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. Though the keep arguments slightly outnumber the delete arguments (21 to 16 by my count), neither side makes such a compelling policy based argument to sway my interpretation of consensus towards either a clear keep or a clear delete rather than the quite obvious lack of consensus in this discussion. henrik•talk 11:51, 16 February 2012 (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 article is an inherently non-neutral WP:POVFORK with several problems related to WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE and other issues. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and restrict AFD nominations to one per year For reasons expressed by Stephan Schulz above NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I'm moving my !vote to the post DRV section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the previous AfD was closed as Keep that closure was overturned at DRV. Hut 8.5 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:HORSEMEAT.--WaltCip (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete per the reasoning of the below commentary. Upon further investigation, the article does read very much like a POV fork.--WaltCip (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what? Where is the article, subset of an article, or list that this is a POV rewrite of? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." - WP:POVFORK 86.** IP (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading WP:DUE a bit more careful.. First There is a neutral summary in other articles. Secondly the list contains a lead that is entirely devoted to presenting the mainstream, and stating that these scientists all hold views that are considered outside the mainstream. We can of course make it even more explicit, thats up for discussion. Thirdly you see to forget to read WP:DUE's 2nd paragraph, which is the one most pertinent to this discussion, since it covers how to handle list/article neutrally that are entirely devoted to a tiny minority->fringe concept (i quote):
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV FAQs provide additional guidance
We follow each of the above to the letter. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah let's get rid of that non-consensus galileo bastard as well. Obviously science is a vote not a process. Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah, a positive suggestion Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my speedy-delete policy proposal at the village pump. Specifically, I am proposing that any renom in under 6 months must set forth a new argument or it can be SK'd, but any renom based on a new argument would always be OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It had run for a matter of hours when it was closed. The abuse of process was the premature shutting down, when only the page regulars had a chance to respond. 86.** IP (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article (in this case, Global warming), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia."
I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. [full stop]" It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion. What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's fundamental policies has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions. Do we really even need consensus to delete something that obviously contradicts WP's most basic principles? I would think the very fact that this article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, if anything, would indicate a vote of no confidence from the broader WP community. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that Global warming is a top-level article, and that it doesn't contain (or has room for) information, that could be considered to be forked off into this article? What you basically are saying is that WP:Splitting is against fundamental Wikipedia policy... You claim that the article is POV, but you do not describe how this is the case, considering that the lede makes it extremely clear what the majority view on climate change is and that these scientists are in the tiny minority to fringe category. Your examples seem to be advocacy based, but what does this list advocate? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I'm not saying there is nothing of any value here at all, but that what's useful here can and should be merged into Global warming.:If something here doesn't belong there, I wonder if it really belongs in the encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By arguing for merger, you invalidate your deletion nomination. Please see WP:MAD and WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about that, but there's really nothing to see here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSOR says that Wikipedia doesn't remove encyclopedic content because people may find it offensive. How is that remotely relevant to NPOV concerns? Hut 8.5 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that people wish to delete this article because it offends them - the topic seems to be a holy war. This article forms part of a set which presents the various views of the climate change matter and so NPOV is satisfied. Climatology seems to resemble economics in that its theories are not readily resolved by experiment and there are complex feedbacks due to political effects. We should be open and tolerant of the resulting variety of opinion, just as we have numerous articles about different economic theories and their proponents. Warden (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing to consider is, are they notable en masse? Surely we can note on the scientists' individual articles their stated concerns about global warming, but what are we here saying collectively about such people? I have a hard enough time accepting wiki-categorization on ideology, but this IMO isn't even that, it is just a stance on a scientific matter. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I definitely think anthropogenic climate change denial counts as ideology. There are fundamentalists and everything. But on the more substantive point, I don't think they are notable en masse. I also don't think they need to be. This list is basically navigational: a way to group content that's thematically related, as an aid to researchers.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would be far more believvable if it wasn't in exactly the same state as it was before every previous AfD closed with it being given another chance. If this article WAS fixable, the dozens of people who have tried would have. It's not. It's unrepairable garbage, which, if this is closed any other way than delete, will just need to be AfD'd again after a certain amount of time, in a further attempt to get rid of the biggest violation of policy on Wikipedia. 86.** IP (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(laughing) Check your facts, please 86. The article has been edited this very evening, in an attempt to make the article comply with WP:FRINGE even better than it did before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edits fail to engage with any of the primary problems, and my point stands, despite deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic. The quotations contain a host of allegations, speculations, false facts, and fringe theories; the content of these is not engaged with in any way, and the mainstream view's response to these fringe theories does not appear. The quotations are the problem, a couple copyedits to the lead do nothing to fix that. 86.** IP (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? Besides what NAEG says: If i check the talk-page, then what i find is a very active discussion on improvement, an RfC just closed with such (unfortunately with no consensus), so i cannot see that your assertion even remotely relates to reality. But you do make a good point for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. You don't get to put in quotes promoting specific fringe theories, and claim that there's no need to even discuss those fringe theories. A reasonable article using those quotes would need to be four times longer in order to put the quotes in the context 'required by WP:FRINGE, but because it's such a massive WP:QUOTEFARM, and almost every quote has these sorts of problems, it'd be unreadable then. The quotes, in these massive blocks, have no encyclopedic use on Wikipedia, and thus the article is merely one big WP:POVPUSH. The discussion cannot bring the article in line with policy, it's outside of policy by its very design. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, it is not "utter nonsense". I suggest that you sit down and read WP:DUE again. When covering topics that are inherently tiny minority to fringe, we do not debunk things per line (which makes it unreadable), what we must do instead, is to make it abundantly clear to the reader as soon as possible that these views are tiny minority->fringe, and that is certainly what this list does. The entire lede is nothing but such a description. The specific section in WP:NPOV covering this is WP:DUE second paragraph. (I refer you to User:merlinme's comment regarding "quotefarm" above) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See extended description of how it violates policy below, which proves you have o idea what policy says. 86.** IP (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the article is to be a navigation list that directs the reader to minority->fringe viewpoints on global warming. The reason that such a list is necessary is (amongst others) that views that are tiny minority to fringe cannot (per WP:UNDUE) be covered in the main articles about the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do NOT need unchallenged tiny-minority fringe claims in an endless WP:QUOTEFARM in order to allow navigation. WP:UNDUE requires that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This article doesn't do that, since it just lets the proponents of the fringe views say whatever the hell they want, unchallenged. 86.** IP (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. The quotes are there for verification purposes against the list criteria. And the majority view is explicitly described in the lead, if need be it can be described even further if anyone is in doubt... A reader cannot be in doubt that these are tiny minority->fringe viewpoints. What you appear to want, is not an NPOV description - but a debunking - but that would definitively not be NPOV (nor would it be encyclopaedic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a breakout of an extended dialogue between editors who previously declared their keep/delete opinion. Please add additional !votes after this section.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC) No other article on Wikipedia uses massive WP:QUOTEFARMs for supposed "verificaion" purposes. As well, the specific claims need discussed. That's what policy says. The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are. The majority view about the claims actually made in the article is the one that needs discussed. Example: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future." - the mainstream view on sea-level rise isn't even mentioned outside of this quote. "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural." - is the majority view discussed in enough detail to put that in context? not in the least. And the same could be said about claims in most of the quotes, which challenge aspects of the mainstream which are not described at all outside of the denialist quotefarm. A quick summary of[reply]

Parts of WP:FRINGE violated by this article:

WP:NPOV/FAQ

WP:POVFORK

Given this, can the article be fixed to be in line with policy? No it cannot; the use of the lengthy quotations are, in themselves, in violation of policy, and this could not be fixed without throwing out everything we have and starting from scratch. One cannot make specific attacks on the mainstream, and not even discuss the aspect of the mainstream being attacked, but, per WP:FRINGE, it's unlikely most of the specific theories presented in the quotes are notable, so they have no place on Wikipedia.

This article is in violation of policy, and cannot be brought into line with policy. It should be discarded. 86.** IP (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no test to show that the specific fringe views in the quotes are at all notable." I would have thought it would be relatively easy to show that variations of the arguments used in the quotes are all used in secondary sources discussing climate change. I'm not entirely sure what the point would be, or whether it would make the list article better, and it might be tricky to agree how to briefly demonstrate that these are notable positions; would this in fact give what are minority positions more apparent respectability? But this could be done, if it's really felt to be worthwhile.
"The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are." The majority view is described, in detail, in the lead. There is a case to be made for adding more context to individual sections, possibly even individual quotes. We were involved in a discussion on this when you reverted to attempting to get the page deleted on Jimbo's page. If you spent half the energy improving the article you spent trying to delete it, we would end up with a better article.
"No other article on Wikipedia uses massive WP:QUOTEFARMs for supposed "verificaion" purposes"." This is an "other stuff exists" argument (or in this case, other stuff doesn't exist). It is not an argument as to whether it works for this particular article. And as I have stated repeatedly, the quotes don't violate QUOTEFARM anyway, as long as they are "pertinent", and they seem very pertinent to me. --Merlinme (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I give examples of how the majority view is not by a long shot described in enough detail, and almost certainly cannot be described in enough detail to fix the quotefarm. And they are typical of how this article handles them. Also, Kim claims that quotes are necessary for verification. They cannot be necessary for verification if every other article on Wikipedia does not need to violate the NPOV policy to "verify" its claims. Finally, I'm quoting policy. Don't act as if the policy doesn't exist when you reply. 86.** IP (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which policy you think I'm "acting as if it doesn't exist"? Thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly need to verify the additions to the list, that is one part of WP:BLP that cannot be broken. The choice to have this as quotes in the list, as opposed to in the reference section, is an editorial decision. Personally i prefer them in the list, but am not at all oposed to alternatively having them in the reference section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." - WP:POVFORK 86.** IP (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV is a very weak argument for deletion if the content can be salvaged through normal editing, as WP:AFD#How to contribute says. My point here is that the problem cannot be fixed through normal editing and that any article of this type would violate NPOV. It is well established that problems with an article subject that cannot be fixed through normal editing are suitable grounds for deletion.

    NPOV is a little more complex than "is this page advocating a certain POV?" The list gives undue weight to critics of climate change. Anyone who reads the list will be left with the impression that there is a large scientifically respectable body of opinion opposing the idea of global warming, a tiny minority view. Changes to the page will not fix this problem as long as the page consists of a list of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. It is possible to cover the topic of scientific opinion on climate change neutrally, and we have a different article which does so. Hut 8.5 12:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt if it cannot be fixed. That seems to be a strange argument, and in your second paragraph we find the reason for this. It cooks down to: We cannot describe tiny minority->fringe positions because such a description by default will be non-neutral or undue weight. For this argument i will point you at WP:DUE paragraph 2. Which describes how to handle such situations.
    As for "anyone who reads the list" - this is simply incorrect. We know that roughly a half of people will say "look how few really oppose" and the other will say "look how many" (see deletion arguments of the various AfD's for documentation). But even if this was the case, then it would not be an argument for deletion. Do note that quite alot of editors who are arguing for "keep" aren't sceptics (and going out on a limb: will actually state (privately) that these views are ridiculous). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straw man argument]. I did not say that we cannot describe tiny or fringe positions. I am saying that when we do describe them we have to portray them in a way which is in accordance with their prominence and that we should not give the impression that they have substantial support. Global warming controversy, for instance, repeatedly emphasises the scientific consenus in favour of the mainstream view, refers to evidence which supports the mainstream view and contains rebuttals to criticism of it. The reader of that article will not be left with the impression that there is scientific controversy over global warming. That is not the case here, and it will not be the case here as long as the page just consists of a list of scientists opposed to the idea of global warming. (If you have an idea for fixing this problem, let's hear it.)
  • I don't understand your second paragraph at all. The fact that many editors arguing to keep the page support global warming is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that the list should be deleted because I support global warming, and neither is anyone else. You haven't given any reasoning to support your claim that even if everyone interpreted the list as giving the impression that there is a substantial scientific debate over climate change then the page could not be deleted. Wikipedia editors interested in climate change issues are not a representative sample of our readers, and the fact that an intelligent reader who supports global warming might be able to think of a reason to dismiss the implications of the list doesn't mean the list is neutral. Hut 8.5 13:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that i put up that strawman argument, that was my read of your comment. What exactly is the problem with describing them in accordence with their prominence in this list? This list does exactly the same as GWC, we describe the mainstream in detail, and point out that these views are tiny minority to fringe. This is a navigation list for those interested in ["sceptics": emerging paradigm changes; "mainstream": pathological science]. The list follows the policy set out in WP:DUE paragraph 2. Do please read that, since you appear to argue that it is incorrect.
  • As for the second paragraph - you stated that "Anyone who reads the list will be left with the impression that there is a large scientifically respectable body of opinion opposing the idea of global warming" - which i pointed out is wrong. We neither claim that it is scientifically respectable, nor do we leave the "impression" that this is a large body. This seems entirely to be your personal view, based on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said that presenting information about this specific fringe view in this specific format wasn't compatible with WP:UNDUE, and you interpreted that as saying that any coverage of fringe views in any format, anywhere, violates WP:UNDUE. That's a straw man argument: I wasn't saying that or anything remotely like it. This article doesn't remotely present the viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each, it briefly states the mainstream view before launching into huge amounts of quotations from proponents of the fringe view with almost no mention of the mainstream viewpoint at all. Yes fringe views can receive more discussion on pages specifically devoted to them but that doesn't mean you can get away with making only a token reference to the mainstream view. The reader is presented with the fact that an impressive number of prominent scientists with respectable credentials are making damning statements about global warming with minimal explanation that these people represent a very small minority, they are going to get the impression that there is a substantial body of opinion opposing it. My statement that "anyone" would see this wasn't meant to say that absolutely every reader would interpret it that way (which obviously isn't true) but that this would be the experience of the typical reader. These problems can't be fixed because of the format of the article: if it spent lots of space discussing the views of scientists in general then it would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream view of global warming and become a duplicate of scientific opinion on climate change. Hut 8.5 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the views are in the individuals article. This is a navigation list, that directs you to the place where the view is discussed in detail (or where it should be discussed - see failed RfC on talk). The introduction specifically states that this is tiny minority->fringe, and the quotes are there for WP:V reasons (they could be in the reference section - but that is an editorial decision). I can't see how you can state with certainty that "there is an impressive number", especially since i directed you to discussions that say otherwise. And the lead even states that the number is very low considering the number of researchers in the field. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a navigation list, it is an information resource in its own right (and WP:NLIST has nothing to do with navigation lists). I'm aware that the lead does mention that these people represent a small minority but that doesn't remotely counter the impression given by the rest of the article. As I said above you can't get out of your undue weight requirements by making a token reference to the mainstream view. And again the fact that somebody doesn't think the list is impressive is not a reason to think that the typical reader does not perceive it that way. Hut 8.5 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you describe devoting most of the lead to the mainstream, including a multiply sourced graphic putting the mainstream position at 90+%, as a "token reference"? --Merlinme (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the article text does not mention the mainstream position at all apart from a brief image caption. Look at Global warming controversy as an example of a good way to do it properly. Hut 8.5 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a possible argument for including more context within the sections. That's a debate I'd be happy to have. I don't see why it's an argument for deleting (as opposed to improving) the article. --Merlinme (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere on this page if we included the necessary level of discussion of the breadth of support for mainstream viewpoint within the article then it would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and become a duplicate of scientific opinion on climate change. Hut 8.5 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First point: That the scientists are outside mainstream is used to argue deletion? That's not in line with policy - despite your dislike for tiny minority->fringe viewpoints - we most certainly cover such views. (see btw. WP:DUE 2nd paragraph).
Second point about the list being non-notable is strange, since there is quite a lot of scholarly articles discussing the tiny-minority->fringe viewpoints in this area of science. Then afterwards you conflate the notability of the list, with the notability of the views presented - that seems equally strange... of course they are minority views - thats what the list is about!
Third point: Erh? The context here is that these quotes and scientists are in the tiny minority->fringe category. That is what the whole list is about, and what we use the entire lead to describe! We can certainly add more, but saying that we do not contextualize is utter nonsense.
Fourth point: Again, the entire premise of the list, is that these are tiny minory->fringe views. So to state (again) that they aren't, contextualized, and described as minority->fringe is (again) nonsense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't only describes the mainstream, it describes how much support each view has in the scientific community. Admittedly this ends up mostly being discussion of the mainstream view because the mainstream view is overwhelmingly prevalent but that's not an artifact of the article writing process. The reason this page discusses individual viewpoints and the main article does not is because opposition to climate change in the scientific community is limited to individual viewpoints. Hut 8.5 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that the lead mainly describes the mainstream, and exactly how the viewpoints following are distinguishable from the mainstream, which, as you say, is overwhelmingly supported. And yes, the reason that we have a navigation list to individual views, is because it would be WP:UNDUE to describe most of these in the main articles. Global warming and Scientific opinion on climate change describe the mainstream, Climate change controversy describes controversy and minority views - with each of these having daughter articles that go into detail (mitigation, adaptation, denial, hockey stick etc etc.), and finally we have a navigation list to the tiny minority to frige viewpoints. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have two articles on the subject of how scientists view global warming. One is NPOV-compliant and is written to fairly present both viewpoints. The other is about the same subject but is explicitly written to emphasise one viewpoint. That is pretty much exactly WP:NPOV's definition of a POV fork.

You've started claiming that this list is there purely for navigation purposes (I don't see why you're linking to WP:NLIST, which doesn't discuss navigation at all). This isn't the case. As you admit this list groups people by an attribute that isn't even mentioned in the linked articles and consists of information that isn't in the linked articles. These things are characteristic of a list that is meant to be an informational resource in its own right, not one that is meant primarily for navigation. The fact that this information has been excluded from these articles on grounds of undue weight doesn't mean the list should be kept since there's no requirement that we have this information anywhere. Encyclopedic quality is best served by getting rid of inappropriate stuff, not by dumping it into one page. Hut 8.5 20:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Strawmanning now :) - No, there aren't two articles that deal with the same subject. Scientific opinion on climate change deals with the overall scientific view, as seen from assessments and scientific organizations specifically excluding individual views, and this list deals with individual sceptic views. Two different subjects. And both are written in NPOV fashion, i should hope. The difference here seems to be that you feel one has merit, and the other not.
You can deny as much as you want that this is a list, but it still is one. It follows all guidelines for a WP:LIST. And i certainly hope that the destination articles deal with the topic - afaik there are 2 in 50 where this may not be the case (one has been corrected iirc). The link to navigation lists is WP:LISTPURP#Navigation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still using straw man arguments: I argue the page is not a navigation list and you claim I'm saying this page isn't a list at all. For that matter you're still confusing necessary and sufficient conditions: not passing WP:LIST might be a reason to delete the list, but passing WP:LIST doesn't mean it can't be deleted for some other reason. The fact that Scientific opinion on climate change doesn't mention individual views doesn't mean the two articles are not on the same topic (they are clearly both discussing the views of the scientific community on global warming) and hence doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a POV fork. Hut 8.5 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a balanced view. The lead presents a strawman version of the mainstream, free of evidence, or any of the material the quotes attack. 86.** IP (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly is it a strawman view of the mainstream? You throw out assertions here like there is no end of tomorrow. If the mainstream position should be clarified even more, then do propose some content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86, Do you believe it is ever possible to report a fringe view in a summary type of article, instead of the equivalent of both trial and appellate briefs presenting evidence that establishes the "fringe" nature of the minority view beyond a reasonable doubt? If you answer "Yes" then please point to a wikipedia example that measures up to your expectation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Spectroscopy ... the study of the interaction between matter and radiated energy" - seems possible that field might be somewhat relevant to global warming ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over the weekend I plan to draft an attempt to explain why this group is notable on its own, and I'll be referencing at least in part research by a Yale/Georgetown collaborative project. Real life is in the way at the moment. Whether this will satisfy the collective notability issue, or lay to rest calls for merge, remains to be seen. ADMIN please wait thru the weekend before closing so I have time to float this coming article text in response to comments in this AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC) see my !vote below instead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86 - I for one object to being called a "minor exception". My !vote is not minor - it is as good as anyone else's. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, people usually don't bother working on an article if they don't think the article should exist. Hut 8.5 23:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a shame, as they would improve the article if they did. In general I find the determination to eliminate rather than improve the article a shame. --Merlinme (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People who are involved in an article or the discussions about it tend to know more about both, and to have a deeper, more nuanced view of matters, than those whose only involvement is disputation of what they haven't studied and deletion of what they don't like. I deem it a positive mark that those of us who are "regulars" are more inclined to keep. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not sufficient that a statement describes someone as a "skeptic", but an editor needs an additional statement describing what the first statement says? Is it to be "turtles all the way down"?
Plain reading of ordinary language, and the exercise of ordinary editorial judgment (per the prescribed criteria) and common sense, do not constitute original research. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By chance did you mean "anthropogenic" rather than "anthropomorphic"? Dragons flight (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, as this article is not about scientific consensus or AGW; it is about the scientists that allegedly oppose the consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't what the list is called; it's that no such construction can satisfy WP:NPOV. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How on EARTH does showing a list of people only taken from one side help readers judge whether a scientific consensus exists? 86.** IP (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because this article is not about "whether a scientific consensus exists". That is a given, where this article starts, and is stated in the lead. This article is about the supposed dissent (opposition) from the scientific consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is a rather heavy-handed response if the problem is only in the presentation of views. And if you are that concerned about this, how about helping us work out a solution in the proper venue, which is the talk page? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think NAEG has presented an excellent summary of why this article should be kept. Why do you find it not compelling? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS The proposed paragraph or two that summarizes this lists collective notability, should be prefaced with a main article tag pointing at Climate change denialism. Readers should be able to find a list of the scientists that are outspoken on the issue, and then they can decide for themselves if there are a lot (or a few) and readers can assign appropriate weight to their remarks, based on where they appear (e.g., letters to the editors or peer reviewed professional literature). If this list goes away, readers are forced to wade thru the reams of he said she said political spin, allegations, and counter allegations. Removal of this list should make fossil fuel advocates happy, because it will aide and abet their making mountains out of mole hills, at least IMO. All I am saying is that true NPOV means gathering and reporting this info in an easy to search basis according to name. Not doing that creates a vaccuum that is susceptible to spin, and calls for doing that could easily be based on POV. Why is anyone opposed to providing facts about the minority view letting others assess those facts? Don't we trust our readers intelligence? I like to think that intellectual integrity will lead to the same characterization of these views that I have made, but I am not suggesting we characterize this list my way. Just that we present it, and let readers make their own judgments of claims that scientists are abandoning the mainstream in droves. We can't merge to Climate change denialism because that is about the political strategy and tactics of non-scientists. We can't merge to Global warming controversy because that article is (A) organized around the arguments and (B) includes lots of non-science arguments. If the quotes remain we shouldn't merge anywhere just because this is already so large. We should preserve this article-list as a standalone piece because lots of disruptive talk page battles in many different articles are instigated on the basis of "this scientist said..." or "that scientist said....". Such arguments from a lot of different pages get funneled/referred here so taking this list away opens the door to an endless repetition of those types of arguments, to the detriment of the project (since we end up carping over that stuff instead of improving the main text). Trust me, its bad enough with this page being here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very eloquently put by NewsAndEventsGuy. It may come as a surprise to people who don't actually follow the page, but a significant proportion, perhaps a majority, of those who support keeping the article strongly believe in the existence of climate change. This shouldn't really matter to the merits of keeping the article, of course, but there seems to be a widespread belief that this page is a conspiracy by climate change sceptical editors, which simply isn't the case. Of course more sceptical editors tend to support it, but other editors think it is a good way of testing the strength (or otherwise) of the claims in the media about the amount of scientific dissent to the consensus.
There are undoubtedly changes to the page which can be discussed. For example, we got quite close to just listing the scientists, with references to the quotes given at the bottom of the page. I personally think this would look a bit odd, but it could be done if people felt strongly enough about it. Other suggestions include changing the categories, separating out the peer reviewed research from the statements in popular media, and adding more context to challange particular claims advanced in the quotes. We've gone a small distance towards adding more context in the last year or so, and we would probably have gone further if the people who spent so much energy trying to delete the page spent more energy on improving the article. I also think one of the alternatives, the use of an essentially unreferenced category or section, as is done in (for example) Holocaust denial#Prominent Holocaust deniers and the Holocaust deniers category: [5] would be far worse, as it's a BLP nightmare. The criteria for this page are clearly stated and enforced; statements must, for example, be relatively recent (since the Third Assessment Report in 2001), allowing for scientists to change their minds. Petitions are not accepted, because it's easy to find examples of people who signed things who later retracted their signature. Off the top of my head, one scientist thought he was signing for something calling for more research into climate change. Publicly reported statements in their own words, are not really ambiguous, and make much more explicit exactly what they are sceptical about; they rarely question every part of the consensus, for example. It is also easy to verify if a dated statement is up-to-date and reflects their current views. (A more recent counter example which contradicts their earlier statements would of course mean that they would be removed from the list.)
This is one of the most viewed articles in the encyclopedia. I have yet to see an argument which persuades me that we would be better off "eliminating" it from Wikipedia than improving it, and presenting useful reference material to readers in as objective and safe (regarding BLP etc.) a way as possible. --Merlinme (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article gets about 400 hits/day on average. That's the same level of traffic as Huddersfield, say, and that's not much. Given that much of this traffic must come from the editors who obsess and fight over it, its impact upon the general population will be negligible. Warden (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that
(ActualViews) minus (RegularEditorViews) = (RealReaderViews) = a pretty small number.
Then again, the strategy contained in the memo at Climate change denialism is all about making mountains from mole hills, so depending who the RealReaders are, this article could have a disproportionate impact. Also, the very existence of this article, regardless of daily view count, has prophylactic properties which benefit the talk pages of other articles, and that contributes to building the encyclopedia overall. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nponsense. We don't host A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - we report neutrally on this notable attempt to try to disprove evolution by assembling names of scientists under denialist rhetoric, and explain why such lists are flawed. But then, when it comes to Climate change, we turn around and do host our very own denialist propoganda. I've listed a half-dozen bits of policy that, by the nature of this list, are violated horribly. The only response so far is to claim they're needed for verification purposes, when not one other article in Wikipedia needs to create a denialist WP:QUOTEFARM just to make a damn navigation list. This whole AfD's keep side is one person making a bizarre argument, and when it's criticised, someone else steps in and tries to distract attention by making a mutually incompatible argument. See the Ed Poor thread, or Kim's bizarre claim that the quotes MUST be included for navigational purposes. This is not a good faith attempt to engage with policy. There's a classic essay about these sorts of tactics. If I may e allowed to quote a philosophical text by Harry Frankfurt:
all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. 86.** IP (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Kim's claim that the quotes need to be kept for verification purposes, not navigation purposes. The first reason makes a lot of sense to me; the second would indeed be a bit bizarre, but as far as I'm aware no-one's used it. I copuld of course be wrong about this, but if so, please could we have the diffs. At the moment though I am seeing this as a mischaracterization of the opposing argument. --Merlinme (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are indeed not wrong about that merlinme, that they should be there for navigation purposes is ridiculous. But we do need to verify that the people added really do meet the inclusion criteria. And as mentioned elsewhere, the verification that people really meet the criteria could be in the reference section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside the misrepresentation merlinme points out, you also imply that i (and others) should be a climate change denialist, and i quite frankly find that laughable. You may want to look up where i stand on this issue (hint: its in the exact opposite corner). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86, I very much appreciate the constructive phrasing and restraint against shouting in your last remark. Among the all the delete !votes by various editors there are some vague suggested alternatives, like "merge whatever is good to X". I have seen several instances where that really meant "delete all this crap because nothing is good". So I have a suggestion. How about actually BUILDING an alternative right down to the refs in your userspace sandbox? Then people could actually see what an alternative looks like. I am not saying it would win approval, but it would go a long long way toward persuasion, much farther than mere bashing of the status quo. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate is simple: Throw out all the quotes. They serve as a denialist resource, and have no educational purpose whatsoever. The claims they're needed for verification purposes don't hold the slightest bit of water, since noone has ever - once- been able to point to a single other example of a QP:QUOTFARM being used in this way on Wikipedia. Either the quotes all go, or the article does, but if the quotes don't go, do' expect more AfDs, because you'll still be violating fundamental Wikipedia policy, and yoyu have never provided any coherent argument against the policty quoted, just - well, I don't want to use the philosophical term, as it has a colloquial meaning as well which'll just distract, but that quote I gave before is a definition for it. 86.** IP (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WONDERFUL PROGRESS! Setting aside hyperbole and the Christmas-light-string of policy citations, I think you just said the crux so far as you are concerned is the presence of the quotes, but you could live with the article otherwise. I did not know that until now. So perhaps hyperbole is not the most effective communication technique? Just sayin.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, NAEG, I think that more-or-less every single pro-delete vote has stated the quotes are the core problem. It's also been brought up ont he talk here, here, here, and here. Those quotes aren't going unless the article does, and if you think I'm wrong, prove it. As it stands, all I see is a group of article WP:OWNers, who will do anything to avoid having to bring their article in line with policy. That this hadn't changed after the last two no consensus AfDs is ample reason to believe that this will never change. A no consensus close surely means that more time is being given to address the problems, to see if they'll be resolved; not permission to carry on as before. 86.** IP (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
86, which part of your last remark was a falsehood, (A) the part that says you are respecting me, or (B) the part that calls me an owner who will do anything to get my way? So much for my suggestion you dispense with hyperbole...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, save us the persecution card, and engage with the actual substance. After five AfDs, saying "I didn't know the quotes were the problem!" is not a credible response. But perhaps you meant me specifically, but I've showed you that there have been numerous occasions where I and others have tried to present my viewpoints, but was shouted down by the article WP:OWNers. There are many more, by many people. You'll also notice that everyone who tried to fix the article after the last AfD has left the article now, having seen the futility of engaging with this group. If you have some contrary evidence or actions to point to on your behalf, present that, but drop the "Help, help! I'm being repressed!", please. And please credit me with a little intelligence before trying to act as if my views were some startlingly new opinion, which you had no suspicion of, and therefore, the article should be kept so the views can be dealt with [by dropping them down the memory hole.] If you want to engage with me, fine, but, please, save me the obvious rhetorical traps. 86.** IP (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats untrue too, of course. I never accused you of outright failure to say you could live with the article without the quotes. I only said your hyperbole interfered with your getting that message across to me. Do you use hyperbole on purpose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) A few months is not very long to discuss and improve a long-standing and highly controversial page. I personally believe we've made some progress. 2) We would have made a lot more progress if the people who are so eager to delete the page would spend more time discussing it on the Talk page. If you don't like the current consensus on the format of this article, then try to change the consensus. "everyone who tried to fix the article after the last AfD has left the article": well, I make that two editors: you, and Itsmejudith. Itsmejudith seemed to lose interest. It's somewhat debatable how much you engaged with other editors in an attempt to improve the article, as opposed to lobbying further for it to be deleted.
Three or four "deletionists" diverting their energy into improving the article, on the other hand, would probably be enough to change the current consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer: An example of why I don't find any of the arguments relevant: If the quotes are solely for verification purposes, and this is a navigational list, why the frack would Freeman Dyson be given an 11-sentence-long quotation? (and that's only one example). Even in the most extreme definition of verification possible, the quote wouldn't need to be more than a sentence long, possibly with the occasional bracketed expansion, e.g. "it" might be expanded to "[average global warming]", but that's standard practice. Also, the quote could be put in the references, which removes the WP:NPOV issues. But, no, instead, we get little miniature potted arguments for each name, including a couple cases where a quote was WP:SYNTHesized from two different sources. The arguments to keep just don't hold up: This article is a WP:POVFORK, designed to push a point of view. WP:NPOV is a core policy. If it means anything, a list which has a structure - WP:QUOTEFARM - designed to violate WP:NPOV should be either deleted, or, I suppose, an IAR solution ("Delete unless all quotes are removed within one week"; "merge to Scientific opinion on climate change, etc) might be possible. But this is has been a problem article for years, and it does no good to act as if less extreme measures are possible, since all have been tried. 86.** IP (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) You're ignoring that I've cut down a lot of the quotes since the previous AfD. I also cut down Dyson, however this was reverted because it didn't have consensus. Maybe you should argue to change that consensus? 2) "the quote could be put in the references": we came quite close to doing this. If people feel strongly about it, maybe they should add their voices to that discussion? In general, such a fixable presentation point seems a very weak basis to arguing for Deletion--Merlinme (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the article is the policy-violating WP:QUOTEFARM quotations. The vast majority of article content has no business being on Wikipedia. It wouldn't surprise me if you could find 5% good content in most articles that get deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably said more than enough for one day, but I keep feeling compelled to respond because you keep making falsifiable statements. WP:QUOTEFARM is not a policy, as you imply; it's not even a guideline. It's an essay, and would not normally be enough in itself to argue for a policy based deletion. And, as I've argued many, many times, it's not even clear the article violates WP:QUOTEFARM, which is quite specifically rejects any arbitrary limit on the number of quotes; the essay only argues that quotes should be "pertinent" and in context; they're not in context if: "relevance is not explained anywhere". The pertinence and the context seem pretty clear to me. --Merlinme (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of the quotations, to the level of detail they appear? I could buy that if they were of the minimum length to show the people fit into the categories, but, as they stand, these are full-paragraph arguments. Actually, maybe this will make my views clear: The quotations are arguments, mainly from sources that would be considered unreliable for inclusion of arguments in any mainstream article on the topic, except maybe as examples of arguments used in the context of substantial discussion on the topic in the quote. The lead is not an argument, it's a statement of conclusions, which further fails to actually contain most of the conclusions being argued against in the quotes. 86.** IP (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again though, this is an argument for improvement rather than deletion. I have cut down a lot of the longest quotes, particularly where there were multiple quotes saying very similar things. Consensus to date has been that there needs to be enough of a quote not to misrepresent what is often a highly nuanced position. Of the current quotes, Dyson (in particular) is long. I did have an attempt at shortening it after the last AfD, however it was written as one complete statement, and others have argued that the full context should be kept. If you want to re-open that discussion, feel free.--Merlinme (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly go for a pruning of the quotes, they've grown beyond what is needed for verification purposes, as i've said before.. The quotes should be short, succinct, and only enough to show objectively that the scientist fits the criteria. In other words: Just enough to satisfy WP:V. Any more than that needs to go to the destination article, where an indepth discussion can take place (with possible "debunking"). As for whether the quotes are in the list, or in the reference section, that is entirely an editorial decision... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is premature, as this very issue is being debated on the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but after 5 AfDs, and a major effort at cleanup after AfD #4 by numerous people, which was completely blocked, opening a dialogue really, really isn't enough to say the AfD is premature. This article has deep, fundamental issues. If the ownership has ended, and the article is now open to fixing the policy violations, let's see evidence first, before closing an AfD on the basis of them. 86.** IP (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
whine whine whine instead of integrity integrity integrity. I am having trouble reconciling this latest remark with your solution-seeking comments in the talk thread I just linked to. Over there, you seem to think progress is possible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


break[edit]

Thsee current format violates Wikipedia policy. 86.** IP (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. I do not agree. Q Science (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of those listed, I doubt this article really offends anyone except in their POV, in which case the article is an opportunity to exercise their NPOV intellectual integrity, after which they can work to make valuable input to improving the NPOV quality of the article via the talk page. Let us assume 86 is deeply offended by this article. Assume 86's implied status as a climate hawk is true. Now note that there has been a lot of new climate research since IPCC AR4 in 2007 that has not found its way into our coverage. QUESTION: Why is climate hawk 86 only spending his time being offended by this piece instead of updating the mainstream articles with the loads of further knowledge we have not yet covered? What is the purpose of hyperbole? How much time do the rest of us spend on this instead of improving the main articles? Assuming 86 is the climate hawk he claims to be, does he realize we are not working on those other articles in response to his offended feelings? Does something not quite compute? Uh oh, now I've done it. Bring on the ANI complaint for uncivility..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's much eeasier to spot fundamental violations of Wikipedia policy than to be an expert on climate science. I don't claim epertise, but that doesn't mean I can't identify something horribly, terribly, hideously wrong. (The next bit is a slight exaggeration, to make my point clear.) Your argument is like saying that if there was article on Ancient Greece's descent from the Atlanteans, describing such descent as fact, that anyone who hadn't written scholarly articles on the latest Greek archaeology is clearly only offended, and therefore, we should keep the WP:HOAX. 86.** IP (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alleging "fundamental violations of Wikipedia policy" is easier than being an expert of any kind because no qualifications are required. Just jump up and yell "QUOTEFARM! NPOV! FRINGE!" If you can't get anywhere on the Talk page, go AfD. If at first you fail, try again. And again. And again. And again. Lacking any new arguments, when does this become tendentious? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it gets deleted - its an POV pushing biased article and its continued existence demeans the NPOV of the whole en wikipedia - Youreallycan 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say "WP:VAGUEWAVE"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that well argued statement, Youreallycan.
In the vague hope of keeping things civil, to summarise the positions, I think what NewsAndEventsGuy is trying to say is that if people spent a similar amount of energy to improving climate change coverage in general on Wikipedia compared to the time which they spend trying to delete this article (without having consensus that there is actually a problem that requires deletion), we'd have a far better encyclopedia. Speaking for myself, I could look at Jagged 85 cleanup again, if I didn't have to make dozens of edits defending this article from elimination. 86.*, I believe you're reserving the right to be offended by the article, which is fair enough I guess, but not in itself amazingly helpful at improving the encyclopedia or the article. The AfD process does at least concentrate minds on getting a form of the article which more in the wider community are happy with, but having failed to gain consensus at the last AfD, I'm struggling to see what's been achieved by this AfD that couldn't have been better achieved by getting actively involved in the debate and trying to change consensus on the article Talk page. Putting the quotes in references, for example, is something that might well have passed a few months ago if a few more people had thrown their weight behind it. --Merlinme (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NAEG always prefers to speak for himself, Mer. This is the third time I've said something about how you present my view of a matter in 24 hrs, and I am annoyed. Please let me speak for me, OK? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. My natural instinct is to clarify and try to avoid conflict where possible, but of course I should (and will) let you speak for yourself. --Merlinme (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merlinme, I think you're falsely assuming that I nominated this article for deletion because of its content. I nominated it for deletion because its basic construction violates NPOV policy. To me, the quotefarm is secondary to the non-neutral POV of having a list of actors on one side of a controversy. The quotefarm has developed as a result of the POVFORK, not the other way around. There is no way to clean up this list in a way that would bring it into line with WP:NPOV. Any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK. Flush it, and start over by contributing useful material at the (arguably) neutral articles mentioned above. Q Science, I'm not trying to censor anyone, nor am I particularly offended. Since when does someone have to be offended by something to recognize that it carries a non-neutral POV? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 07:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm, I'm afraid I don't accept this argument. Is the category Holocaust deniers: [6], or the section Holocaust denial#Prominent Holocaust deniers, a POVFORK just because they are lists of actors on one side of a controversy? Surely not. On the specific issue of whether a category would be more appropriate for this information, I think WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is relevant; the main disadvantages of a category in this case would be "2.The entries in categories can't be edited, such as adding references or annotations to them, and the user must go to the article to see these 3.There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion". In this case anyone who added the (highly controversial) category to an obscure scientist wouldn't have to give either a reference or have to justify adding them to the category. On the specific issue of whether the quotes are appropriate in this particular List article, Itsmejudith asked for a second opinion at WikiProject Lists. Here is that second opinion: "I think the inclusion of specific, attributable quotations, not only provides useful context, but provides useful information for the reader as well." Link:[7] --Merlinme (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Holocaust deniers isn't a POVFORK because it's not an article; Holocaust denial#Prominent Holocaust deniers isn't a POVFORK because it's not a standalone article. Making a category seems like a good compromise--I understand some here want quotes included in the article, but that's simply not acceptable under WP:NPOV without presenting the mainstream view alongside it (which quickly becomes like Moon landing conspiracy theories: a truly messy article, but still a neutral one). If a piece about that specific scientists' statement about GW can be sourced and justifiably included in their article, then the category should be added. The categories added to an article must still meet WP:NPOV and WP:V. Mildly MadTC 12:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and navigation lists are equivalent, both have the same purpose. The difference between the two is where the verifiability is located (lists: directly, categories: indirectly). In this particular case a category has existed, but was removed in favour of the list, since BLP is impossible to adhere to on categories... and this is a very sensitive BLP list. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like MM just said, it isn't a POVFORK because it isn't a standalone article, it's a section within a broader article. For the record, I would have no problem with a category (as long as it meets the appropriate criteria for categories), and if navigation is truly the goal, that may actually be a good option. Other than having a navigable list of deniers, what here isn't already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said above. Categories have BLP problems. The quotes are there for verification of the list criteria, and to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to. People seem rather focused on the quotes being in the list, rather than in the reference section - so a good compromise would be to move them - which should render most arguments moot? Right? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK"' - say what? Have you actually read WP:POVFORK? A POV fork is by necessity a split of some existing content into two similar articles with different POV. By your view... any list, no matter if some other content exists is a fork??? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Merlinme and Kim D. Petersen. If "any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK", then what do we do about list of astrologers, list of works on intelligent design (which is mainly a list of authors of such works), list of people in alternative medicine, list of designated terrorist organizations, list of Chinese dissidents, list of opponents of slavery, list of feminists, list of animal rights groups, list of anti-consumerists etc. etc. ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm, if you have no problem with a category, then why would you have a problem with a category which has been expanded into a List article with references added for context and verifiability, which is essentially what we're trying to achieve here? --Merlinme (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that none of those lists provided contain anything like the quotes that this article does. It's the collection of quotes that makes this article in to WP:POVFORK, because the list of quotes effectively is a (mostly) one-sided discussion of arguments against GW, but without the proper neutral context to counterbalance. The more I discuss, the more I think making this article in to a category is the right solution. Mildly MadTC 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i find the list of astrologers rather problematic, since there is no verification that they are categorized correctly, and since astrology is a pseudoscience, there is a large WP:BLP problem with that list (unless of course they are all dead). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mildy Mad: The purpose of citing the other lists was to counter Wilhelm's claim that ""any list of actors on one side of a controversy is necessarily a POVFORK". You are putting forward a quite different argument - one which I think is equally wrong, but for different reasons. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly_Mad, we've been trying to explain why it can't be a category; there would be no references or verifiability that someone actually was a sceptic (which is a potentially libellous BLP claim).
