are thousands of shades of interpretation of the data and stances along multiple gradients (scientific judgement on global warming cannot be represented as a simple line from "very opposed" to "totally supporting"). the sections do break down the scientists into categories, but i would submit that doing this is OR, unless these categories are clearly defined outside WP and used by scientists to self identify themselves. I am not sure a name change is possible or could salvage the list. perhaps (let me think here), "Scientists wholly or partly critical of global warming theory". this would allow for scientists who may prove to be mostly supportive on balance, but have reasoned critiques. as it is, the title sets up a subtle POV: "aha, here are reasonable people opposed to the big bad mainstream" which, while obviously summarizing notable points of view, by omission ignores much of the debate within the scientific community around many of the specifics of GW. I would say, to leave out any critical voice, however close to mainstream they are, from a notable scientist, in an article with this subject is inherently POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mercury above makes a very important point. Clearly there's a whole spectrum of counter-consensus opinion on climate change, ranging from people who disagree with aspects of the current scientific consensus to those who reject the whole thing out of hand. Lumping them all together into a single broad-brush category of "opposition" is not only inherently POV, it grossly misrepresents the gradient of opinion that exists. The conception of this article is fundamentally flawed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per others who say the concept of the article is fundamentally flawed. There's no value a list like this could serve beyond what might be covered in Climate change denial or something similar, if the scientists themselves are notable and have a position to contribute to that article. If they don't have a notable position that would go in that sort of article, there's really no point in listing them off. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree - inherently misrepresents. Categories will handle this better than a list. Hipocrite (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how to link, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that we had categories of this kind, and they were deleted, on the basis that they were too blunt a classification device and that something like a list article was needed. JQ (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suspect that the reason the category was deleted is because most of the scientists on the list wouldn't fit into any neutrally worded category about climate change denial because the goal of this list is to misrepresent the views of people who have minor technical objections to various models as supporting the finge nutzoids who believe that cow farts are a larger threat to global climate that SUVs. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important/highly current topic. It could go into a different article Climate Realists or similar, as long as it doesn't make the article to large. ^rossnixon 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do you have an answer to the position that an article such as this is inherently pushing a POV and violating our OR and Synthesis policies? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with my comments from the 1st AfD: The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per WP:V), and has to be directly from the scientist (to ensure that WP:BLP is in order). They have to be quotes so that we can assure that interpretation of text is kept to a bare minimum. (again WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). All the scientists have to be notable (per WP:Notable - ie. no red-links), to ensure that we are not diverging into WP:FRINGE. All quotes have to be in reliable sources (of course) (per WP:RS). There are two common ways to view the list (which to me at least indicates that WP:NPOV is upheld):
  1. as a list to show that consensus doesn't exist.
  2. as a list to show how few scientists really are in opposition.

I suggest that people take a look at the discussion archives, to see that there indeed has been a very thorough review of each inclusion. The editors have strived to keep away from POV-issues - and an inclusion has been discussed by both "pro-" mainstream and "contra-" mainstream editors. A common topic on the discussion pages is for instance that "why can't i include X - he is obviously a sceptic", after an inclusion has been reverted. The article is imho WP:NPOV, since we have "anti-" people who are pushing to get as many scientists on the list as possible (to show that statements of consensus is wrong (i presume)), and "pro-" people who are trying to keep people out of the list. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If point #1, it probably runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, giving too much weight to an argument that consensus doesn't exist (consensus never means everyone agrees). Listing off every scientist that doesn't agree gives the false impression that there is a "controversy" greater than there actually is.

If point #2, it probably runs afoul of a number of things Wikipedia is WP:NOT. The Discovery Institute, by comparison, publishes a list of scientists who disagree with evolution, for the sole purpose of making it seem that there is a controversy and that intelligent design is something scientists seriously consider, when of course that's not actually the case. This "article" is exactly like that, and that's not the purpose and goals of Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And my argument is that the article is neither #1 or #2. And exactly because people divert in how they are interpreting the list from two such very different positions - shows us its NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "science of GW is settled" POV is predominant, and this article/list shows that there is notable opposition to the "consensus" position. The mainstream position is made up of key conclusions, and the list is grouped to indicate where the various opponents "stick". Opposing a key (i.e. crticial to the position) conclusion doesn't put one on the "gradient of opinion" it puts one in opposition to the position. To suggest that this list belongs in "Climate Change Denial" is to assume the POV that those listed are inherently wrong in their conclusions (as if the very "denial" name of such an article). If the general GW related articles related such opposition in an open and objective manner, then I would say delete it as redundant. LowKey (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That argument, that the purpose of this article is to list off the oposition in the way you describe, makes this article a POV fork. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather biased title and impossible to declare what 'mainstream' means. Czolgolz (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If a position endorsed by every national science academy and scientific society that has commented on the matter does not qualify as "mainstream," then what does qualify? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find it a useful reference list. I think readers can make up their own minds about whether the group listed here constitutes a significant body of dissent.02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)
• Delete this blatant POV-push/fork/whatever wiki-jargon applies. The issue(s) represented in this article can easily be accomodated within Climate change denial as noted above. Crafty (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, WP:SYN and WP:OR issues concern me with this article/list/whatever the hell it is. Crafty (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous AfD discussions. It's a legitimate article. (If any particular bias or POV is evident, it's probably from the exclusion of particular scientists.) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the list is POV, it counters that by explaining right from the get-go that these scientists oppose the mainstream view (which is explained). The quotes acceptably show the stance of each individual scientist (And NOT the opinions of their fields of study, employers, publishers, etc), and are very reasonably organized into section based on their position in the gradient of opinions regarding global warming. The fact that these are the minority counter the argument that "X's who Oppose/Support Y" is POV, as such lists will always be POV. To have an article listing all the scientist who have formed an opinion would be pointless, and this list serves to show the minority viewpoint. If only the majority viewpoint is shown, that is just as much a POV violation.

I think this nomination is a misrepresentation of what wikipedia is striving to achieve with its NPOV guideline. The list could be cleaned up, but certainly not deleted, on the basis of NPOV. It's removal would make a POV assertion that all scientists agree that global warming is real (Which is certainly not the case). So I ask: What POV is being pushed? That global warming isn't real? Hardly the case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While it would be very very easy for a list such as this one to devolve into POV-pushing COATRACKism, and it could, in principle, be an overly blunt classification tool, in this case it skillfully avoids those traps by having a very clear set of inclusion criteria, and carefully documenting how each listed individual meets those criteria. So it's avoids the POV pitfalls that the nominator is concerned about. Also keep per consensus at the prior 3 AfDs--no new issues have been raised in this AfD thusfar. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Change to neutral I stand by most of my "keep" reasoning, but the presence of non-scientists, non-practicing (emeritus) scientists, and scientists from fields unrelated to climate change on the list is problematic, and undermines the list's usefulness and neutrality. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody has yet answered how this list is not violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is a major problem. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because the list specifically sets out that it is a list of scientists who have made quotes regarding their stance on the subject. While I'd argue that some or many entries could very well be WP:SYNTH, none of them are WP:OR since they are sourced quotes (at least I'd hope that every single quote has a reference), only the decision to connect those quotes with a set opinion would violate WP:SYNTH, though in many cases the quotes explicitly state the position of the scientist in question. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The quote has to explicitly state the opposition, that is the only purpose of it (per WP:V). No position is taken on whether the quote is scientifically valid or not (that would be SYNTH). What the more nuanced view of the scientist is, is something for their biographies, which is the reason that they must be notable and not be red-links. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The last time, this was a snow keep, and the arguments apply still. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this was merged with another page, then that page would be too large. If this page was simply deleted, useful information would be lost. Claims of POV are nonsense when considered in context with all the other Anthropogenic Global Warming pages. Q Science (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The list's inclusion criteria inherently demands original research and the list is a potential WP:BLP disaster because the editors are charged with defining what exactly "mainstream" "scientific" "assessment" is and who, precisely, is in opposition to it. The IPCC consensus statement, for all that's great about it, is only a proxy for what a "true" "mainstream scientific assessment" is, and Wikipedia is not equipped to figure out the actual mainstream scientific assessment. Additionally, the criteria for what makes one a "scientist" (always a conundrum and essentially a fallacy) who "opposes" a scientific fact is something that Wikipedia editors are not equipped to delineate. Our job is not to interpret a person's entire outlook and complete opinion. As it is, a grand total of zero reliable sources exist for this particular topic. Sure various motivated anti-scientific groups (that are not reliable sources, mind you) publish lists that certain editors may think are evidence that such lists can be made, but attempts to compile these very lists have been so fraught (and, in at least one case, been subject to court orders for libel) that we are essentially opening ourselves up for BLP violations by labeling any person with this stigma. As it currently stands, there are not reliable demarcation lists for this particular idea in the same way that there isn't a reliable way to find a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the 9/11 attacks. I think that a better idea is to write articles on the actual published lists of the anti-environmentalist political action committees. Write an article about the The Heartland Institute's controversial list. Document it in the same way other famous published lists of so-called scientists who disbelieve scientific facts have been handled. Just dispense with this attempt at original research and libeling living humans as though Wikipedia can peer into their souls or really evaluate what their "oppositional status" "truly" is. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well said, i wish id said this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is a key page that captures an important section of the debate on global warming. It would be inappropriate to delete it. Tom Dietz (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby.[reply]

• Delete or rename to 'List of scientists by position on climate change' and give WP:DUE weight to all the scientists supporting the "mainstream scientific assessment". I doubt if the latter is practical, the current format gives WP:UNDUE weight to the "tiny minority" of nay-sayers, so I suspect deletion is the most practical alternative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an inherently NPOV article that fairly and accurately describes what those listed believe. The Squicks (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your view of the WP:SYN and WP:OR problem? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 06:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Did anything change since the last time? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments in favour of deletion seem to be different. I don't see anyone in the last discussion making the case that we've seen in this discussion that this article is a piece of synthesis and original research. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with ChrisO. How is this article not synthesis? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be synthesis? What "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" does it reach? It's a collection of different opinions, not a synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote farm of any scientist who has ever made a statement that doesn't match -a- IPCC consensus statement, irregardless of the current 2007 conclusions, which would be the current mainstream assessment of climate change, and irregardless of whether the person actually opposes the current IPCC consensus statement. Many of these quotes are pre-2007, with no indication of whether the person quoted has revised their opinion in response to that assessment. There's little indication of whether the quotes are actually about the IPCC statement, whether they were speaking directly to the consensus statement, or just commenting about climate change in general. These are not quotes opposing the consensus itself (which would refer directly to the 2007 consensus statement by IPCC), but rather random commentary on climate change from random dates. It is sythesis to take the climate change commentary, attach them to the consensus statement, and then push the original position that these are opposing consensus itself. One may, after all, disagree with various aspects of a consensus without directly opposing the consensus. We see that all the time here at Wikipedia. It's fully WP:SYNTH. It says so in our own article's lede: In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement. If not OR, some reliable source independent of Wikipedia needs to have made that comparison, not Wikipedia editors. The concept of the article is fundamentally flawed and not compatible with WP policy. That these are scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming is impossible to verify given pre-assessment quotes that don't actually refer to the current assessment, and given comparisons to assessments performed by Wikipedia editors rather than reliable external sources. This issue is independent of NPOV issues, and a bigger issue I feel. I mention this because NPOV seems to be what the Keeper's arguments have centered around in this, and past, AfD discussions. The article fails a lot more in the five pillars than just NPOV. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For brevity: if a quote doesn't refer directly to the consensus statement itself, and doesn't state that it's in opposition of that consensus statement, and here we push it as being opposition to the consensus statement, that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note: In theory, an ambitious editor may want to write an article titled "List of scientists who have opposed a mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", and list only quotes that directly refer to such an assessment, but that's not this article. It's fundamentally broken because it makes a present-tense assumption that is impossible to support without original research, real-time sourcing, and immediate maintenance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can document or rationalize that any of those on the list do not hold that opinion anymore, then please point it out - since then they must be removed (and are). Great care and extreme amounts of discussion and weighting has been applied to each and every scientist on this list. You seem to be of the opinion that this list represents a specific viewpoint, but have failed to notice that the editors of the list are from both sides of this issue. (and its very well weighted as well between those sides - roughly 50:50). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to prove a negative. I think the burden of verifiability works the other way. The title says "opposing" (present-tense).--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the reasons given for deletion are exactly the same as have been given, and rejected, in previous deletion debates for this article. They are, as they were before, incorrect. As someone who strongly disagrees with the folk listed (has anyone noticed that the people listed are not all scientists?) it is clear to me, and has been explained on talk, and in previous AFD's, that this article *isn't* POV pushing. Those not capable of reading the past are doomed to repeat it, it seems William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup (for example, remove non-scientists). Per other keeps. Verbal chat 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not possible. There have been repeated attempts to remove non-scientists and those working in unrelated fields; all have failed. Skeptical editors are adamant about including astronauts, has-beens and never-weres to make the numbers look bigger. They've even pressed for including dead people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of this huge POV problem of including non-scientists, and considering some of the other "keep" comments (such as "it documents the ongoing debate") I'm changing to weakSTRONG delete. Verbal chat 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Inherent violation of POV in structure and format, has had three chances to be cleaned up after previous AfDs, and is still exactly the same POV-pushing list of WP:Original research quotes promoting a fringe theory, with appeal to authority from peacock statements about the qualifications of the people who once said something against Global Warming. A check of the talk page archives will show them going through advocacy lists for the POV this list pushes, selecting the supposed "best" from the list, and then doing original research to find a quote for the page. Violates WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, and others. Furthermore, the talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable BLP violation. That the article has attracted enough POV-pushers to vote keep on it before does not mean it should not be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 09:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with other users above that call for this to be delete per the policies they site. I just read this and it doesn't look like a list, it looks more like an article that needs a lot of work done to it. There are way too many quotes made, why? Shouldn't the WP:RS be enough? As has been said above, though this list/article claims to be 'scientist' a lot of them are not scientist. I think if this is to remain then it needs to be rewritten to follow WP:LISTS. With what I checked into, a lot of the entries listed are people who have written books not that they are scientist. I think the policies that are not being followed, (ie. User:Shoemaker's Holiday and User:ScienceApologist. have convinced me that this should be deleted and anything that is useful merged into one of the many articles available. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutralize by revising the list to include all scientists who have stated a position on the issue, not just one side. The present list would then be a section of the more inclusive list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Support the view on violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Additional concerns: (i) Notability. That those scientists are notable in their field and thus have WP articles does not mean they are notable in the global warming area. (ii) The article makes an impression of a vote, i.e. that there are more voices in one section makes it look like that view is more substantiated. (iii) The article is not a list of scientists, but a list of weakly related notes, i.e. it is rather an article than list, a lengthy article without a clear structure. Materialscientist (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the argument "any list of the style “X's who Oppose/Support Y” is a POV push" is complete nonsense. Our Holocaust denial article contains a list of "Notable Holocaust deniers", but that is certainly not promoting Holocaust denial. List of Ufologists is not promoting ufology. No POV is presented in this article either; it is well-sourced, balanced and well-written. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has serious attempts to find the most extreme statement possible for each person, throwing out more neutral views. Check the talk page archives. That's both a POV-push and a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)
    • I see your assertion of that, but the only case you cited was a discussion of Freeman Dyson's position from December 2007. I checked a cross-section of names from the list and found that in each case their main article contains a statement of their position that is consistent with the what this list article says. If there are a few controversial cases then they can be ealt with through normal editing process - AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's argument isn't the only argument under consideration. The article has many other problems that make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. The real question is: Is this article fundamentally flawed as it is conceived? The answer is yes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your rhetoric I understand that you don't like the article, but that's not a good argument for deletion either. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not that I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it fails Wikipedia criteria. There's a huge difference. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The article has many other problems" but didn't specify what they were, then you asked a rhetorical question and answered it, now you say "it fails Wikipedia criteria" but don't say which criteria or why it fails them. I see rhetoric but no substantive arguments there. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf, my objections and what criteria are failed have been stated clearly. Please read the entire AfD. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but no, I'm not going to chase round the whole AfD responding to all of your comments elsewhere. That would be a rather obsessive sort of behaviour, wouldn't it ? I am done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile much? I meant this thread. Geesh. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article, as conceived, is always going to have serious problems with WP:SYNTH. Moreover, it constitutes a violation of WP:WEIGHT, inasmuch as it attempts to overrepresent the significance of a minority viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus. ("Anthropogenic climate change isn't real! Look at this long list of scientists who oppose it!") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is important for people to see who opposes the mainstream science and what their arguments are. It is easier to combat the arguments that way rather than having some nameless bunch of 'scientists' muddying the waters with occasional quotes and half baked research. Wikipedia makes this possible by giving the reader the information rather than hiding it away. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Certainly not a POV reason to delete, the article neither puts forward a viewpoint one way or the other. I appreciate the possibity for an original research aspect but don't think it is really. For original research by synthesis we would have to come to a conclusion different to the individual references. Seeing as no ultimate conclusion is being reached on wikipedia other than this is a list of people who have made statements or done research that places them into this list it does not cross the line (close but not across!). The argument about wikipedia not being a directory is very weak. This goes way beyond a list of losely associated topics or contact details. It is a useful encyclopedic list. Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem regarding SYNTH, though, is that our list makes the claim that these are people are opposed to the mainstream consensus, which isn't verifiable. That one might grumble certain conclusions, or voice a disagreement on a particular point, isn't the same as directly opposing a consensus statement (for example, by signing a petition or something similiar). That's why it's SYNTH. We're assuming these people are directly opposed to the stated consensus. That's simply not sourced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an inherently POV quote mine, no less than the "Scientists who dissent from Darwinism" list put together by the Discovery Institute. The only purpose of the list is to have something to point to in arguments about climate change, not to present a coherent topic of educational interest. There is no inclusion criterion for "scientists" so all sorts of unqualified people are included, and the whole thing is improper synthesis, as it is Wikipedia editors who are making the judgement on what constitutes the mainstream view on global warming and who opposes it. As others said it also lumps together vastly different views, unreasonably dichotomising scientists into "supports" or "opposes" the mainstream. Material like this should be worked into Climate change denial or Global warming controversy as part of normal editing and giving it due weight, rather than putting in on its own pedestal. Fences&Windows 15:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Of course there is an inclusion criteria for the scientists, some of us may not agree with the broad definition - and want a more restrictive one (i'm one) - but to say that there isn't one is to ignore the lede of the article: A) Must be notable (no red-link) B) Must have published at least one peer-reviewed article in the natural sciences (in reality there is also a requirement of an academic background) C) They must disagree with one of the 3 general consensus items. The quotes are not random, nor are they there to provide any form of point (positive or negative) - they are there to verify that the scientist indeed is sceptical (per WP:V) of the very general items of the mainstream opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is fundamentally flawed and broken at the outset. The article presupposes that the IPCC statement is the statement of mainstream consensus, then lists off a series of quotes about climate change that are supposedly in opposition to the IPCC statement. That's the concept of the article. However, it is unverifiable that the commentor is even commenting on the consensus stated by the IPCC. It's just a list of comments about climate change, not a list of people verifiably in opposition to the IPCC's statement. The idea that these people are in opposition to the IPCC statement on climate change is completely the invention of Wikipedia editors, versus the conclusions of independent reliable sources, for example a reliable source that identifies these people as signing a petition against the IPCC statement. The list states that "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement." Add a "by whom" tag to that analysis. Who did the comparison? The answer is, Wikipedia editors. It's an OR fail. The NPOV discussion goes round in circles while the article is based almost entirely on unverifiable original research. Keepers, please address that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Each group of scientists in the list is categorised by exactly what their research/comments say. For example 'Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes' or 'Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable' therefore not wikipedia OR to put them into these categories if that is what their research/statements say. Each of these subtitles expresses a view contrary to mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. There is little doubt that the IPCC report is the best guide to mainstream opinion on global warming, it being an intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN! Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not fundamentally flawed. It's a bit innovative in demanding quotes, for instance, which are not part of any policy or guideline, but consensus decisions to do things like that should be OK as long as nothing is violated. It isn't OR to be "judging opposition" or making a comparison -- that's just exercising normal editorial judgment based on research -- which is verifiable. The article is fought over because the subject is fought over, and content disputes should not spill over into disputes over whether there's a violation of some Wikipedia policy or guideline until those violations actually take place. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Enough said already. Ignignot (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing about the article violates any Wikipedia rule that justifies deletion. ScienceApologist and others dispute that the IPCC statement should not be equated with mainstream opinion. That isn't a deletion argument because it's best left to the article's talk page where it can be debated whether or not it's OR to come to that conclusion. If it is OR, the problem could be solved by renaming the article to replace "mainstream" with "IPCC" -- no deletion necessary. Another objection is that the necessarily short items on the list don't account for nuances of opinion. But there isn't space for nuances, and it's reasonable to summarize opinions. Nuances are best left to the individual articles on the scientists, but if someone has said something contradictory, conceivably both quotes could be put in the list article. This is not the forum to take content disputes. The solution to a content dispute may be elsewhere or nowhere, but not here. Repeatedly returning here wastes a lot of people's time. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep If those supporting the consensus about global warming on Wikipedia had been a bit less POV in their attempts to quiet any mention of dissent by knowledgeable scientists, their arguments for deletion would make more sense, but that horse left the barn long ago. Article is entirely composed of otherwise notable figures who have publicly dissented from the claimed "everybody who knows agrees" consensus. htom (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The following (down to the "so moved" comment) was moved from the top of the page. Let's all wait our turn in line. I won't edit war over this, but it would be fair to say that sticking comments at the top over the objection of others is disruptive. Admins please take note. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Addition by Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served}:

Other issues include:

• The talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable BLP violation, WP:SYNTH, and Original research.
• WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly forbids lists of quotes
• WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, and others do not allow articles which advocate for the fringe view at the cost of the mainstream. The severely weakened presentation of the mainstream view, with constant references to the dissent from it, misrepresents acceptance.
• This article is typical of advocacy lists. For instance, [1] discusses a creationist quote mine book, [2] is an example of a typical quote-mine in the wild.]

  Objection (your honor :-) ) I find Shoemakers addition here at the top problematic. He is not the nominator, and thus this is an attempt to get his view a preferred spot. Now i have nothing against Shoemaker presenting his argument - but it sets a bad precedence to move comments around this way. I could also answer several of his assertions - but will refrain and prefer that his and my comment be removed - or moved to the correct spot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--so moved JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not at all unusual in an AfD to mention other policies there's problems with for consideration in the debate. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 16:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep along with a list of scientists that argue there is a very serious problem. I doubt the sincerity of many of these people but sweeping it under the rug won't make it go away. There should be some way of getting the choice between when in doubt polute or when in doubt don't polute into one of these articles. Even if they don't get the details right this should carry more weight than when in doubt argue. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Huh, bunch of wikipedians interpreting some quotes and categorizing scientists accordingly? Ridiculous. WP:PSTS.--Staberinde (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ScienceApologist. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is very well resourced, so it would pass WP:RS. But the the title is awkward and the contents are repetitive, with multiple versions of the same conclusion. I would sooner fix those problems than throw the whole thing away. Warrah (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concept of article is fundamentally flawed as explained by others above. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The inclusion criteria are arbitrary, and whether someone meets those criteria is a judgment call left to the editors. The entire list represents vast amounts of original research. Suggestions to change the scope of the list to include both sides would still be original research. There is nothing in this list that can be salvaged for an article or list that would be appropriate for WP. -Atmoz (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just to add another argument that the list is absurd, unless you wish to assert that each of the scientists in question presently opposes the present assessment. Speaking as an expert statistician, as of 1997 through 2002 or so, the evidence supported the warming being limited by some unknown mechanism. No climate model came close to modelling the changes, and extrapolation would have rationally shown a limiting effect. Now, the climate models may be mature enough to support a theory as to the amount of warming to be expected, but any statement then by a climate scientist saying that "global warming" is a scientific fact would be fraudulent, whether or not mainstream. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  comment There is an "unwritten" rule that any scientist on the list must have stated dissent after the previous IPCC report - this means the TAR (third assessment report) or the AR4 here. And in general no inclusions now are made if they aren't fairly recent. (i believe consensus was for <5 years) The statement must be unambiguous as well as not contradicted by other information on that scientist. [this is a close call, since some will (inevitably) call for inclusion, while others will oppose] I just went over the list again - and as far as i can see, all of those on the list are still sceptical (the thorn in the eye is Dyson - who is included within a section with a large caveat). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of my complaint. If the inclusion criteria involves the IPCC report, how many of these have nothing to do with the report? Looking over the list, I find that some of the quotes directly reference it, but many (most?) are just comments on climate change in general. Which is which? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ChrisO, Nealparr and others.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename, seems to be a POV fork, but perhaps if some alternative suggestions can be implemented it can become more neutral. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename - Article seems to me to contain a substantial amount of encyclopedic content, but the title and list format seem likely to ensure that it will never be likely to not be a serious, regular, target of well-earned criticism. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to a neutral title like 'Scientists opposed to global warming theory'. Strongly object to the word 'mainstream' in the title. The entire article attempts to obfuscate that there are is a very large body of scientists that have rejected global warming theory, and attempts to portray dissent in only select segments as the only dissent. The topic should have more coverage of the large body of scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This smacks of sweeping scientific dissent under the carpet, the disruptive use of tags should also be removed. Justin talk 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obvious time waste doing this again. Sure not perfect but adequate --BozMo talk 20:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep There is a conspicuous under-representation of minority and/or dissenting views on any of the other global warming articles; Keep is conditional upon Renaming the article and changing the format to something more encyclopedic (i.e. not a list) Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. I don't think it's hopelessly OR, but summarizing the quotes would be good. It's kinda like wikiquote right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is under-representaion of minority / dissenting views on global warming both within and without WP. Protection of rationally-expressed opinion is important, and even more so when it concerns a minority. Problems with the article can & should be fixed, but that is difficult to do when it is under such consistent attack. I would suggest that if keep is decided, then there should be a longish period before the issue is mooted again. Contributors deserve a chance to cool down, and put in some hard work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Many of those who want to keep the article seem to argue as follows: Global warming is wrong. Therefore anything that supports the 'fact' that global warming is wrong must be right. Clearly this is not true -- bad arguments can be advanced even for good causes. This list, for reasons clearly spelled out above, is a bad argument. The question of whether global warming is a liberal lie is moot. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That there are people willing to suppress free speech is frightening enough, that they want to suppress it while screaming they are doing it for the good of mankind is downright scary. The people who are screaming for deletion remind me of the Inquisitors trying to root out heretics. All the scientists quoted in the article are well respected and they have points of views that need to be heard over the clamoring sameness of what people get to hear in the main press outlets. Post the "the objectivity... blah, blah, blah warning and let adults decide for themselves. Say no to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please mind WP:CIVIL. There is no need to start attacking editors who disagree with you about the deletion of a deeply flawed article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see issues here that can't be fixed by measures short of deletion. For example, there is a valid criticism that scientists change their mind, and someone who denies global warming in 2006 may not currently deny it. That can be fixed with just a bit of rewording here and there. Gruntler (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This approach fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR and can't be fixed. We have articles on climate change and the notable opinions and theories. They should be sourced reliably and give appropriate weight. This per-person list format just allows any Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to be a "scientist" of some kind to have equal weight in the debate as someone who might actually know a thing or two about climate change. It is also extremely fragile as opinions do change yet the format allows the cherry-picking of any disenting quote made in the past without any means to remove them based on a more recent quote (highlighting the WP:OR issues involved -- if sourced to a third-party list, we would have a compilation-date we could mention). As noted by others, it breaks all of our policies in some way, though even if we managed to eliminate the WP:V and WP:NOR issues, the approach just breaks WP:WEIGHT and there's no way to fix that IMO with this format. It is for this reason that it becomes a POV fork. Colin°^Talk 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important to be able to have access to the opposing views on climate change and its causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break[edit]

