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. This list has been nominated for deletion on a roughly yearly basis, with the previous five discussions being variously closed as "keep" or "no consensus". I recall that the entire topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions.

In this discussion, the automated count says that 23 editors want to keep the article, and 27 (plus two IPs) want to delete it. That's not a manifest consensus to delete, so I need to determine whether there is a particularly compelling argument for deletion, or whether the "keep" arguments are particularly weak, all in the light of our policies and guidelines.

Reading the arguments presented, many on both sides must be dismissed out of hand, such as "speedy keep because it's the n-th nomination" or "delete because it's a vehicle for shaming people"; these and similar arguments are not based in our policies and guidelines. Even after dismissing these arguments, and those opinions that are mere votes without argument, or that are based only on a position in the underlying scientific or ideological dispute, no clear consensus emerges.

A principal argument for deletion is that the inclusion of some or all of these scientists on this lists is original research and a violation of WP:BLP because, as per the nominator, "none of the BLP,s that I can see have actually stated that they oppose the consensus on AGW". Many "delete" opinions repeat or refer to this argument, or simply assert WP:BLP or WP:NOR violations without further argument. This argument is, at least, not compelling enough that it would override the lack of numerical consensus and mandate the deletion of the article. That's because our policies do not require that we base our articles about the views of living people solely on these people's own statements about their views; rather, within the framework of WP:V, we are allowed (and indeed encouraged) to rely on reliable sources that are independent from the subject of the article. As shown by Binksternet in this discussion, such reliable sources appear to exist about this topic.

Another argument for deletion is that it is original research by synthesis, as there is (in the view of those advancing this argument) no objective criterium for including somebody on this list. This is a much more solid argument, but it too falls short of being compelling: The article's lead contains a relatively thorough set of inclusion criteria, and most "delete" opinions do not make clear (or at least not clear enough to mandate deletion) why those criteria in and of themselves might violate any applicable policies. There are some interesting arguments about this issue, such as those by Noren, but they are not extensively debated or supported by many other participants. To the extent that "delete" opinions argue that the inclusion of any particular individual(s) on this list is problematic, this is evidently a problem that can be solved through the editorial process and also does not mandate the outright deletion of the whole article.

Finally, another serious argument for deletion is that, as formulated by TenOfAllTrades, "these individuals and their opinions should be discussed in context, according to the prominence and importance of their views, in the context of appropriate articles on climate science." In effect, this is an argument that the whole article oversimplifies the matter and gives undue weight to its more or less binary inclusion criterium of agreeing (or not) with what the article describes as the scientific consensus in this matter. While I am personally inclined to find this argument the most convincing, it also does not quite pass the threshold of requiring deletion in the absence of a clear consensus for deletion, because this problem too can conceivably be addressed through the editorial process, e.g. by nuancing and explaining the positions espoused by each of these scientists.

This leads me to conclude that, in the absence of a consensus to delete it, the article must be kept by default again. However, this does not preclude future deletion nominations if the serious concerns about the structure and content of this article, including some of those mentioned above, are not addressed to the satisfaction of most editors. The tenor of the policy-informed opinions in the annual discussions about deleting this list seems to trend towards deletion, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to keep the article to seriously engage with, rather than to simply dismiss, these concerns.  Sandstein  19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is WP:OR, various editors have decided among themselves who ought to be in the list based on what these scientists have said. This is OR, as none of the BLP,s that I can see have actually stated that they oppose the consensus on AGW. As such this list is a BLP violation, as it is ascribing views to BLP,s that they themselves have not actually condoned. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [Note: DS turns out to be a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)][reply]

You are happy with a list article which violates BLP then? I can always gut the article if that would be easier. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a threat to do WP:BATTLE if you don't get your way here. That's not the best way to win consensus.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO, consensus does not override policy, specifically BLP policy. I have removed the BLP OR from the article, all that is left is the lede. Enjoy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What went before is not a policy I know of? How does it override BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care what has gone before. I do know that unless sources are given for each BLP which says they "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" it is a BLP vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great rationale for deletion. It is not obvious to me that this is a BLP violation. If it is then it should be deleted. Instead of wanting everything deleted instantly then consider participating in this AfD discussion. You might be right and thanks for raising the issue in light of new recent discussions at similar articles which give support to what you are doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP vios have to be removed straight away, that is the policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not giving any rationale to why it is a BLP violation, tell me exactly where in WP:BLP that this article directly violates, otherwise I see no reason to delete. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those BLPs have said they "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", none. That is a BLP vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't given me an exact quote from WP:BLP where this article directly violates it. Just saying it violates the BLP policy doesn't mean it does unless you give me proof or some sort of factual evidence. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not getting this? You are ascribing views to BLPs, which they themselves have not stated. That is a BLP vio, similar to BLPCAT in fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm really not understanding your reasoning. If they have stated in some way and is proved by the reliable sources in this article that they don't believe in Global Warming is a BLP vio. It's not like we are shoving words into their mouths. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There my friend is the point. Who decides that what "they have stated in some way" is also their rejecting the consensus? There is the OR, and the BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement." That's how, if you have a problem with that maybe you should have brought it up on the talk page. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the OR, buncha eds figure, these guys fit what we say. Sorry but no, Editors do not get to decide this, sources do. We need the BLPs to actually state "we do not agree with this". Thens the rules. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think then this article is under a larger issue brought upon and should be resolved before we even get close to discussing its deletion don't you think? JayJayWhat did I do? 20:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The three scientists listed under the "GW will have few negative consequences" are all correct. The latter two have sources directly quoted in their Wiki articles and those quotes are accurate, while a cursory examination of three recent articles on the website run by the former (available as an external link in the former's Wiki article) clearly shows he fits the category. That's 4 for 4 on scientists whose positions are not misrepresented in the article in question. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me that's kind of a meaningless comment without a suggested alternative.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that makes this AfD misleading as the article is now pointless without any scientists listed in the article. Perhaps this should have been brought up to WP:BLP/N first!JayJayWhat did I do? 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I posted here. I will make a note at the top of the AfD as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, what extended discussion? Do you think people cannot read diffs? I and one other had commented on the talk page before it was protected, that was it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What extended discussion indeed. The talk page has thirty archive pages for starters. But even if I was talking here (as I did elsewhere) about your lack of discussion and consensus building in this one particular instance, to call what you wrote on the talk page productive discussion wouldn't be very accurate. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Pburka's proposal would violate our guidelines for list criteria by stripping out the current statement of what "mainstream assessment of global warming" means, and would instead leave behind just that naked, ultra-ambiguous phrase. According to the guideline for list criteria we are supposed to reduce ambiguity, not make more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it should be self-evident that any list based on people's opinions about X where X is a complex issue will never be neutral. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because all real scientists are skeptics, and all scientific findings are subject to change, provided there is persuasive evidence. You have to be forever skeptical in order to look for, or notice, paradigm-busing evidence, and doing that is what wins you scientific immortality. It's the holy grail for the eggheads. So no, identification as a "skeptic" would not work. Interestingly, the outright denialists like to call themselves "skeptics" to try to whitewash themselves with this integrity. So that's another reason "skeptic" doesn't work here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) For clarification what are your referring to as a disclaimer?
Incidentally the idea that the list is intended to 'punish' anyone is a bit of a myth. If you've checked out the previous 5 AFDs or the talk page history, you'd know there are plenty of people who want the list because it shows how there are so many scientists opposed to the mainstream consensus which they believe is clearly wrong. In fact, they tend to be the most euthusatic about adding people to the list. (Although there are some who similarly believe the list does punish those on it and therefore argue for removal. And note with my earlier comment I was an am only talking about intentions, not the actual effect of the list.)
Most of those who support the mainstream consensus tend to call for balance and support keeping the list pared down although a number do support keeping the list for a variety of reasons (some may find the list a useful encyclopaedic entry, others may not find it that useful themselves but consider it a valid encyclopaedic topic and it's absence will lead to claims of bias in favour of the mainstream consensus). There may be those who support the mainstream consensus and believe we should keep the list because we need to properly document those who are opposed so people know about them, but it's definitely a rare opinion.
Notably, we tend to get people (obviously opposed to the mainstream consensus) who want to delete the list, not because they believe it punishes anyone on it but because they believe wikipedia is too biased and the list will never include all the people that should be on it or because they dispute the existance of the mainstream consensus (but still don't generally think being on the list punishes anyone, more that not being on the list punishes people).
Edit: I forgot to mention I'm not denying there are plenty of people who support the mainstream consensus but are opposed to the list for various reasons such as the belief it's a POV fork or gives too much credence to a minority viewpoint or that it's unfair to those on it. My main point was solely that there are plenty of people opposed to the mainstream consensus who support the list and feel removing it is censorship etc. As well that there's no evidence that the list is an attempt to punish everyone (regardless of whether it does do that).
Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Heartland Institute and others have produced lists of scientists like this. I understand they included a lot of people without their permission who actually did agree with the consensus, but it does establish that this sort of list is notable. List inclusion criteria govern what a list like this can include in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But these are highly unreliable sources, produced for political reasons. The existence of such things can hardly be expected to influence what we do in an encyclopaedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BLP arguments are lacking specific instances of BLP violations. They cite the policy without demonstrating that the policy is applicable. I see that the quotes are very well sourced, and the opinions very much representative of that person's stance. There are no BLP issues with this list. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of stress has been placed on the quotes, but actually they are problematic because one short quotation is unlikely to sum up the whole position that an individual takes. An independent source would be a much better rationale for inclusion. In some cases, the individual has written a book about their view on climate change, so it would be much better to include a quotation from (or a summary of) a review of that book. It is also essential for BLP purposes to be sure that the individual hasn't changed their opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those things would be even stronger/better, I agree. But nothing you said really negates what I wrote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it intriguing how a IP that has no edits knows so much about WP:OR and WP:BLP. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The really funny thing is that the science-section of the "last report" isn't out yet! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it intriguing that, not being able to answer valid comments, JayJay instead attacks the IP editor with the dynamically allocated IP address. -- 101.119.28.5 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either a list of shame (which would almost fall under WP:G10, but is a blatant BLP violation) or a violation of WP:UNDUE. Dark Sun (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the title, probably the former. Dark Sun (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those who AGF might wish to review "Navigation" at Purpose of Lists in WPNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a restriction of scientists on the other end of the consensus spectrum. If you can find scientists in the "It's worse than we thought" category who are in opposition to one or more of the three main list criteria, then that (or those) scientists should be added to the list. But so far no such scientist has been found. (although Hansen has been close a couple of times). All of the persons on the list are (or should be) well known scientists in opposition to the consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 14:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did WP get the criteria [citation needed]? How do we define consensus when there are dozens of AGW model with varying ranges? If a scientists' model ranges beyond then "consensus" model, how much of a range needs overlap? Is it a 1 sigma overlap, 2 sigma overlap, etc, etc. If the mean is 3 sigma below the consensus but it ranges past the consensus, is it okay? This is a non-scientific list that has no value except either for re-education camp enrollment or shame list or hero list, depending only on politics. It certainly has no scientific value and since we are discussing scientists, I find it disturbing that such a list exists. It's only political. We don't have lists like "scientists who oppose mainstream Higgs Boson theories" and then makeup an unsourceable, original and synthesized criteria for what constitutes a mainstream view. --DHeyward (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria was selected according to the process described at WP:LSC. Lists and categories are basically navigational helps to subsets of information of encyclopedic interest (see WP:LISTPURP#navigation). Scientists sceptical of the consensus, is such information of encyclopedic interest (ie. notable), as attested by the rather large volume of news/sociological papers as well as other lists created on the topic, which isn't the case for for instance Higgs Boson opposition. As for the criteria themselves, they are spelled out in the IPCC WGI summary for policymakers, which is generally (see Scientific opinion on climate change) considered as the scientfic consensus on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the example of editors forming "consensus" for the list. There is a hidden requirement that is neither objective or scientific. If there are hidden criteria, it is a BLP violations and is not a navigational list. It's a scarlet letter list of a hidden agenda. It stifles scientific research, discovery and publication. Because the requirements are not what they appear to be, inclusion in the list is not objective. --DHeyward (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and thanks for pointing to VAGUEWAVE which is precisely what I think of what's been said. The policy has a file size of 162 KB and generates half a megabyte to download. Something more specific is required. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Kim does not speak for me in his assessment of the "main problem people have with this list". Although I voted "keep", I think the categorization is untenable, and a better and more objective sorting would split the list into alpha listed names for those who have expressed their opposition in the professional peer-reviewed science literature, versus those who have jumped on a soapbox via blogs, popmedia, & verbal commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all internal list/article issues to be resolved on the talk-page. In reality though, the split you talk about is uninteresting, since the opposition really isn't coming from PR-lit., the opposition is mainly something that manifests in the political and public arena. --Kim D. Petersen 14:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure its an item for talk, but you brought up the subject of everyone's "main problem" with the page. The never-explained nesting structure of the categories and failure to identify soapbox from professional literature statements are mine. So let's follow your own advice and save the rest for talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agreed. If colleagues would like to pick one or more entries in the list and provide sources that say that the people in question have altered their stance, never said what it was reported they said, have been characterised in a different way by reliable secondary sources, or any other similar point, then 'normal service' would have been resumed: we could review the sources, review the entry or entries and make a consensus decision. If this process continued until we were left with a list with only one or two entries, then I would nominate it for deletion myself. You cannot plead BLP about everybody-at-once without coming up with a single specific case. --Nigelj (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can't even be ignored until it is explained with detailed reasoning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the burden of proof is on those who want to include material, especially when we're talking about BLPs. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is satisfied by citing reliable sources.- MrX 15:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just to be clear, I didn't say that some need to be removed, only that we need to be completely sure that they should all be included. I am always very dubious about lists of living people in controversial areas where the subjects may be included on the basis of one or two quotes. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assume you're working through them, and will soon be able to tell us which ones you're not completely sure about. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about Freeman Dyson or John Christy. In the case of Tim Patterson there is actually more that could be said, assuming that we can use a report in the Guardian. The problem is trying to reduce anyone's views to list format. It's dumbing down. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf seems pretty clear. Also see http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/ --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources. As I said before, there's an academic literature on the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having protected the page, I don't think I should be opining on one side or the other of the argument. It is, of course, incumbent on those wishing to include the material to prove that it passes all tenets on BLP policy. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please just eff off until a decision has been made rather than venturing any opinion on a page you've protected. It is bad enough always having m:the wrong version protected without having them taking sides. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: - By protecting the page in a way that overrides consensus (regardless of whether that consensus needs to be challenged) you have opined. WP:BURDEN says "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Where does it say "if there are sources that were determined to support the material but you don't like the list or something looks amiss, go ahead and skip the whole 'talking about it' thing, blank the content, and lock the article while it's up for deletion?" --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see is. Editors commenting here are clearly commenting on the version of the article linked at the top of the page. I locked the page due to the edit-warring over possible BLP issues but I don't get to choose which version gets locked; if the "full" version had been current at the time that one would have been locked instead. Black Kite (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem???????????????? The problem is that there was a single edit warrior, and you protected that person and their gutting of the article. A better solution would have been to block Darkness Shines for 24 hrs, protect the pre-edit war version, and refer the rest to AE, since this falls under ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I reviewed those two. You really think so few people have looked at this question that it may violate WP:CONLEVEL? And what has WP:FOC 'focus on content not on editor conduct' got to do with this AfD? I'll not enquire about all the rest of the abbreviations but I would point out that scattergunning links like that is not enlightening. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this discussion focused on the article deletion concerns. The editing behavior is another matter. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream" comes straight from WP:FRINGE, with which this article must comply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters is that when page protection expires, the article is restored to its state before DarknessShines commenced edit warring, and that the article then go through AFD and BRD as the arbs envisioned when they issued WP:ARBCC. If our main purpose to to collaborate on building a 'pedia, that is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard all (except those explicitly copied from other sources) lists and categories on wikipedia are WP:OR. Please see WP:LSC which is the guide for what and how lists and the criteria for such lists are created. --Kim D. Petersen 01:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LSC does not help your argument. LSC states that lists that are subjective or likely to be challenged be created from reliable sources. However, the definition of the list is subjective making it impossible to create a list that is not subjective or likely to be challenged. Reading of the talk page shows discussion on how to create the definition of what should be considered, in other words, the definition is Original Research from the beginning. They simply created a definition and then went looking for scientists that fell into that list. Worse than that, they apparently used some scientists as the basis for what the list should be in order that they be included into the list. I don't see anyway to fix this problem, aside from finding some reliable sources that fall upon some generally agreed upon criteria for what is required to be on this list. Ultimately, you still have BLP issues to resolve. WP would be better served to not have these shoehorned attempts as putting people into buckets, especially when those buckets are contentious. Arzel (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The selection criteria are from reliable sources, we even have a whole slew of scientific academies who consider the criteria to be the foundation items of the consensus (Scientific opinion on climate change). And there are reliable sources to establish that each scientist belongs on the list, and not only that, i would dare to claim that each scientist on the list is well-known for their rejection of these consensus items (thus removing the BLP concerns), if you do not believe this to be the case for some scientist, then that person must be removed, until the issue is solved. Your assertion that editors are acting in bad faith with regards to creation of the list, is rather strong, and i would expect that such claims should be handled in via appropriate channels (ANI, RFC on the editors in question, ARBCOM, ...), or they should be dropped as personal attacks, which are not considered appropriate on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen 03:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find your accusation of bad faith insulting. I have looked through the history of the article. The criteria was created without any notion of what any reliable sources might say. In fact the criteria for selection has changed to match up with the IPCC dates. My issue is perfectly valid, in that your criteria for inclusion is a user created construct. That you have a problem with my analysis is not suprising given your history on these pages. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow WP:ARBCC there is a way thru this minefield that is free from anyone taking offense. First, we RFC the issue of notability. If this article/navigation-list survives, the specifics of the listing criteria are a simple debate for BRD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting context for the use of the term POV. The idea that AIDS is caused by HIV infection is a POV?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. A mainstream POV backed with good scientific evidence. Note that it is also falsifiable. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me partially quote from what i wrote in the previous AfD: [This] is a navigation list to tiny minority->fringe positions. It certainly cannot be merged into Scientific opinion on climate change, since the entire point is that they are outside the mainstream, and thus aren't described in the main articles. They are sociologically interesting, either seen from a Pathological science or a Paradigm change viewpoint (depending on your personal view). The concept that it is WP:SYN to check if a quote matches objective inclusion criteria is baffling, since it makes quotes all over Wikipedia suspect (every time you quote someone in an article, you make exactly the same kind of decision: Does this quote/article match the topic at hand). If your problem is that any of the quotes are incorrectly assessed then you should remove that scientist + quote, per WP:BLP - i find this relevant here as well, although the quotes have now moved to the references section, so are not the eyesore (for some) that it was earlier. --Kim D. Petersen 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 100% irrelevant, since virtually none of the listed scientists have published anything on global warming in the professional literature. For those who have (Curry may be one) you could take up this issue on the article talk page. But an argument over a subset of names, even if successful, is not fatal to the list as a whole. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how many are listed that are climate scientists, but it's 100% relevant that the OR and BLP issues that even allowed Curry to be added is a fatal flaw in the arbitrary selection criteria. --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I have no idea how many are listed that are climate scientists" Yes, that was apparent. Instead of vaguewaving or inflating a simple editing issue (Curry), how about studying the sources and names a little bit? At minimum it would help you make a stronger condemnation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the example of editors forming "consensus" for the list. There is a hidden requirement that is neither objective or scientific. If there are hidden criteria, it is a BLP violations and is not a navigational list. It's a scarlet letter list of a hidden agenda. It stifles scientific research, discovery and publication. Because the requirements are not what they appear to be, inclusion in the list is not objective. The condemnation speaks for itself. If outside the criteria only applies to on side, it is inherently biased and scientific or encyclopedic. Mann and Curry are both respected experts, yet the political views of the reviewers makes one a "denier" and the other a deity. It's nonsense and is the reason the list should be deleted. The "consensus" is subject to systemic bias as the link I provided shows. --DHeyward (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(A) All eds can freshen this list at any time, and (B) as for "quite old" quotes, past consensus has been to include people on the basis of remarks made since the prior IPCC assessment report, which technically is AR3 (2000). In a few days the science portion of AR5 (2014) will be released, which means if my understanding of past consensus holds, we will be undertaking a "purge" of comments from before 2007 (and maybe the associated name too). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article title is "List of scientists opposing...". The most generous summary of the actual content would be "List of scientists who once made a statement opposing...", but renaming it honestly like that would only serve to show what nonsense it is. Zerotalk 07:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, there wouldn't be the walled garden that's protected at all costs. The list prefaces the inclusion with a statement that most of the listed person's published work acknowledges the basic premise of AGW. Taking blogs, interviews and/or snippet quotes that contradict what they actually contribute as scientists is a mess of basic violations of WP. In fact, going through the list I found very few that meet the criteria established except for the fact they crossed certain other factions. The dispute between personalities is more notable than than the particular views they hold. Had Kevin Trenberth or Gavin Schmidt lamented aspects of modelling (which they have in interviews and critiques), it's ignored as their body of published work speak more about modelling. All persons doing research on modelling know the models have shortcomings or else they would have stopped working on them. The same is not true for someone like Hendrik Tennekes. This article really has an air of "We have a list of people we want to call deniers, how do we shoehorn them in." It's less about opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of GW, but about disagreements scientists have had with other vocal/public scientists. Albert Einstein once quipped "God doesn't play dice with the world." For that one quote we don't lump him in as fringe Intelligent Design supporter that rejects quantum mechanics. Despite the quote and reticence of accepting a probabilistic scientific theory, his body of work in the field rejects putting him on a fringe list. If we want a navigable list useful for global warming, it should be a general list of climate researchers that have published material related to global warming. --DHeyward (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It suffers from unduly weighting the opinions of those opposed to the science of climate change. It must do this because it is paying attention mostly to the opinions of those few who tilt at windmills. Inasmuch as this article does this, it is a coatrack of sorts for this point of view. Some have called this a WP:POVFORK for that reason, but it's a bit more subtle than that. By having this list which is additionally rather superficially curated, Wikipedia is veering from a mandate of being a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia that pays most attention to the mainstream understanding of topics towards being an encyclopedia of the WP:FRINGE. We include dedicated articles and lists devoted exclusively to exploring fringe theories only when there are specific reliable sources that seriously and independently explore the topic enough so that a neutral article can be written on such a basis. In this case, the somewhat weird characteristics of lists is being exploited to circumvent this principle. If this hadn't been a list but was instead an article entitled, "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", it would have been deleted long ago. Just because it is couched as a list does not, to me, free it from this damning criticism.