As a matter of curiosity, would you be happy if the quotes were placed in references? --Merlinme (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that labeling someone a Holocaust denier is equally (if not more) "dangerous" to BLP--yet there is no "verification" in that category--I'm not sure what makes this any different. But yes, I would favor having quotes in the references over having them in the article text itself. Mildly MadTC 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Category:Global warming skeptics, but CFD in its wisdom decided that this was too big a POV / BLP problem and deleted it. Many of the people that were in there are now tagged with the far less focused Category:Environmental skepticism. Dragons flight (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{
About moving quotes to refs section, I have little faith talking about it will smoke out any counter arguments. We just gotta try it. I have two things to say about the idea.
(A) I can eagerly back this just to end debate and move ahead. So consider me on board (pending my other thing I will say in a moment). HOWEVER, what is the blame difference? Who cares if the info is over here, or the info is over there? If it is in the article main body or the article refs, it is still there. Overnight I realized I do not know the real reason having it in the text is a problem, but having it in the refs is not. Do people think we are hiding it that way, and therefore are minimizing some sort of feared impact on the reader? Is there a policy based reason the quotes are ok in the refs but not in the main text? This solution seems desirable as a way forward, but it is mighty dubious as a matter of intellectual integrity, unless I am missing something.
(B) I am strongly opposed to ending up with just a list of names because that would take away the context Merlinme has been adding, about the venue of the comments. Any resulting list of names should be split into two groups: (A) those who have published their criticisms in the peer-reviewed professional scientific literature, and (B) those who have just made a personal rantpublished their remarks in common media. Failure to do that would give undue weight to the presumed expert opinions that only made it as far as the Op-ed column of one of Murdoch's newspapers, etc. Hopefully keepers and deleters alike realize there is a big difference between some expert publishing something tangible in the professional lit, and one who uses their "expert" credentials to soapbox on a talkshow, etc. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the quotes included, this article turns in to "here is a list of a bunch of quotes about why GW is wrong", with only minimal neutralizing content (i.e. the very definition of WP:POVFORK), regardless of the intended reason for the quotes being there. Putting the quotes in references, while not ideal, at least shifts the focus of the article to the people, and not their arguments. If you were to read this article unaware of its title, you'd be crazy to say it doesn't have huge POV issues. Mildly MadTC 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying makes no sense. WP:POVFORK is about forking content.... Ie. Without already existing content, it cannot be a fork, so it most certainly isn't "the very definition of POVFORK". What you apparently are commenting about is WP:POV content, which is similar, but not the same. POV can be corrected. As for "if you read this article unaware of its title", is a strange comment, since the whole lead is dedicated to the mainstream view, and explaining what is listed. Most articles will fail such a test (reader "ignores" parts and thus comes to a POV conclusion). We can certainly move the quotes to the ref section (its an editorial decision), and/or expand the lead (and section descriptions) to explain the mainstream even more though, but we can't battle willing ignorance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced putting the quotes in references is a panacea; one reason for this is that I actually think it would make it harder to add context. I imagine all the graphs except the first one would have to go, for example, as their relevance would not be obvious. We have discussed adding further context to the quotes (e.g. giving further details of the mainstream position), however I don't see how this would work with references. I can't off the top of my head think of an example where a reference is given any significant context. However if it would keep the peace then I'd be prepared to give it a go. --Merlinme (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; WP:POV, not WP:POVFORK (struck above). I'll rephrase: this article as it stands now (with the quotes) could just as easily be titled "Criticism of Global Warming", which, while not explicitly prohibited, does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively in the direction of POV content. I would venture that if the POV problem were corrected, the article would look suspiciously like Global warming controversy, ripe for merging the article. I really do like how Holocaust Denial treats the analogous issue: a subsection mentioning some of the most prominent proponents, and a "see also" link to a category. Mildly MadTC 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the CFD for the old "Global warming skeptics" category; I'm not so sure about the category thing anymore. I still stand by my point about the article itself though; a merge in to Global warming controversy seems most appropriate, or at the very least removing the quotes from the article body. Mildly MadTC 17:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to merge is a perfectly reasonable position, but a merge argument is not the same as a delete argument; if you're !voting Delete, on the other hand, then as I understand it you're arguing that the content should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Merging is a valid outcome for AFD; "delete" is not the same as "burn it with fire". Just trying to build a consensus here. Mildly MadTC 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had been assuming that you'd !voted Delete, however I've had a quick look and you actually voted Delete and/ or Merge, so ignore me. --Merlinme (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break as it is difficult to find where to vote by now[edit]

At our present rate we may surpass the record, which is at least 22. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(22nd_nomination) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my delete it is funny how the delete nomination at the top of this page has links for "news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" but each of those is either empty set or... links to this Wikipedia article. This sounds like Wikipedia is acting as the primary source. So my solution is to make sure that each persons' article has the bits in here and then just create a category of Climate science sceptic or whatever makes people happy. That's why we have Categories isn't it ? Fromthehill (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the discussion above about why the Category was deleted? The problem with a category is that it's not directly referenced, making it significantly harder to verify if someone belongs in that category. This is a real BLP problem, especially if you view this as a "denunciation" list as you seem to be saying. I don't view it in those terms- there are some highly respected if somewhat maverick scientists in the list- but the fact remains that this is a sensitive BLP area and referencing and verifiability are important. --Merlinme (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2012 (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.
  1. ^ Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Global Warming's Six Americas, May 2011. New Haven CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication: Yale University and George Mason University. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Category