• Delete. We don't need POV-based lists on Wikipedia. This article is questionable regarding WP:NPOV, because it is an obvious attempt to advocate, not to just provide information, and WP:SYNTH because it is compiled based on the creator's own judgement and interpretation of the scientists' views. It is probably not in a dire breach of the policies, but has way too many problems and potential problems. In addition it is simply not encyclopaedic, because it's based on a POV criteria. Offliner (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What does the list advocate? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure the list "advocates" anything much. The problem is more with the methodology used to compile it, as Offliner indicates. If its title matched its subject matter, it would have to be called something like List of people with scientific qualifications who have said something at some point in time that contradicts some aspect of climate science in the view of some Wikipedia editors. This is not a sound basis for an article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c)I'm not entirely in disagreement on the scientific qualification part, but that is something to discuss on the talk page - the trouble is getting an agreement on what a "scientist" is. I'm open for opening up that discussion again. As for the "said at one time" part, i've just been over the list again, and there are very few where i would be in doubt on their current scepticism, most of them have a long history of stating things contrary to the current consensus. But again - if you are in doubt about any of them, the usual procedure is to remove that person, and start a discussion on the merits of inclusion (here is an example [3] (by random - i didn't check how it went, nor read through it)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can any list be NPOV when the lede starts off outlining inclusion criteria that are, in fact, POV and OR-ish.

• It should not be interpreted as...
• Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change...
• In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared...
• For the purpose of this list a "scientist" is...

None of those POV statements are sourced to a third-party reliable source. They can't because they are solely the opinion of Wikipedia editors. By comparison, consider the proper Wikipedia statements such as "Dr. Smith argued that this list should not be interpreted as...", "The AAAS stated that the criteria for inclusion to the list is...", "Dr. Smith made a comparison of...", "In the AAAS's list, "scientists" were defined as..."... It's impossible to write these properly written statements when it's original research. We have no one to attribute the statements to. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bang on. Nealparr hits the nail on the head. Fences&Windows 02:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Every Wikipedia article involves necessary editorial judgments about what to include and how. It's impossible to avoid that. Normally, articles don't discuss that, but WP:LIST strongly urges it: Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section and gives as a good example [4] Since everything is contested here that has to do with global warming, it's understandable that the criteria here needed to be laid out in detail. Nothing quoted in Nealparr's four-point list implies a POV for or against global warming. The first two quotes in Nealparr's list are caveats meant to avoid misinterpretations of the list; the second two are simply editorial judgments. The fact that they're explicitly laid out also works as a caveat for the reader. User:Staberinde makes a related objection (and a better one), that the list violates WP:PSTS -- in other words, a reliable source should be cited for each name on the list. But not even that means the list needs to be deleted. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST does not state that while including a statement of criteria for inclusion, ignore NPOV, and ignore OR. For or against global warming isn't the issue. The list tells people not to misinterpret it, and it makes non-neutral statements about things like what is and isn't global warming skepticism, who is and isn't a scientist, and what is and isn't harmful. Those are all POV issues regardless of the for and against global warming issue. Editorial judgement does not excuse OR, there's no third-party reliable source that compiled the list. The list of compositions by Franz Schubert is referenced to a dictionary of Opera, ie. a third-party source that compiled the list. Ours is an original list, compiled through original research by Wikipedia, and it certainly isn't reliable research (as we're discovering going through the list item by item). The criteria for inclusion fails basic core Wikipedia policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nealparr - are you arguing that any Wikipedia list is OR unless it has been sourced from a single, specific third-party reference list ?? Really ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't say that. While most lists do mirror a real-world published list or catalog independent of Wikipedia (list of countries, discography, list of books by an author, etc), a fact-based list doesn't necessarily have to mirror a published list. A list that is inherently opinion-based certainly does, is certainly OR otherwise. This list explicitly states that it doesn't reflect, for example, a petition list published elsewhere. It relies solely on the opinion of Wikipedia editors to decide what does and doesn't constitute opposition to the IPCC consensus statement, who does and doesn't qualify as a scientist, what does and doesn't qualify as global warming skepticism, etc. It's not a fact-based list. It's an opinion-based list. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we assumed that you were right and that the article violates OR, you still haven't shown that the list is so inherently WP:OR that it can't be fixed, therefore you haven't given a deletion argument. You certainly haven't shown that WP:OR or any other policy disallows lists based on the opinions of the people listed. Either each of those opinions can be reliably sourced, using basic editorial judgment, or they cannot. More important, your objection that this is an "opinion-based list" is contradicted by Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV, which allows such articles (Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.). Nowhere does it say that an article about a POV can't also be a list. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By opinion-based, I don't mean that it is problematic because it is a list of opinions. I don't personally have a problem with that. It's the inclusion criteria that is opinion based, and that inclusion criteria is the basis for this "article". That's why the article itself fails, inherently, and (I feel) should be deleted. Recovery of the article to make it policy-compliant would require formation of neutral inclusion criteria that outlines a solid plan for avoiding original research (for example, requiring a reliable source that states that the opinion is in opposition to the consensus, versus relying on editors to make that judgement), removal of entries that don't meet that criteria, retitling, and so on. I'm not opposed to any of that. A list of dissent to global warming consensus is not by itself flawed. The thing is, with the necessary changes to make it policy-compliant, it would no longer be this article. It'd be a whole new article that barely resembles this article. I don't feel that the concept for this article can be fixed. I feel it's inherently broken, and that the general topic idea from which the concept of the article derived deserves a do-over. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PSTS (tertiary sourcing) standard I brought up is not applied when editors add sourced criticism to a regular article (for example, we don't need a third-party source saying Roger Ebert disliked The Adventures of Foo to simply state that in an article with a quote or even just a footnote to the review -- and we do this kind of thing normally, throughout the encyclopedia). So it's debatable whether or not we need that kind of third-party sourcing here. I should have read PSTS more closely. The subject of this article is to list what various scientists believe on certain subjects, and WP:PSTS actually says it allows that kind of sourcing (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. The "descriptive claim" would be to describe what that subject's opinion is). Editors are normally considered competent enough to identify criticism or (in this case) skepticism when they see it. It doesn't seem like a leap to say that a comment that is skeptical comes from someone tho is therefore skeptical and could be termed a skeptic, at least skeptical about a particular point. And the article tries to make distinctions about what these people are skeptical about. If the article fails in that regard, it doesn't seem too complex a problem that simple editing (no matter how contentious) of individual items can't fix it. So the inclusion criteria used by the article look like a solid-enough plan already. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source is fine as a reliable source if the person is explicitly stating that they are disagreeing with the IPCC consensus statement (like a petition or some other example of expressed disagreement, or them outright saying they are disagreeing, for example). All I said is that the criteria should state that a reliable source needs to demonstrate the opposition rather than relying on editor's judgements. A primary source can do that, sure. It doesn't need to be a third-party. How that contrasts to what is going on in this article, however, is that editors are sourcing "X said this" and originally synthesizing that "it contradicts Y" to form the "conclusion Z" that X is in opposition to Z. None of that is reliably sourced (primary, secondary, or tertiary) and is based on the opinion of the editor. I've stated my opinion that this means the concept for the article is fundamentally flawed, but I'll let everyone come to a consensus on whether that is true, but that is what's going on in the article due to the current inclusion criteria. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the scientists on the list have statements that are in contradiction to the basic points of the scientific consensus. Where you go wrong here is to assume that the consensus is only and singularily defined by the IPCC, and thus that any statement must be specifically directed towards the IPCC. Sorry but that is incorrect. The IPCC is an assessment of the scientific consensus - not the definer of it. See Scientific opinion on climate change for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then drop the line "In judging opposition to the consensus, each scientist's statements are compared to the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement" from the criteria that the list is based on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More problematic: Drop that line and then decide how to justify entries that were made according to that line, entries that are sourced based on the consensus "at the time of the statement" (temporal problem), like sources that are pre-2007 consensus. According to the IPCC, there's stronger evidence in recent years that man is the likely contributor. Earlier comments wouldn't be opposing that consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge: Not seeing any new arguments here in favor of deletion. Criteria for inclusion is very strict, built from prior consensus. Viewpoints and individuals discussed are sourced and noteworthy, and total elimination of any description of AGW dissent would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT If it's so strict why are non-scientists included? Verbal chat 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be confrontational, but who in the article would you classify as not being a scientist? A large part of the controversy surrounding this article is the question of how we determine who is or is not called a scientist; such as whether the field of one's doctorate prevents them from being classified a "climate scientist." »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a fine article that describes an important part of the debate on global warming. Please keep this article in place. Razor Occam (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Scibaby[reply]

• Delete: The article from beginning to end is a synthesis of sources, with each quote removed from its original context and used instead merely to justify the scientists' inclusion on this list. Very few of these quotes were intended to self-identify as a "climate change skeptic" so the list really shouldn't be here. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose positions are being misrepresented? If you can demonstrate that content has been taken out of context in order to change its meaning and synthesize a position for anyone in this article, please do so so that the error can be corrected. If not, then this charge is groundless. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given several questionable ones have been found and are being discussed on the article's talk page, at a quick look-through, I think that the burden of proof is that they aren't misrepresented. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 20:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - and the claims are under review, which is what I suggested in the first place. Demanding burden of proof that the positions aren't misrepresented as criteria for inclusion is logically fallacious; WP:RS will have to do unless we intend to personally petition each of the listed individuals for confirmation that they made those statements. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excatly wrong. Well, at least "Jc-SOCO" and "Shoemaker's Holiday" mean completely different things. However, because misrepresntation is common in the real world for these views, it should be the burden of the editor adding the material to ensure that the quote really is in opposition to the IPCC consensus, was after the IPCC consensus, and was not taken out of context. Richard Lindzen is a good example; the quote doesn't show opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the editors responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the editors that watch the article. You are wrong with regards to Lindzen's quote - it was/is in response to the TAR (which he was an author of), the SPM quoted was accepted Jan 20, 2001 and released right after. Lindzens quote is from April 2001 after the release. And as you can see on the talk page, he still holds that view (with statements from 2009) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the delete arguments unconvincing. Selecting and classifying the quotes is not OR, but rather normal editorial discretion - we do the exactly the same thing whenever we decide what to include and what to reject for any article. The fact that both proponents and opponents of the AGW consensus claim that the article is (the other) POV and that other opponents and proponents claim that its NPOV is good evidence that it is in fact reasonably neutral. Of course its not perfect, but then what article is? On the positive side, this article gives us a way of properly accounting for extreme minority positions that otherwise would be impossible to integrate without giving them undue weight. It also concentrates the debate in one central place where it can be presented in adequate context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Break[edit]

• Keep — This is one of the most pivotal issues to mankind. The list of scientific luminaries opposed to the consensus view is of intense, profound and growing interest to millions of people, and wikipedia is performing a vital function by maintaining it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a lot of editors that claim the IPCC as a concensus statement, and that disagreeing with that statement is opposing mainstream consensus. However, there is, AFAIK, no connection like that in any WP:RS. (It would have to be a sociology of science paper, I'd imagine.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to take a look at Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus and the linkes statement. The IPCC position has been explictly endorsed as the consensus by joint statements from the major national academies of science, and by several individually. They are definitely WP:RS for this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The good-faith intentions of the article are not achievable without extreme WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. First, a Wikipedian editor has selected a quote that they think justifies inclusion in this list; no secondary source may be known with an analysis of the scientist's beliefs and with a conclusion justifying inclusion in this list. Second, there is no verification that the scientist has not later repudiated the statement (people change their mind, particularly scientists upon viewing new data). Third, the lead claims that the list shows scientists who have opposed one of three principle conclusions; however, many of the quotations appear to have no connection with the particular IPCC conclusion (the scientist may very well oppose the conclusion, but it is up to the reader to infer that without verification). Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First: We do actually check whether or not these scientists have changed their minds, the addition of a scientist is usually a very thorough process (see archives), where the quote (and its context) is turned and discussed between the pro and contra editors. Second if the quotes do not have a connection to either of the criteria (which isn't just the IPCC, see: Scientific opinion on climate change) then the scientist should and isn't included in the article. There is a rather large number of editors and admins who watch this list, so its not just a "drop in, and hope noone notices article". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still fundamentally original synthesis. The argument seems to be, 'yeah, but it's really good original synthesis'. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is needed to maintain NPOV balance, amongst the current crop of global warming related article. It serves a necessary function. Green Stoole (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Green Stoole is indef blocked as another Scibaby sock)--BozMo talk 08:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)— Green Stoole (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per Science Apologist ATren (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unlike previous AfDs, history of the article has shown this to be in fact a POV and soapbox magnet; pardon the mixed metaphors. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How? And what has changed in the article/list to make it so? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is inherently non-neutral, and no amount of editing can fix that. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ScienceApologist. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do believe that this article has POV and OR issues, but I don't believe that those issues are inherent in the subject matter; they can be fixed. I don't see why this page is any more WP:POV or WP:UNDUE than any number of lists of controversial subject matter, as noted above. Overall, I find the deletion arguments to be unconvincing and I don't see what has changed since the previous AfDs. Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How is the argument presented in this AFD any different than that which was posed in the first AFD? What conditions in the article have changed since that first AFD resulted in a decision to Keep that justify re-examination? Rather than offering a new perspective w/supporting evidence, this AFD seems to be the latest round in a perpetual effort to keep re-nominating the article for deletion until the desired outcome is achieved. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is quite a stretch to apply a single stereotypical "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" to a group who holds a wide variety of opinions on a wide spectrum of "opposition" (as opposed to disagreement--a quite different issue [even the title is blatantly WP:OR ]) with certain scientific assessments. Many of the scientists support "other" mainstream and peer-reviewed scientific assessments. Claiming it's a majority-held scientific viewpoint might be debated (and is in separate WP articles, but that's not the phrase the title uses. It is useless to try to stuff a cadre of scientists into a one-size-fits-all title like this one. What I think the current discussion will illustrate is how it is impossible to delete articles once inserted regardless of how tenuous the proposition it purports to try to address. Might as well call it "List of scientists supporting different scientific assessments of global warming"--at least that one doesn't require an OR/POV personal definition of terms. --John G. Miles (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is factual, accurate and a useful source of reference. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it. It should only be deleted if there are convincing arguments to delete it, and there are none. Nothing has changed since the earlier unsuccessful attempt to get the page deleted. Poujeaux (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As currently structured, this article is an inherent violation of WP:NOR, especially the WP:SYNTH provision. It takes a large number of scientists with a wide variety of different opinions and puts them into this list and subcategories thereof based on Wikipedians' own interpretations of their views. I see it as unlikely that this issue can or will be fixed, so deletion is the most appropriate solution to this violation of Wikipedia core policy. *** Crotalus *** 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a BLP problem, useful and encyclopedic. I see no OR problem. The synth problem is pretty much the same problem we have with most lists and categories--what to include and not is rarely published elsewhere. So a list of Jewish Inventors (for example) can require some editorial thought, but not so far as to be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when an article is tagged so badly, and it's detractors edit war over the removal of tags that are strictly false, the article must be worth keeping and they must know it. Call it Hobit's Law. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is your argument anything more than WP:ILIKEIT? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first comment is (about synth etc.) is that there is no policy/guideline based problem with the article. As deletion requires a problem, that's a darn strong keep argument. The second one is that people are acting poorly in an attempt to delete an article and that usually implies a real underlying problem (IMO). Not ILIKEIT as much as DONTREWARDBADBEHAVIOR. Not a good reason to keep (that's the first part), but worth stating. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SYN is among the real Wikipedia policy real problems with this article. Among items not yet discussed, as far as I can tell, there's the implication that the scientists in each section agree on where they disagree with the IPCC consensus. That implication is clearly false in some cases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see nothing in the article that claims or indicates that they agree on where they disagree. Could you show such an example? In any case, that would be an argument to improve, not delete unless you claim such an issue can't possibly be avoided. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me explain it like this: The article may list person X as believing that A is true and B is false, and list person Y as believing that A is false and B is true (the "true" beliefs are by implication because they are not listed as believed to be false). What is the purpose of the article? Is it a list of contradictory stuff? Is it a list of factoids to prove a POV? Does the list show only confused people who fail to understand the IPCC report? Or does it show clever people who have seen the faults in the IPCC report (yet, for some mysterious reason, they fail to agree on what they disagree with)? Are there any secondary sources that have analysed any of the statements expressed? Who compiled this list? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The purpose of the list is for navigation. If you are interested in opposition to the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, this is one place to start. The reason that some of the scientists are saying contradictory things, is that the opposition is on the fringes, which is made clear in the lede, thus no two scientists are holding exactly the same opinion. There are clever people on this list, and there are some very confused people on it as well, the list itself takes no stand with regards to who is who. (that would be POV), or if any of the opinions are valid or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change name. The article should be titled "List of scientists who disagree with one or more tenets of the IPCC's view of climate change". Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This would equate to "List of scientists," period, because I don't know of anyone who agrees with everything in the reports. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, given the weak definition of "Scientist" used, it would just be "List". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost impossible to keep BLP, SYNTH and NPOV violations at bay. If no consensus for delete then listify (yes I know it is currently entitled "List" but I mean make it a proper list and not a quotefarm). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Without the quotes (the verification for inclusion), how will we ensure that WP:BLP violations aren't going on? As a "pure" list, no reader or editor will be able verify whether a scientist merits inclusion on the list or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is something to consider. If this list can't meet WP:V and WP:BLP if made into a proper list, then why should we have it? This just proves the point, this list needs those quotes in order to support the results it synthesizes. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm? That would make all article inclusions that need a citation original research and a synthesis. When one is looking for references/material for an article, the editor is making the exact same original research and synthesis that this list is accused of. Whenever a ((cn)) tag is placed in an article, we might as well give up. Since it would be original research/synthesis to look and insert a reference for the requested citation needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source A + Source B = Unsourced C is original synthesis. Providing sources that state C directly is not. It's entirely possible to write a list that uses C sources without running afoul of the original research policy. Sourcing C directly is just research. Combining sources that don't say C directly and concluding C anyway is original research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, some of the sources in the list do directly state C. What's wrong with just using those and having a shorter list? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Delete and salt With issues centered around WP:NPOV, WP:RS (there have been concerns that the list of "scientists" is mostly made up of non-climate scientists and that credentials have been inflated), WP:DUE, WP:NOT (it's a directory, wikipedia articles should not be) there is absolutely no way to salvage this article. Would have commented sooner but just noticed the AfD now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please expand, which POV is this list catering to? The rather wide definition of scientist is purely a content issue, subject to changes of consensus. What exactly are the problems with sourcing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This list is just a quotefarm used to fuel talk page soapboxing; it's not here for encyclopedic purposes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WVBluefield (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violation of WP:POV, WP:PSTS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. This also misrepresents who these people actually are, as many are not climatologists. It wrongly synthesizes people with a veriety of opinions into this catch-all conglomeration. Per Johnuniq (talk · contribs), this is only WP:OR in taking a single quote from these people and does not take recent changes into account. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, the article never claims that it is a list of climatologists. It is a list of scientists. Secondly, many diverse scientists such as geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, and many others are qualified to comment on the subject. Also, recent changes have been handled very well on the talk page. I challenge you to find any example, now or in the past, where an individual's current position (at the time, of course) was misrepresented on the page for any significant amount of time. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overall the list is clearly original research. The classification of scientists into categories based on bullet points in the IPCC is not supported by any reliable source. The characterization of "scientist" is arbitrary and runs afoul of original-research concerns as well; there is no particular reason, for example, why one would expect an emeritus professor of nuclear physics to be more of an expert about global warming than anybody else. I don't see any way that this sort of partisan list can be constructed from individual quotes without conducting original research. Eubulides (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't decide on the deletion of this list. But as one of the first few editors to heavily push on BLP on the list and someone who has some occasional involvement in it, I can agree BLP issues come up all the time and there is a push by some editors to include people without sufficient sourcing to demonstrate they are opposed to the mainstream assessement. However on the whole I feel we do achieve a resonable job in keeping that out. On the other hand, perhaps the list is fundamentally flawed as some claim. I think issues like 'what is a list' and 'what sort of lists do we have on wikipedia' are important here, I've never really see any good discussion and I think a number of the issues raised here apply to many lists on wikipedia. One final thing, it's clear to me both from this discussion and my experience with the article that people on both sides (i.e. editors who support the mainstream assessement and those who oppose it) want it gone and want to keep it. I don't know if there's a clear distinction between the two. This shouldn't matter but I think it's important to say to avoid any claims of some sort of conspiracy from either side. Yet there will be some editors and some external parties who are glad when/if it's gone because they've 'removed propaganda by climate change denialists' and some editors and some external parties who say we're 'engaging in more suppresion of the real science as part of the climate change conspiracy' if we delete it and of course some editors/external parties who think 'oh no, we've removed a good list which demonstrated the claims of a conspiracy are nonsense and those actually opposed are a tiny minority' and some editors/external parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to smear good scientists because they dared speak out against the conspiracy/non-science' and some editors/esternal parties who think 'yes we've removed another attempt by the climate change conspiracy to mislead people into thinking there isn't a lot of scientific dispute about their conspiracy'. Again this shouldn't influence the outcome in any way, but I think it's important to understand. Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely, and as a sidenote, i will also add that i believe that the push for inclusion of the more fringe views on the main articles about climate change will be increased if this article is removed, since we now won't have any navigational aids to these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BHTT --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gandalf61, Hobit, Stephan Schulz, JohnWBarber et al. As they demonstrate, the "problems" are ordinary ones encountered in compiling any list or writing any article. None of our policies are being materially violated here. Perhaps it could be titled better, perhaps some normal editing is necessary, but something which is essentially this list is a real and positive contribution to wikipedia, and is well within our rules and practices. Many deletes amount to saying neutrality is impossible, understanding what the majority view is is impossible, understanding what A says and whether it disagrees with B is impossible, and that we must have a third source to tell us as to what these sources really say (and why don't we need a fourth one to tell us what the third one said ...?). Well we do that, and overall do a decent job, everywhere and all the time. Wikipedia works in practice, although perhaps not in some people's theories.John Z (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This isn't the kind of AfD I'd normally comment on, but some of the editing on that page seems inappropriate, particularly the addition of four warning tags defacing the article, and immediate reverting when I tried to remove them. The list seems useful, and the fervour surrounding it seems suspicious. It needs to be well-sourced, preferably with secondary sources, but so long as it is, there's no reason within policy to remove it. Because the idea of man-made global warming is a contentious issue, a list of scientists who oppose it would seem ipso facto to be notable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, such lists are compiled by participants in the climate change debate, so it is a notable issue; however, isn't the task of Wikipedia is to report on such lists rather than compiling original ones?? (I think of Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as a good example on how to report on a list, explaining its role in the debate without becoming an active participant by publishing one's own list.) The underlying assumption, POV if you will, advocated by such lists is that scientific opinion is best measured through an opinion poll of scientists. The alternative might be to have a list of papers in high-quality journals that dispute the mainstream assessment on climate change. That kind of list is advocating other assumptions about how to assess the state of scientific research. The point is that Wikipedia should certainly report on lists of dissenters, but it should refrain from actively validating the assumptions that such lists are based on by creating its very own lists of dissenters. 77.4.79.151 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or change editing rules Unlike what many uninitiated editors think of this article, rather than being a POV mine for the skeptical side, this article is actually a cleverly designed POV mine for the believer/alarmist side. Over time, it has been twisted in a way to create the illusion that opposition to the IPCC consensus is restrained to a few 30-40ish crackpots. In this context, no matter what I think of the climate change debate, this article is good for the trash.

This being said, there is basically nothing wrong with having an article documenting a certain notable POV if that POV is not covered in a more general article (that is another debate). But the POV that is supposed to be documented here is not documented at all, thanks to ad hoc rules created by a group of activist editors who have all voted 'keep' I see (for instance, some rule not to include scientists who happen to not be the subject of a specific Wikipedia article about them - a rule with no relationship whatsoever with the Wikipedia editing rules - or a rule not to include scientists who have made their position public through a letter signed by other scientists - same comment).

If this article is fixed in order to make of it what it pretends to be, it has a legitimate purpose. Concerns such as BLP and SYNTH are really secondary issues because they are easily manageable. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with the very first !vote cast (by User:Mercurywoodrose). 72.83.205.80 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously. A very notable subject. The POV pushing from both sides is similar to other hotly debated political issues. A rename or merger might be a good idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR was needed to create the list. An encyclopedia is to give facts. The fact of each person's views should be mentioned in his or her biography. Notable views should be mentioned in articles on the climate change debate. No reason to bring them together in this list which, to me anyway, has the feel of an enemies list. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And wince. Likely to be a perpetual NPOV issue as long as the political wars on this subject continues. That said, overall benefit to the public debate is likely to arise from maintenance of such a list, provided it's carefully sourced. Ray^Talk 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but please change the title. That the authors have created specific inclusion criteria and made it backed up by sourced data clinches that this is acceptable. I would encourage hearty discussion of individual entries and individual sources on the talk page by those skeptical. Miami33139 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know if the article was updated since this afd was initiated, but some of the concerns raised by editors no longer exist. For one, the list includes clearly demarcated sections for the varied reasons out there that "oppose the mainstream." Although the mainstream may be hard to define, if sources say that "so and so opposes the mainstream...." that wouls suffice for inclusion.--Pink Bull (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you that we could include a person if reliable, independent, third-party sources actually stated up-front that "so-and-so is a scientist that opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" or even a synonym to this, but though I've asked for these, I've yet to see one produced. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.