Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:28, 10 October 2011 editSteven J. Anderson (talk | contribs)19,983 edits ewply← Previous edit Revision as of 03:51, 10 October 2011 edit undoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming: fact correctionNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
*'''Keep''' - I'd argue that being "denialist" is hardly ] (and is likely to become even less so as time passes)...but if that's too POV, then simply because this is, in my opinion, an encyclopediatic list, provided ] is stripped out. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - I'd argue that being "denialist" is hardly ] (and is likely to become even less so as time passes)...but if that's too POV, then simply because this is, in my opinion, an encyclopediatic list, provided ] is stripped out. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - The list itself is ] and there's no way for it not to be. No one but a Misplaced Pages editor has ever put together a list like this. Additionally, it's very doubtful that many of these names belong on the list. I see no policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this. --] (]) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - The list itself is ] and there's no way for it not to be. No one but a Misplaced Pages editor has ever put together a list like this. Additionally, it's very doubtful that many of these names belong on the list. I see no policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this. --] (]) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Not so.... see ] ] (]) 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:51, 10 October 2011

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

AfDs for this article:

DRVs for this article:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These positions do not have equal weight, however: According to http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/articles/Anderegg_ClimateConsensus_Report2009.pdf "Based on our external assessment and relative weighing of expert opinion, we conclude that for five questions, the scientific community has reached a de facto consensus (more than 95% agreement) aligned with the view of the IPCC." - if less than 5% of the scientific community hold the poosition, then it is Perfectly reasonable not to spend 25% of our coverage on them, and not at all unbalanced. Your keep argument is therefore in violation of WP:FRINGE. 86.** IP (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I was reading a book about the history of mathematical proof recently. There's an amusing anecdote in this about Italian mathematics in which, for a period, theorems were decided by vote rather than by proof. That is laughable because such matters are not decided by a head-count. In any case, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong - time will tell. The point is that the dissenting opinions are notable and so we should not suppress them. If we record the views of the Flat Earth Society then we can do the same for other contrarians. Warden (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Giving this its own article, particularly with the extensive quoting, is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. As well, the topic is so broad that such a list will inevitably be (and is) synthesis, both because of the grouping of these individuals together under one opinion and because of the interpretations of their primary-source writings. Warden's argument that this article is part of a set actually highlights why this doesn't need to be a separate article: dissent should be covered in the other articles, where it can be properly contextualized. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, but fix any problems Disclaimer: my own POV I have to struggle with is ultraclimatehawk. That said, the fringe views in the article are partially offset by the image in the lead (showing degree of consensus for mainstream view) and the many other (good) articles that cross-ref this one. So what if some % of entries on this page violate WP:OR or WP:FRINGE or WP:(other), IMO, while that may all be true, the article itself serves as an important pressure relief valve for skeptics/denialists. If this article goes away, such editors will more aggressively push to include this type of info in the other climate articles. Maybe its not ideal, and maybe the presentation at present stinks, but the existence of the page serves an important pressure relief purpose IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Pushing their views is not the reason I want the list to remain, and you would know that if you read what I wrote and assumed I was telling the truth. You haven't spent time making other climate articles better, so I'm curious why you care about so much about deleting this particular one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that was why you wanted to, I was explaining why it would be impossible to do what you ask. I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible. 86.** IP (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment—I don't see an intrinsic reason to oppose such a list; challenges to even the most widely-accepted consensus is a vital element of science. But the topic itself is thoroughly covered by the Global warming controversy article, and this list just seems to be repeating the same material. The content should be trimmed to a summary intro and a list of the cited scientists. The article name itself is awkward and should be changed. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Where there is OR remove & discuss it, where there is POV remove & discuss it, but we don't delete whole articles that clearly have an encyclopedic interest. Fix the problem. P.S. love the "attacking global warming" bit, like it cares about this page. 21:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a WP:COATRACK. Any minor opposition can be described in the relevant articles. Nformation 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think Roscelese sums the problems up well - the problems with undue weight and synthesis are essentially insoluable with a list like this. Regarding NewsAndEventsGuy's comments on it having "an important pressure relief purpose", this is hardly a valid reason to retain it. Articles should be created for the benefit of readers, not to act as a sop to contributors unwilling to edit according to the agreed consensus. I know that this is a controversial issue, and I'm well aware that many people hold strong views, but that shouldn't sway our judgement when making decisions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently having OR and WEIGHT issues to it being formatted as a list like this; specifically grouping anyone who has ever expressed any disagreement with any facet of the current consensus on climate change together as a group for listing is a recipe for SYNTH that can't be solve without the deletion of the article. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the mere existence of such an article is not an endorsement of these scientists' position, any more than list of communist parties is an endorsement of communism. The global warming denial movement is notable regardless of its scientific merit, and so are the people behind it. 169.231.54.151 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd argue that being "denialist" is hardly WP:FRINGE (and is likely to become even less so as time passes)...but if that's too POV, then simply because this is, in my opinion, an encyclopediatic list, provided WP:OR is stripped out. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - The list itself is WP:OR and there's no way for it not to be. No one but a Misplaced Pages editor has ever put together a list like this. Additionally, it's very doubtful that many of these names belong on the list. I see no policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Not so.... see NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic