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 keep. This article has caused concern for some years, though that appears to be due to the controversial nature of the subject matter rather than that it specifically meets deletion criteria, The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article. The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. These are editing issues. It is notable that a number of people opposing the article now and in previous AfDs seem to feel that the topic is appropriate, but that the article needs cleaning up. While AfD can and does discuss clean up issues, it should not be used as a substitute for tackling the issues on the article talk page nor for positive editing on the article itself. If problems are arising though attempts to clean up the article there are |more appropriate routes to go through than AfD. Arguments of fringe and undue are well countered both by the sources provided by Warden, and by awareness, as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy, that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated). Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do. However, the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation. The two most controversial aspects of the list are the name and the use of quotes. These aspects need to be dealt with, but not by listing on AfD. I suggest opening a name discussion – either by RfC or Requested moves, and when that is concluded hold a similar discussion on the use of quotations in the article to see if they meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Quotations. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfDs for this article:

DRVs for this article:

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)

This list is, by its very construction, in violation of several Wikipedia policies.

It's a WP:QUOTEFARM, every single one of which is a WP:POVPUSH, attacking Global warming. Little to no attempt to balance these WP:FRINGE views with mainstream is done. Indeed, this article is promoted by global warming denialists [1].

These problems are not fixable by editing; they're necessary outcomes of the way the list is created, which actually requires a quote for inclusion.

However, this leads to worse problems: This list is Original research (these names are not taken from any sort of reliable source, but from scanning primary sources for things that people think are anti-global warming), and a potential WP:BLP minefield, as it attempts to classify possibly nuanced views based on single quotes.

Further, it often synthesises an argument from multiple sources. Take Garth Paltridge, where the conclusion of the argument is from a different paper than the first part. This is not a single example, and, is, again, another source of potential WP:BLP violations - and very definitely WP:SYNTH ones.

But the worst issue is that we've seen these sorts of lists before. This isn't an encyclopedic article; this is a popular denialist technique: The list of experts that oppose a position. We do not copy the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, but instead discuss it, using reliable sources. We certainly don't attempt to make our own list, to assist them in their campaign. We don't create our own list of scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment that second-hand smoke causes cancer, full of pro-tobacco arguments, nor do we provide articles to let cranks "have their say" on why the earth is flat.

And yet, we have this article, clearly based on a common denialist campaign tactic, and it's survived four AfDs, with little-to-no change. Any encyclopedic treatment of this subject would need to be a fundamentally different sort of article, for which the article, as it stands, would offer no usable content.

Let's put an end to this. 86.** IP (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes and comments by interested editors[edit]

These positions do not have equal weight, however: According to http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/articles/Anderegg_ClimateConsensus_Report2009.pdf "Based on our external assessment and relative weighing of expert opinion, we conclude that for five questions, the scientific community has reached a de facto consensus (more than 95% agreement) aligned with the view of the IPCC." - if less than 5% of the scientific community hold the poosition, then it is Perfectly reasonable not to spend 25% of our coverage on them, and not at all unbalanced. Your keep argument is therefore in violation of WP:FRINGE. 86.** IP (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading a book about the history of mathematical proof recently. There's an amusing anecdote in this about Italian mathematics in which, for a period, theorems were decided by vote rather than by proof. That is laughable because such matters are not decided by a head-count. In any case, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong - time will tell. The point is that the dissenting opinions are notable and so we should not suppress them. If we record the views of the Flat Earth Society then we can do the same for other contrarians. Warden (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually an argument for deletion, since the whole page is essentially a stacked "vote" by including one side of an argument rather than working though issues. However, as a matter of fact such matters are in the real world decided by a head count, or rather by consensus, as are all such issues. A theorem is only a theorem because mathematicans agree that it is. There's nothing laughable about this, other than your own belief that truth can be identified beyond the communities of experts who have the capacity to judge the topic at issue. You may intuitively believe that that truth exists independently of consensus, but in really it cannot, or if it does it cannot be proven to do so, by definition. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing their views is not the reason I want the list to remain, and you would know that if you read what I wrote and assumed I was telling the truth. You haven't spent time making other climate articles better, so I'm curious why you care about so much about deleting this particular one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was why you wanted to, I was explaining why it would be impossible to do what you ask. I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible. 86.** IP (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so.... see [this list at Skeptical Science] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an index page to explanations of why anti-fglobal warming arguments are wrong. If you're going to sa that other lists of global warming deniers have been made, please make sure the pages linked to actually contain lists of anti-global warming people. 86.** IP (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please slow down and take a real look this time. For example, see the link "Oceans are cooling" under the subheading "it's cooling", which brings up [this]. There, you will see a statement attributed to skeptic/denier William DiPuccio. Click on one of the other common denier/skeptic arguments, and the page will start with a different statement attributed to another. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that this article should contain a multi-paragraph statement exapalining whta's wrong with every single quote? If not, not comparable. 86.180.228.28 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: The article also contains scientists who aren't even qualified to speak about climate change such as Astronomers and Solid state physicists etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you saying, that physicists aren't scientists? Look at the title of the article Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am pointing out that the article has non-experts who are scientists commenting on global warming outside their own fields. The current title gives the impression that the people in the list will be experts on the subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't- it says "scientists" not "climate scientists", "experts" or "climatologists"Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not change the fact that people will infer that the scientists ARE experts, if they aren't experts then what is the point of having a list of non-experts? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - the last AfD closed as no consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Consensus can change and indeed it already did change in the last AfD.Griswaldo (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the excessive quoting effective? and effective at what? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can work on developing a consensus re the quotes after the AfD closes. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question. You're making an argument based on the fact that they are "effective." Unless you explain why/how your argument will appear to be without substance. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a comment in passing, as I hadn't really looked at this article in detail, prior to this AfD discussion. An AfD isn't really the appropriate place to discuss format issues, imo. I agree that the article needs work. Assuming it is retained, I'd be happy to work on the quote issue. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC). Comment revised 20:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing in an AfD and you haven't looked at the article in years, "if ever?" Can you please strike your argument in that case.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See clarification above. I looked at the article, talk page & this page carefully for this AfD discussion. Sorry for the confusion, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should use strike through so people can see what I was commenting on. You clearly said you might not ever have read this article in your comment before you changed it. Also, you are still not answering the question, which is not about form at all. You made an argument and someone asked you to explain it and you've been dancing all around it ever since. Please explain what the list is effective at doing. If you don't, once again, you're proving to us that you're just saying stuff without any grounding. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attack other editors who make good faith contributions. Also, the place for a discussion on improving the article is that article's Talk page, not the Deletion page. --Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's part of his keep statement, it should be fully explained here what he meant. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About fixing problems Here is one way some of the objections might be addressed; I'm not suggesting we debate whether this is a good way or bad way here because this page should really just be about the existence of the page in any form. If the page survives AFD, interested editors can bash or cheer this approach on the articles talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break, for easier editing[edit]

The nominator appears to hold strong personal opinions on this topic. The list is said to be "attacking Global warming." It is said to be "a popular denialist technique." The article is is said to be "clearly based on a common denialist campaign tactic." Perhaps the nominator should review WP:Assume Good Faith. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apples to oranges Pete. You can find reliable secondary and tertiary sources that classify an author as a "science fiction" author without having to decide on your own based on his/her books. What we're asking editors to do here is to decide on their own based on primary sources. Apples to oranges.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources available for this topic as well -- one that comes to mind was a series of profiles of climate-contrarian scientists by Lawrence Solomon that ran at Canada' National Post AWB, and was (ims) made into a book: [2].
This cite should be added, but my point is that, for editors familiar with the topic, the prominent skeptics (and science-fiction authors, etc etc.) are already well-known, and so seldom cited to a secondary source in most lists. Thus the claim for OR is flawed, and can (and should) be readily fixed. Hardly a cause for deletion. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that '69.86...' may very well have got to the core of the issue here. We don't have a definition from a reliable source that allows us to distinguish scientists 'opposing', from scientists 'not opposing' - and on that basis, we should only be listing 'scientists expressing an opinion on the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming' - and due weight would seem to imply that 97% or so of the scientists are in the 'not opposing' camp. To give undue weight (and an article) to a small minority, on the basis of our own synthesis, is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and common sense. We are stating that the distinction is real, significant, and something more than an arbitrary classification, and then attempting to show that it is valid by compliing an arbitrary list of individuals we think fit into the category. This is circular logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would not be appropriate to have a list of scientists opposed to the theory of gravity (69.86.225.27). That would be a fringe view. This article is about a minority.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by User:Tigerboy1966 would be worthy of laughing dismissal if it weren't written with such implied authority. There are plenty of highly respected mainstream scientists who are working within the framework of consensus science to oppose or augment the mainstream theory of gravity in various ways. In contrast, the global warming denialists are all working outside the normal avenues of scientific discourse and have generally distinguished themselves by being extraordinarily oppositional to the normal epistemic discourse. This so-called "list of scientists" outlines a hodge=podge of opinions that are essentially all excluded from the academic discussion of the science of global warming due to the Not even wrong-iness of the arguments. Claiming that the scientists who oppose mainstream GR are somehow "fringe" while these denialists are just a "minority" is not only turning WP:FRINGE inside out; it's just plain ignorant of the state-of-the-art of mainstream science. It's arguments like this which make a strong case for why you shouldn't let anonymous internet users edit an encyclopedia that is striving towards accuracy. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of participants in the global warming controversy might be a defensible list. This junk is not. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, it sounds like it could also be a home for most of the info in Global warming controversy, and then that ambiguous title could be freed up to become a disambiguation page, since "Global warming controversy" could refer to so many different aspects of the issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this is original research: This is a hand-curated collection of quotations from 44 people who fit the extremely broad inclusion criteria of having at least one peer-reviewed article, at any time in the past (not necessarily recent) in some area of "natural sciences," broadly construed and not necessarily relevant to climate, who at least once made some sort of attributable statement that the curators of the article (not necessarily some other reliable source) interpret to indicate "disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the Third (or Fourth) Assessment Report of the IPCC." The interpretation of what constitutes "disagreement" is an original determination by Wikipedia contributors, the decision of who to include in the list seems to be subjective, the quotations are not presented in any context -- particularly not the kind of context that normally would be supplied by the kinds of reliable WP:secondary sources that Wikipedia is supposed to rely on (and note that it often is possible to distort a person's meaning by quoting them out of context), and the implications of the opinions have been characterized based on the judgment of Wikipedians who sorted them into article subsections. Not only is this original research, but there are multiple layers of original research here. --Orlady (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is a series of cherry-picked quotes from scientists (many with no expertise in climatology) going to give " a relatively objective assessment of the state of scientific disagreement with the global warming consensus"? If we are to allow "objective readers" to make their own mind up, we have to (a) present both sides of the debate, and (b) source it to the section of the scientific community which is actually qualified to debate the science. This article singularly fails to do either. I don't think there could be a clearer demonstration why Wikipedia needs rules... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't every quote on the whole of Wikipedia fall under 'cherry picked'? The title is those who are opposed to the mainstream ... it's about a certain position, there is nothing wrong with that what so ever for an encyclopedia, as can be seen by the other examples of lists shown above. People have said this article is OR, and it has been shown that there are lists throughout wikipedia that fit people/things into positions. I'd like to see what editors understand about OR, and how it applies to this list and how (if it does) is it different to any other list on Wikipedia. To address having an article from a position, it is not as though this is the only article on global warming, there are loads of objective articles that layout global warming in all its details, this article is simply a criteria to meet the common question, "Who are these scientists are going against concensus?". And regarding your points about sourcing it to the relevant scientific community, again there is a discussion on going on it's talk page exactly about reducing the article to those a have published in climate sciences. Khukri 05:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I'm surprised you think it doesn't present both sides of the debate. The lead lays out in some detail the consensus position; there's a graphic at the top of the article showing how the views in the article are a small minority in the scientific community. If that isn't balance, I'm not quite sure what is. --Merlinme (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with mentioning it on the fringe noticeboard? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break 2, for easier editing[edit]