  2. It is entirely synthetic which is to say it places a set of arbitrary criteria for list inclusion and then proceeds, in principle if not in practice, to evaluate every statement, comment, or tale of whimsy made by an individual on the basis of the arbitrary criteria. The list is thus created with disparate people who may not only not share the opinion of other included persons, they may actually be at complete odds with each other. What we are creating with this page is a list that gives the impression of a unified, coherent group where there simply isn't one. Additionally, the list treats its subject as though there is some sort of standard by which people's ideas can be categorized as includable for all time (once damned always damned... once saved always saved). Wikipedia is supposed to be a secondary or tertiary source of information. It's not supposed to curate a new and innovative means of classification like this.
  3. To the extent that we list people as being "opposed to mainstream scientific assessment" we are inviting issues of WP:FRINGEBLP. We need to make damn-sure these people are "opposed" to mainstream scientific assessment, but the criteria of an article that said, "we include only scientists who make Shermanesque statements in regards to their acceptance of mainstream scientific assessment" would likely have zero people to list because such a criteria would be too stringent. But there is no reason a more stringent criteria couldn't be the guiding principle of this list. The point is, then, that our malleable set of criteria for including people can easily turn into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. Don't like your officemate? Find a place in an obscure paper he wrote where he said that he expected the global temperature rise to be somewhat short of the IPCC estimates. Now you can plop him down on this page an suddenly he's a "scientist opposing the mainstream scientific assessment for global warming".
  4. In that same vein, we essentially run the risk of the Project Steve fallacy by curating this list... even if we only included names of people who asked explicitly to be included. There is highly questionable encyclopedic purpose for such an accounting in light of the fact that List of scientists accepting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is not a list that would make any sense in producing. How can it be that the WP:FRINGE subject is includable but the obvious corollary non-fringe subject is not includable on Wikipedia? For those strongly in favor of this article, consider how one might go about writing List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution and then ask how Wikipedia might curate a Project Steve as an obvious balance. It becomes clear when thinking just a little bit about the current situation that we are paying too much attention to the opinions in the tails of the distribution. That's not a good editorial policy for a WP:MAINSTREAM WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA.
  5. The concerns over this list being a magnet for WP:BLP violations cannot be overstated. To the aggrieved included person who agrees with the characterization, it is a hit list. To the aggrieved included person who disagrees with the characterization, it is a quotemine. Neither one of these are appropriate ways to treat WP:FRINGEBLP. Note that this list treats each person exclusively on the basis of an estimation of what they have or haven't said about global warming. If a person spent their entire career becoming famous for other things (Freeman Dyson) their inclusion on this list seems somewhat deceptive in the sense that it necessarily cannot give readers a full sense of who the person is or even what the larger context of their particular statement actually is. A list is simply not equipped to handle these nuances... and these nuances are important regardless of whether the subject is evolution denialism, AIDS denialism, thimerosal moral panic, or global warming denialism.
jps (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange a rather long comment, but i will attempt to answer it. But first an observation: You state that people with diametrically opposite views consider the article in favour of their POV. But conclude that it thus isn't neutral???
  1. Translated (what i take away): Fringe/tiny minority positions should not be covered in Wikipedia, not even if handled in the way our policies require. Doesn't matter if it adheres to WP:NPOV, or that two opposing sides consider the list neutral. Someone might read it, and take away a message not in the articles/lists .... Think of the children!
  2. That is how lists are made, according to our guides, see WP:LSC - criteria are chosen to select a subset, but it is not arbitrary, they have to be a) restrictive b) address a notable subset c) adhere to our policies and d) be subject to wikipedia consensus.
  3. Hinges entirely on the view that editors may be incapable of addressing BLP issues. If this is the case, wikipedia should never ever mention persons, anywhere! Your example of a scientist pigeonholed into this list, is contrary to reality and how inclusion is handled.
  4. If you wanted a list of scientists who accepts the consensus .. then that list would contain 96% of all scientists. Which is silly, and would be a meaningless index. And this is addressed in the lede of the list. (just as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE requite it to be).
  5. I will translate this into "I like Freeman Dyson, his stance on this issue is a blemish on his name, i will not have it, thus this the list must go"... Nuances are handled on the biography of the scientists, where indepth discussions can be made. I'm deeply sorry that Dyson holds this view- but to exclude him or ignore his views, just because we don't like it - is not a tenable position.
--Kim D. Petersen 01:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KimDabelsteinPetersen. In answer to your first question, absolutely. I think that in an area as contentious as this, we should not be so cavalier as to think that just because there are two incompatible interpretations of the political benefits of this particular kind of list, therefore the list is neutral. In fact, in this case I take it as evidence of just the opposite.
  1. I believe that WP:FRINGE outlines the appropriate coverage of fringe ideas. I think that in this case the list is in abrogation of the guideline since WP:FRINGE#Independent sources haven't really been found that treat the subject of this list itself (or even the ability to create such a list) in a serious and verifiable fashion.
  2. I think that this is an exploitation of a list creation loophole. WP:LSC was not designed with this kind of polemical conglomeration in mind. It was created with an eye toward ordering well-documented sets of similar items which occasionally requires a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE. I contend this list goes way beyond a simple extrapolation of what others have done before. To be sure, an extremely liberal interpretation of WP:LSC could be taken as an allowance for all sorts of original research in lists. Obviously, I do not think it was the intention of the of "Wikipedia founders" for that to happen.
  3. I think I actually agree with your first senetnce on this point, but I don't fault the editors for their incapacity and instead blame the particular situation we have here and not generally. I do not think any editor at Wikipedia can ever be capable of addressing BLP issues when it comes to the ways in which arbitrary criteria will necessarily be applied here because the criteria are necessarily arbitrary. If there were independent sources that explicitly made the demarcation on who opposed and who didn't (if the list or list criteria could be found elsewhere) then I think the BLP issues could be addressed simply by falling back on the "Wikipedia is a tertiary source" argument. But here, we cannot do that because we have to construct the list on the basis of our own evaluations of who said what and to what ends.
  4. Indeed the fact that such a mirror list is silly is exactly my point. Just because this is addressed in the introduction of this list does not excuse the problem, IMHO.
  5. I don't think that's a very charitable translation. My point is that Freeman Dyson is not predominately known for his global warming denialism and BLP issues of obsessing over fringe beliefs cannot be so easily dismissed as by saying, "oh, we deal with proper weighting of his notability at his biography. Here, we can go to town focusing on this one aspect of some things he said and we're absolved of BLP sins!" I agree with you that according to the list criteria, we shouldn't exclude Freeman Dyson. But this just illustrates, to me, how fraught this list actually is because we are unable to do anything but focus on an extremely narrow aspect of Dyson's public notability. That, to me, smacks of a BLP-violation.
jps (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we should take these discussions elsewhere, I see nothing strange about them. This article is unique, and from many editors perspectives violates numerous content policies in such a way that the only solution is deletion. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erh? If two diametrically opposing views on a subject can agree upon the description of that subject, then that means that it must be a violation of WP:NPOV??? I'm sorry - but my mind is blown now.
  1. So you must be arguing that we are only presenting the mainstream view, and that we should present more of the tiny-minority->fringe views? Since close to 100% of the text in the list is a presentation of the scientific consensus. Somehow i doubt that this is your view.
  2. I think you are making an argument for changing WP:LSC then... mostly on the "i don't like it" tangent.
  3. I think you will find that other lists (non-WP ones) are a super-set of this list. Thus your tertiary argument falls short. (ie. all members of our list is contained within external lists, but we do not include all those in other lists, because they fail or BLP or RS policies).
  4. If you take a look at WP:CSC point 3. You will see that this isn't an invention made on the spur. Short complete lists are encyclopedic, large incomplete ones aren't. The long ones have little information content.
  5. Your argument here is one makes sense on the biography of Dyson. We aren't focusing on Dyson, he is simply here because he matches the inclusion criteria. A list must not take a stance such as the one you are arguing for - since that would be pure WP:POV. You keep referring to WP:FRINGEBLP, but if you actually read that guideline, then you would notice that a list such as this one is adhering completely to that guide ... since we are very specific in describing the mainstream position and making clear that these views are outside of it.
--Kim D. Petersen 05:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously read it, since he revised it shortly before joining us here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kim... I think you're trying to read a principle where I'm simply stating an observation of this case.
  1. Well, the text without the list is mostly mainstream, but the list itself is fringe. It's not the text I have a problem with. Write an article, by all means!
  2. No, I'm making an argument that WP:LSC isn't meant to be used this way.
  3. I would indeed like to know of some other lists that are similar to this one in reliable sources.
  4. Short lists are great, but taking this principle to the extreme would imply that short lists are always keeps and long lists are not made. I think we need a bit more thought, especially when WP:FRINGE enters into the picture.
  5. The list is adhering to the guide because it is not a biography, but I think that this is a bit of a cop-out. We should have a really good reason to focus on the fringe beliefs of people, and I don't see that this argument has been adequately made. We don't have a List of scientists who believe that quantum mechanics is fundamentally information science, which one might (or might not) argue that Dyson is a member.... or any of other of a number of other lists that could be constructed out of more-or-less mainstream, obscure, yet banal scientific opinions of Dyson. I'd note that these lists could be constructed to be as small as you'd like (in reference to the above point). My argument is simply that Wikipedia is overly concerned with Dyson's opinion on this subject through this list's treatment. You could argue that this is sorta OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, but I think that when it comes to BLP we should be sensitive as to how a person is treated throughout the entire website and lacking proper weight throughout Wikipedia is a reasonable concern, I think.
jps (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JPS and WALLOFTEXT remark reading "I think that in this case the list is in abrogation of the guideline since WP:FRINGE#Independent sources haven't really been found that treat the subject of this list itself (or even the ability to create such a list) in a serious and verifiable fashion." This sounds like the oft-debated question of this list's NOTABILITY based on RELIABLE SOURCES. That is a frequent visitor in the article talk pages and past AFDs. I think notability was most recently given extensive debate in the fall of 2012. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that notability is the issue, but rather WP:RS is the issue. The problem is we don't have sources which list. jps (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: BLP is a complete red herring on the question of this useful list. BLP doesn't prohibit saying anything about living people, it just says we should be careful what we say... cwmacdougall 8:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes, adding lots of text (about funding or anything else) would convert this navigation list into an outright article with 'way too much overlap with Global warming controversy, and related articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then i suggest to create a new entry dedicated to funding to undermine the science. (I would not search for Global Warming Controversy, when looking for funding) Nevertheless everybody has a right to know who is responsible for wrecking the planet for us and new generations. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article that is useful to determine who is part of the global climate denial movement; actually, we have at least two: Climate change denial and Global warming controversy. This list isn't an article; it's a bit of scratch work and notepaper that might be used by someone who was planning to write an article on climate change denial. This list isn't a proper encyclopedia article because it fails to exercise useful editorial judgement to put its entries into context. It's an infodump of quotes, rather than a proper narrative and summary of the noteworthy opinions and players in the climate change denial camp. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this point TenOfAllTrades. On second thought i think the content should be included in a dedicated article, rather than having a short list with names. Prokaryotes (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You won't see most of those views in any dedicated article - they are too individual, and WP:WEIGHT constrains us from examining tiny minority->fringe views in our articles. The denial article is about concerted efforts to deny the science, and the controversy article presents (or should present) legitimate controversies. TenOfAllTrades argument about quotes is about the reference section which must contain the verification for the inclusion of an individual. He is entirely correct when he states that it isn't an article... it is not. It is a navigational index to views outside of the mainstream. Which you may be interested in, if you want to know something about Pathological science or perhaps are hoping for a future Paradigm change in knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen 03:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You both make very good points. Though i think it is better to incorporate the topic into the related articles, especially into Climate change denial - this article is way to short in it's current state. I don't like lists in general and think there is no gain other than to brand these people, but everybody who looks up those names will be spammed with all the facts anyway. And even more so as climate change becomes more visible. Which means more people become concerned and find out who has lied to them. The 97% consensus should be the leading argument in this discussion. Prokaryotes (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though my final conclusion is to keep the article unless it's content is incorporated appropriately somewhere else. Prokaryotes (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that, Kim. If the views are too minority and too fringe to be touched on even in the Denial and Controversy articles, then they're probably too minority to collate at all; at best, they would belong in an individual's biographical article—if those views actually represent a significant or notable portion of what the individual is known for. A directory of fringe quotes isn't really what Wikipedia is about; such a thing better belongs at a project designed to be a repository of single-topic primary source quotations, like Wikiquote. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have far too many articles on climate change, too many to manage and monitor properly, with enormous overlap and duplication. So the subject structure should be simplified, but this article is one of the more useful and should be kept. cwmacdougall 23.31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the bar is so low and arbitrary it's one the most problematic. The conflation of scientific arguments with different conclusions with "climate change denial" is the giant chasm this list ignores. It's laughable to have a list that includes Judith Curry and Roger Pielke with William Gray only displays the ignorance of the list maker, not it's validity. Curry is vocal but is well within the scope of the body of knowledge along the same lines as Michael Mann. A list of mainstream but vocal climate scientists that would put Curry with Mann is closer. A list that included Hansen and Gray would be equivalent. There's a third list of scientists smart enough to include a global warming section in their research proposal (i.e. the shark loving marine biologist that only really cares about sharks but realizes there is a shark research job if he includes GW in his proposal. BTW, if you want to know where large research dollars from fossil fuel makers go, it's these tangential research objective that make shark week on discovery but count as AGW research grants.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Nigelj, but still think there is a nonfatal defect in the listing criteria for reasons being discussed at article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are joking. The article starts "This is a list of ..." and then after a while we get a pseudo-heading of "listing criteria" containing such lawyerly phrases as "in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology" (which begs so many question). If you can't state simply and succinctly what this is a list of then that for me is a red flag that this is an "unnatural" topic being constructed as a POV-vehicle. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't introduce battleground language. Why would people trying to explain a long-established and careful consensus be joking? The phrase you chose merely expands what the article means by scientists. We do not say climate scientists, but equally we don't want to list everybody who has a bachelor's degree. Published scientists. --Nigelj (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And so far it has not included political scientists, medical researchers, economists, plumbers, or cookie-bakers, but rather publishing scientists with expertise in the area of the subject matter, i.e., Natural Science. We should probably wikilink that in the article when protection expires. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right so sometimes the field is "relevant" sometimes not - based on confected editorial criteria. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the surveys of scientists that have appeared in the literature (several of which we cite in the climate articles) seemed to think it was appropriate to limit the field of ALL scientists, I fail to see why our following suit is "confected". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outside WP people can design their own elastic criteria and apply them as they wish using their own (presumably competent) judgement. Here, we don't do that. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But when they do a good job, academic journals publish the results and this leads to what we call "reliable sources" --- which emphasize the opinions of scientists in relevant fields, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What academic journal publishes a list arrived at using this article's elastic inclusion criteria then? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking precisely right down to the specific shade of blue underpants the author wore that day, or are you asking if in general RSs do emphasize scientific opinion in relevant fields such as Natural science (like we have done in in this article)? Either way, please review Surveys of scientists' views on climate change and follow the link to sources in my prior notability comment in this AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is instuctive: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change has a succinct and neutral lede & set of inclusion criteria, as opposed to the horror here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be because the surveys article is an ... article ... as opposed to a list, which must present the criteria for the selection of the subset they present in the lede - see WP:LSC. --Kim D. Petersen 12:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish people would be more specific. I guess you mean WP:BLPCAT and think that this is classifying them as criminals without them having being convicted by a court, would that be right? Their own words, notability for this, and third part reliable source assessment is not enough? In fact have we had any complaints about these being painted in a false light or in an offensive way? Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good argument above by Dmcq. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree WP:BLPCAT should not be an issue. Apart from anything else it is unclear whether being in such a list is necessarily negative; I really can't imagine Freeman Dyson (for example) cares, he rather revels in his reputation as a contrarian. Similarly for the others on the list, they have all made recent public statements disputing the consensus, which they would not have done without being fully aware that it was a controversial area. What Wikipedia does or does not report of what they've said makes very little difference.--Merlinme (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was here when Merlin undertook that audit, and I would just like to say how much I appreciated his effort, then and now. That was the opposite of WP:VAGUEWAVE and was appreciated! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very thorough, but looks entirely like original research to me. Better suited to RationalWiki, perhaps. jps (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating; please do show us your lists, or at least one or two names on your "list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment" of these areas. The sources we use say 3% of scientists disagree with the consensus view of global warming, which I would guess is rather more, and more significant scientists, but if, say, the prime number theorem needs more review than I have given it to date, I would like to know... cwmacdougall 22:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we are having this AfD now is that there was a spate of such parallel articles being created. You should note that those !voting delete include a number of us who are regularly active on the fringe theories noticeboard. Not saying that the consensus of that board would be delete, but it certainly has been that in the case of parallel articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them because they are not notable, not because they are lists you don't like. Have secondary sources commented on lists of such people?, not just named a few. They certainly have on the ones here because of commenting on the Heartland Institute list and others. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:BTW good to see that noticeboard keeping up to its usual standards and reporting the AfD neutrally at WP:FTN#List of scientists who disagree with science. ;-)) Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That heading was, of course, in relation to the list of "scientists" disagreeing with the mainstream on thiomersal. You ought to recognise the job that people do keeping our articles on history, archeology, herbal medicine, etc. clear of fringe perspectives. Unless you think we shouldn't have taken action on Astrology... Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD's should be announced on nooticeboards in a neutral manner, they are not for canvassing (see WP:AfD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors). I have said when I'll regard the fringe noticeboard as acceptable and that is when they start putting a notice on the talk page of the articles they are talking about if the discussion on the noticeboard is extended, i.e. beyond simple queries and answers there. They go with preformed opinions as a clique to revamp or delete articles. Besides the title AfD in that link you'll also find this AfD announced by "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming now at AFD, pure OR and a BLP vio to boot." That was placed there by the editor who raised this AfD. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should post that on FTN talk page. Remember that most of the cases raised on the board are are in the territory of people pushing their miracle cures. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did request a line in the noticeboard header to consider putting a notice on the talk pages but the idea was rejected very strongly indeed. They do not want people from articles they are discussing coming along. Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're posting to a listing that includes petitions alongside scholarly articles. That isn't remotely convincing. As I said earlier, there's a scholarly literature on climate change denial. I find it shocking that instead of referring to that literature editors are determined to defend the topic being covered in the form of a simple list, cutting across all the nuances. It's ironic, too, that in defending Science, people are unable to engage with decent social science. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between an article and a navigational list(or index). What is relevant for a list, is that the subset that it navigates you towards is notable - the discussion here establishes the notability of this subset. Many of the views held within this subset are tiny minority->fringe positions, that may be quite nuanced and individual, and which that cannot be discussed in details within our main articles.. but that doesn't make them uninteresting, as the notability of the subset shows. Thus we navigate the interested reader to the biographies where such views from notable scientists can be described. --Kim D. Petersen 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)(edit conflict)I have to say that i'm quite baffled that experienced wikipedia editors appear not to understand the difference between an index for navigational purposes within a topic area, and an indepth article about a topic. Lists are not articles, they serve different purposes. --Kim D. Petersen 15:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of signatories of Oregon Petition, Leipzig Declaration, Heidelberg Appeal would have the benefit of at least being verifiable. But this list is explicitly not that. I don't see how you verify the "opposition" and produce the necessary subset without conducting original research by exploiting a reinterpretation of WP:LSC that, I submit, amounts to nothing more than an unintentional loophole. jps (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lists such as the Oregon petition etc. (but even more discussions of these) show that the subset of scientists who are in opposition are notable. They may also by themselves be notable - and as such carry an article. But once more: This is not an article - it is a navigational list - It is an Index to views - not a description of views. --Kim D. Petersen 15:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Nb. Since WP:LSC is a newer guide than our list - it is rather hard to claim that this list is a "reinterpretation of [it]". --Kim D. Petersen 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm saying that List of signatories of the Oregon Petition is a perfectly fine list. Perhaps... perhaps... you could make an argument for one grand List of signatories of climate change denial petitions and include sections each of which listed the signatories of each petition or declaration. The amalgamation we're discussing, however, is not tied to this transparently verifiable compilation. It requires an additional level of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation to cobble together its navigational aid. That's not the intent of Wikipedia's non-innovative mandate. jps (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)So what you are saying is that lists/categories and navigational templates on Wikipedia must be carbon copies of already existing lists/... - but that is not what our guide on WP:LIST's say. Please see WP:CLN. Indices are an integral part of encyclopedia's - they link together articles - but they are not themselves articles. --Kim D. Petersen 15:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be carbon copies of published lists necessarily, but they must have objective verifiable conditions that aren't novel criteria, which no one has shown this list does (as far as I can tell, the current list's criteria are that the included individual 1) is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, 2) published at least one scientific article, and 3) argued a specific way about a specific aspect of consensus on global warming while using some turn of phrase or argument in context). I think this cautionary principle for any content in Wikipedia is especially important when dealing with living people. If a similar list actually was published by a reliable independent source upon which the listing criteria was based, we certainly wouldn't be here. If the list was curated so that it referred directly to verifiable third-party lists that were published elsewhere, we also wouldn't be here. We've gone beyond the simple "reporting" that Wikipedia is supposed to do and entered into a new universe of generating original content. I understand that you don't see it this way, but given the arbitrariness of the inclusion criteria, I simply cannot see this any other way. jps (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This list does not have novel criteria (they are a subset of the IPCC conclusions - mirrored by numerous scientific academies) - See Scientific opinion on climate change. And it follows WP:LSC and WP:CSC closely. You are making up requirements about lists that doesn't exist in our policies or guidelines. You in essence are arguing for plagiarism. You are also making up requirements that our list doesn't have, such as "turn of phrase" (which would be a BLP violation btw). ... --Kim D. Petersen 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basing the elucidation of what scientific consensus is on the IPCC conclusions is not and never has been the issue with me. The issue is rather that there are three arbitrary conditions. You can reinvigorate them to the particular wording that makes you feel most comfortable, but it is seems clear to me that the stitching together of 1+2+3 (Wikipedia article+scientist demarcation+statements made in conflict with IPCC) = arbitrary criteria that is ONLY found in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are sources that say opposing statements from scientists are more important than those of cookiebakers, and that it is important to distinguish working scientists from people with BS degrees. In other words, there are sources who endorse the 2+3 part of your equation. The part about Wikipedia notability has been a major discussion point in the article talk pages. So far you have just complained that we added 1 to the sourced (2+3). But the purpose of this list is navigation. It makes little sense to "navigate" to info on someone who simply isn't notable.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources don't identify who does or does not qualify as a scientist. Wikipedia contributors made up that set of criteria too. I don't know that there exists a third-party list that we can cross-check of who is and is not a scientist. Additionally, there are sources which indicate that it isn't just scientists that are more important, but specifically climate scientists that are the ones most deserving of having attention to their opinions be paid. Why not make that the arbitrary criteria? The point is, to me, why try to distinguish between different arbitrary criteria at all? Just get rid of this mess of original research. jps (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question of "what defines a scientist" within the context of this list, is one that has been discussed numerous times over its existance, as you should know ... since you yourself was discussing it in 2009[9]. People have different views of what a scientist is, and the current criteria is what consensus has been able to define. Personally i would want it very much tighter - but i respect that consensus hasn't been for it. --Kim D. Petersen 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the consensus was invoked to do this, but that does not mean the criteria is not essentially synthetic. jps (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That says about content in articles "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". It doesn't seem to cover what you are talking about but I think I see what you mean. It is a personal view on your part but we have to respect that as part of consensus as guidelines follow how people work rather than vice versa. Dmcq (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does cover what I'm talking about, but we'll just have to let the closing administrator decide if I'm convincing or you are. jps (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're invoking BLP. Please indicate the section of BLP you're referring to as it is a large policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I mentioned that the "cautionary principle for any content in Wikipedia is especially important when dealing with living people". I think that the principle is elucidated in WP:BLPREMOVE, but I was not intending on invoking the policy itself as I would hope that people would agree with that idea even if WP:BLP is suddenly abandoned. jps (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting enough, this list has always followed WP:BLPREMOVE. If any doubts was/is raised about a particular scientists entry on the list, then the default was/is to remove him/her immediately until such time as such doubts were either confirmed or dissuaded. In fact, to take your earlier example with Freeman Dyson, he has been through several such processes[10], as have many of the other BLPs that are part of the list. I would change my keep to a delete if this hadn't been the case, but it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's not exactly relevant to my point. jps (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are invoking WP:BLPREMOVE as a reason to delete then why is conformance to it irrelevant? Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I invoked it as a place where a principle was elucidated. I did not say delete per the section. jps (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this principle elucidated in a way that is applicable then? Or are you saying you believe a principle of yours is violated but Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't cover the problem properly in your view? Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're asking for. If you think that there shouldn't be a cautionary principle for any content in Wikipedia dealing with living people, you are free to say so. jps (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Copycat Lists It is a strange coincidence that the thimerosal-related copycat list was created by Jinkinson (talk · contribs), who created an article on the youtube channel "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" and is essentially the only editor at our article about the program's creator/producer, Peter Sinclair (climate change activist). He made no effort to defend the thimerosal copycat list at AFD.... so it has at least crossed my mind if the whole point of the copycat list was to whip up a backlash against this one? The answer isn't really important, nor are questions about my assumptions of good faith. The point is that any such list - this one or a copycat list - be evaluated on its own merit, starting with WP:NOTABILITY. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The very first sentences says that they are scientists who have made as little as one comment that "conflicts" (ie. is critical) of a certain view. For a Wikipediam editor to make that judgement call is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at its worse. --Iantresman (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may well disagree, but reality is different, check the archives. And the "conflict" as you call it, is with the base conclusions that the whole science is based upon, which translates into a rather major disagreement. But do give an example of someone having been pigeonholed into the list for some stray commentary - and i'll seriously consider changing my keep to a delete. --Kim D. Petersen 00:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are. Judith Curry is on the list sourced with a statement that the 5 year old assessment before her statement was made is out of date and may overstate the confidence level and that research continues especially for future causes of climate change. Yet she is listed under scientists who believe the cause is unknown. She argues no such thing however. She states the exact same thing as IPCC only with less confidence (i.e. critical of the assessment). Rather, if you examine why she's on the list, you can trace it to when she was criticised for going off the reservation on realclimate.org. Sorry, but that's the reality. There are lots of papers that change the understanding of the climate all the time (i.e. consensus is changed by data) but only those that announce the changes are on the list. There is no reason to have her listed as either saying the cause is unknown or that she disagrees with scientific consensus. It's a "false light" case of association with so-called deniers and sceptics. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think [11] is pretty clear that she considered the cause unknown and that was written in 2012. I think most people would consider as still current unless you can find something saying different from later. Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see she championed Berkeley Earth there as did a number of other skeptics before it came out supporting the IPCC conclusions. I see that after they came out supporting the IPCC she wrote in her blog [12] 'I have made public statements that I am unconvinced by their analysis'. A bit of reverse Bayes probabilities here I think. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears she took issue with a statement that virtually all warming was human induced. Considering AR4 consensus was that they were 90% certain that half the warming was human-caused, I find it troubling that applying consensus would be viewed as skeptical. If the plant warmed 0.8C in the last fifty years, the 90% confidence level is that at least 0.4C is anthropogenic GHGs. Her being sceptical of someone saying they are virtually certain that ALL the warming was anthropogenic is not outside the mainstream scientific viewpoint. Far from it. her taking the view publicly, though, has made her a target. That's not a scientific reason to be on the list. --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with her having an issue with a statement being more certain than the IPCC. The problem I have with it is that before the project she said it might be a good project and afterwards when it supported the IPCC she did not adjust her views in the slightest but still just pointed at her arguments why the 90% certain more than 50% had problems and pointed to her own blogs as a good introduction to the issues around predicting climate change. The Bayes rule reference is the principle if one assigns a probability and then does a test one should adjust ones probabilities accordingly rather than like in the Iraq WMD business start saying oh he must have been even more ingenious than we thought in hiding them as each search failed to find any. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO with sources like [13] it's difficult to argue she doesn't belong on such a list if it exists. It seems clear she does oppose the mainstream assessement whatever else we want to talk about. This doesn't of course mean she's wrong or that she's a bad scientist, it simply means she is opposed to the current mainstream assessment. (Edit: There may be other things she has done which some feel are controversial but I'd prefer not to get in to that because of WP:BLP reasons and I'm not sure if it's going to help this discussion anyway.)
Now the source I provided may not be the best source to use in the article. Over the history of the list, and I've had some involvement, it's become clear we need to be careful who to add to the list and need a strict criteria otherwise people try to add anyone who has said anything which sounds vaguely sceptical. So we ended up concentrating on people who have said things clearly opposed to the mainstream assessement and requiring unambigious statements of this. The source I provided does have a few statements which I think are this but it's complicated since she's talking about AR5 which hasn't been released edit: so there other sources may be better, but the idea she doesn't belong is IMO just sillywrong.
Edit: I should clarify I choose my wording carefully. I'm ambigious as to this list as I was in the AFD which is called the 3rd and as I was in other AFDs where I didn't comment. My main point here is that if we do have such a list, she the sources suggest she belongs on it and has been clear about that. (To give a counter example to Curry, there's Pielke who some people feel belong on it but despite what some people feel is a very sceptical and contrarian stance, history has shown he doesn't appear to have said anything opposed to the mainstream assessement.)
In fact I would say she belong on it much more than quite a number of other people. One of the problems we've had is that too many people want to add those who barely or don't really belong on it, not because they don't oppose the mainstream assessement (well we've had problems with that too) but because their views are not particularly relevant as they are barely scientists and don't appear to have any real understanding of the field. IIRC we settled on requiring no red links (as with many lists) and requiring the person published a paper in the natural sciences which may be the best compromise. But still people like Judith Curry with a significant publishing record in the field are clearly more what people want to see when they belong, than people who have done little in the field.
Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bit I put in about her more recent blog was to show there hasn't been any obvious change in her stance since the cite in 2012, it was not the actual citation itself. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also the link I provided where she is appears to say AR5 is going to be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to closing admin Close with instructions to develop a FAQ explaining how the list is WP:NOTABLE. If that's not possible, then all this goes away. We have periodically tried to actually review sources instead of opining but we haven't managed to stay on topic long enough to get a firm consensus for a FAQ on the point. Once in the talk pages we were discussing this and I wrote ....I took the time to actually look up the relevant guidelines on notability. As I understand it, (A) once a subject is notable it is always notable; (B) notability does depend on sources; but (C) it does not matter if the notability sources are cited in the article itself even though content sources do have to be listed. This seems to be the conclusion from the following:

WP:NNC.... in part saying If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.
WP:NRVE... in part saying The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.
WP:NTEMP.... saying Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

Another editor posted a list of potential RSs to evaluate. We should focus on completing a FAQ over NOTABILITY instead of dealing with every conceivable objection at AFD every few months. If we can't do that, why waste effort responding to regular OR, BLP, SYNTH type arguments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how helpful that is to the present discussion, as I can't find any editors arguing for deletion on the basis of the topic lacking notability. No one has suggested that we should delete our articles on the global warming controversy or on climate change denial, or that these things are not notable.
The fundamental problem with the argument that NewsAndEventsGuy makes above (and raises repeatedly throughout this discussion) is that it misreads WP:N; it's a red herring. The content guideline at WP:N says a bunch of mostly reasonable things about notability of subjects and topics. What WP:N doesn't do is tell us how Wikipedia must organize our information on those subjects, nor does it say that we must retain forever any article created on a notable topic—even when, as with the article at hand here, that material is better covered in other articles, in such a way that it doesn't run into issues with our various core content policies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to indicate the particular sections of the core policies. Otherwise as NewsAndEventsGuy says about statements like tha, it is WP:VAGUEWAVE and more of an indication of how you feel about the article. (Not that that should not be considered in an AfD, a large enough general feeling is still a consensus, in fact I'm very happy to consider arguments that don't even mention guidelines and policies but just outline the thinking). Dmcq (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN is the guide for notability guide for standalone lists. And this list most certainly meets that criteria, since the grouping/set generally is notable. --Kim D. Petersen 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; but sources which satisfy the criteria of WP:LISTN still have to exist. It would help immensely if we were compelled by this AFD closure to focus on the content of proposed sources and try to get a genuine consensus about notability. If the consensus is "yes, notability is met" then that consensus should be documents as FAQ #1. SUch a FAQ would then provide an important home base for subsequent debates at talk/AFD over the other issues. We shouldn't just say "it's obviously notable". We should prove and document it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the selection criteria, the claim of WP:OR (and WP:SYN) hinges on editors deciding whether or not a particular WP:RS matches the criteria. And there might have been some merit to this, if it hadn't been the case that each and every addition of a WP:RS, and information from that reliable source, to any article, involves the exact same kind of decision. We cannot go by secondary sources to decide which secondary sources that should be added to our articles - that would simply end up with all of our articles being plagiarism... This is the research that editors do, and it is not original. As for Synthesis, that is when we combine seperate informations from reliable sources and end up with a novel conclusion. That is not what is happening here either. We do not make conclusions. Finally: Most categories (and a lot of lists) would simply be invalid if this argument had merit. --Kim D. Petersen 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and many of the reasons listed above. This page implies a false dichotomy. Scientist X may oppose the "mainstream scientific assessment" because they think it is overestimating changes whereas Scientist Y may oppose it because they think it is underestimating changes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you see a dichotomy at all? The list is not stating a dichotomy in any way or form... Just that these scientists reject/oppose the mainstream. But your argument on over/under-estimations is in fact wrong, unless the scientists are specific and reject the range specified. And as before just stating policy-shorts is not an argument. --Kim D. Petersen 00:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comment from Thegreyanomaly (22:32, 6 January 2014) is not in agreement with basic scientific understanding. Climate scientist do not judge per opinion. There are scientist who judge wrong but they are not following the scientific process(conclusions are not in agreement with the science at hand), hence are considered in error. Also i don't know of any scientist who opposes the consensus because he thinks it is low balling estimates - not even the list here does it. Prokaryotes (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire article on the consensus. If we cover the consensus we need to cover both sides (hence this article). Prokaryotes (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to have an article on flat earth deniers just because the mainstream is that it is round. Wikipedia does not go in for that type of 'fairness' and 'balance', it just tries to report the sources with due weight. The reason this list is in Wikipedia is because this topic has proven notability in secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But not in reliable secondary sources that we should take any account of. Only in denialist petitions and in a few science blogs that purport to expose denialism. We should cover climate change denial and we should cover it properly, using published work by experts, i.e. academic sociologists and political scientists, summarising their findings in non-list articles where there is a chance of explaining the current state of knowledge. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lists are discussed in reliable secondary sources, that's the basic criterion. Not that the lists themselves are reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if a highly reliable source (A. Scholar) notes that a blog (A. Blogger) keeps a "List of biased journalists", WP has to have a List of biased journalists? Not seen that used as an argument before! Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia articles are supposed to based in the main on secondary sources not the primary sources. They did not just note that a blogger kept a list, that would misrepresenting the facts, so I guess you are trying to stretch the point to get to some basic question. And as to that basic question WP:N is quite clear, if the blogger's list received significant coverage in third party sources then it is notable. In this case it isn't a particular case that is the topic because there have been a number of different but similar lists rather than just one organization putting out a list. Dmcq (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can just check Climate change denial? Which I note is a biased title per WP:POVTITLE, which should be called "Climate change criticism" --Iantresman (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different phenomenon: Climate change denial is about organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus, ususally for political or financial reasons. People still insist, though, that apart from denial there is still some legitimate global warming controversy among scientists. This list is part of that coverage, to provide a navigation list to the scientists who hold the controversial viewpoint. --Nigelj (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The next time you blatantly misrepresent what I have said will result in said post being summarily removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2014 (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.
More