I have no idea what you are talking about. If these individuals are notable for their own articles they may have them. If their views are notable, they can be quoted in the relevant articles on the controversy. Your comment does not address any of this issues raised here. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't even care what the "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is, whether they think it is real or not. Whichever it is, there is nothing wrong with a list of prominent dissenters on any highly significant topic, but to object to such a list smacks of persecution of "heresy". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the compilers of the list themselves that have taken on the task of deciding who is a 'heretic' - based on their own research. If the individuals on the list are actually 'prominent dissenters', they should say so themselves, which there is no evidence for - just cherry-picked quotes, with no context (and indeed, no evidence that the individuals concerned still hold these views). The article is a gross violation of WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
commentsee WP:NOTVOTE. You could have a thousand deletes, but if they just repeat or rephrase the same points they don't add to the debate or affect the outcome.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise for those !voting keep. I'm sure that the admin closing this discussion will be aware of this - so what exactly are you adding to the outcome here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was citing a specific WP behavioral guideline in response to a point made by another user who seemed to need some clarification on how AfD outcomes were arrived at. Is that wrong?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The !votes last time were about 38 keep to 42 delete with a few neutral or other ideas. The close of no consensus was therefore quite correct. Warden (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is subject to regular scrutiny and debate - there are some 23 archives of the talk page. It seemed fairly stable until the recent flurry of opposition. The nature of the topic makes it a battleground and occasional spasms of this kind seem inevitable in this topic area until the general issue becomes more settled or is resolved. Warden (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that these alleged spike-in-the-heart quotations for the most part have not made it into the scientific literature? [[For example, see this way of sorting the list] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mweisger, I see that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia. While your problems with reality having a liberal bias may seem important to you, they are of little relevance here, where we discuss whether the article should be kept or deleted according to agreed Wikipedia policy (which is arrived at by community consensus). If you wish to argue that Wikipedia should be shut down (By whom? The Obama administration? The UN? An angry mob wielding torches and pitchforks?), I suggest you do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am discussing here is objectivity. The minute the argument was made that the article should be deleted because it was only attributable to a "fringe" group, the argument to delete lost all merit. The fact is that the number of true climatologists (not generic "scientists") that take issue with the mainstream "science" grew significantly when the memos between global warming advocates was made public, and has been steadily growing ever since. Since this is a discussion area, I won't cite this evidence, but it is there if you wander around the internet. There is nothing "fringe" about Global Warming Dissention, and as long as that is the argument being used, the premise is false, and therefore the article should stay. Mweisger (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, what we are seeing is a marginalisation campaign in action, and there's little "neutral" about that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comments above. No one is arguing that this material should not be covered by Wikipedia. What some people are saying is that covering such important information in the form of a list of names and quotes, is not the best way to present it. WP:NPOV requires that we 'explain the sides' in any disputed area. Listing quotes without context, timeline, counterargument, consideration of the speaker etc, throughout a whole article, under a heading that refers to 'science' twice, does not meet this central policy requirement. --Nigelj (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we must AGF those are not pretexts... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ask for some sources - here's a selection from a variety of perspectives:
  1. Maxwell Boykoff (2009), "Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians", Climate change science and policy, p. 401, Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling...
  2. Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, 2005 — interesting for its lofty view of climate change debates across the centuries, listing the notables on each side of the argument
  3. Laurence Solomon (2010), The deniers, Eminent environmentalist Lawrence Solomon set out to find whether any real scientists diverged from global warming orthodoxy. What he found shocked him. Not only did world renowned scientists dissent on every headline warming issue, but the dissenters were far more accomplished and eminent scientists.
  4. "The Scientist Deniers", The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University Press, 2011, This chapter shines a spotlight on the scientist-deniers and their claims...
  5. "Contrarian Scientists", The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 151, As climate change denial has matured, the number of 'scientists' who promote it has grown in size and diversity...
Warden (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last two, at least, are worth a look. What a different perspective from ours in this article! Rather than list these 'scientists' and their quotes, the recent scholarly NPOV treatment is to follow the financial and the historical threads of the climate denial movement. The references show that these are very strong threads with clear linkages, and that these people are to be found dangling on the ends, insisting that they be referred to as 'scientists' at all costs. I don't think the present article quite makes that well-documented perspective clear with NPOV. I don't see how a list of unchallenged quotes ever will. --Nigelj (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary of assuming that any single (or few) author book is consistent with NPOV. On that list, 3 and 4 seem to have pretty clear and opposing POVs. The existence of this list page is not in any way exclusive of climate change denial or scientific opinion on climate change covering other themes. The former does in fact touch on some of the historical and financial threads you mention (though personally I've never been too impressed with the "denial" page). The fact that other topics could be covered isn't in itself an argument for deleting the list, but rather could be seen as an argument for expanding other pages. Dragons flight (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#3 is written by Lawrence Solomon and published by someone who is described by the Huffington Post as the communications director of a hedge fund company.[3][4] #4 is written by a science academic[5] and published by an Ivy League university. I was particularly referring to #5 above, one of 'The Oxford Handbook of...' publications from the Oxford University Press. --Nigelj (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for commenting on my post. I did some spot checks of the list myself, e.g. Claude Allègre and Frederick Seitz, and I agree that those scientists can be legitimately included in a list. However, as evidenced in the above discussion, and as one can read in the two biographies I've mentioned, there needs to be (1) a better criteria for selection: individuals that have been noted (in the real world sense, not WP one, i.e. not just "his name is a blue link") for their comments and opposition, and by that I mean noted by independent sources or by mainstream opponents. Both guys I mentioned meet this criteria. The other thing that needs to change is (2) instead of a quote farm, each list entry needs to spell out how the person has been noted for their opposition, e.g. caused a media furor in France when their appointment came up, or the other guy caused the NAS to address a written protest to NYT. So, there is a sourcebook in this list from which to build a proper one, but keeping the quote farm in article space in the hope of eventually producing a NPOV text is not appropriate, and entries need to conform to the more stringent criteria (1) above. I think the present list should be userfied or moved to a WikiProject space pending rewrite, which is pretty much the same as Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted those are not lists (or none of the ones I can see are), and, as such, these sources do not show that such lists as the one Wikipedia has manufactured are encyclopedic, they simply show that some people deny climate change - which everyone knew already. We have two articles: Climate change denial and Global warming controversy on this subject, as well as this list, and there is no reason why we should split a series of POV-pushing quotes off of the two articles we have already which actually discuss the views and their relationship to the mainstream in detail, instead of:
A. Dediding that the IPCC is the ruler of all climate change debate, and any slight disagreement means denying the mainstream assessment.
B. Leaving out all of the responses to the denier's points. Global_warming_controversy#The_mainstream_scientific_position.2C_and_challenges_to_it - Note that every single one (on a quick skim) of the points raised by the quotations in the list is covered in our main article, as well as a host of others - but in the main article, the views are put in context, and all of this context is completely missing from the WP:POVFORK under discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that once someone does the NPOV rewriting I suggested above it will become apparent that the resulting list is mostly duplicating other articles. But I'm uncertain about that just yet. Simply organizing the material by the guys' names may be valuable to someone. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For instance Seitz is mentioned in climate change denial, but not about the NAS incident, and Allègre is mentioned in neither that article nor in global warming controversy, although both incidents were notable in their respective countries. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really more of a call for close as merge. 86.** IP (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; someone could go over this list as an easy way to identify missing personalities/events from those two controversy/denial articles, but the useful and NPOV material is found in the biographical articles linked from it. (That's what I meant by using it as a sourcebook.) Both events I mentioned above are not found in this list, but rather in the biographies of those two guys. The quotes in this list are themselves pretty worthless because they give no indication if they are of any notoriety. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein's description of the editing process here is incorrect. For example, I have added one entry to this list - Freeman Dyson. He's fairly well known to be a sceptic and the particular trigger for adding him was the source which was used as the citation. That source was The Independent newspaper, which takes a overt stance of political independence and high-minded, high-quality reporting. Their editor introduced the subject as "World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson ... He's also one of the world's foremost climate change sceptics.". He has also been profiled in a similar and extensive way by the New York Times. It's their finding that he is a notable scientific sceptic, not ours.
Now, when this entry was added to the list, it was challenged and there was some discussion on the talk page which went over these points. The consensus was then that the entry should remain. So, there was no OR here - just the normal and proper process of working from secondary sources. The quotation appears because the current format of the list expects one. But if editors don't like the quotes, these may be removed as they are not fundamental to the nature of the list. The core structure of the list is the list of names, supported by citations and linking to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. And compared to most of the other Lists of scientists, this list is far better sourced and supported. All those other lists just seems to have columns of wikilinks without any supporting evidence. Suggesting that this list is poorly constructed is therefore the reverse of the truth. Because it is such a battleground, the entries and their sources are inspected with unusual vigour and so the quality of the list is correspondingly high. Warden (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The interview of a skeptic with a science journalist is just an outlet for the skeptic. There's nobody there to provide a competing NPOV narrative. And that science journalist in particular has had his ethics questioned [6]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word ethics doesn't seem to appear in your source which seems rather bloggish. Anyway, here's that NYT source which describes Dyson as "Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists ... his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science.". How is any OR required to understand that Dyson belongs in this list? Warden (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was OR involved in reading that NYT article, which you have only mentioned just now as a straw man. But look for instance at the entry for Garth Paltridge; it's sourced only from his own writings. Did anyone else notice him as an AGW skeptic? I can't tell from this list. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2011 (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.
Category