Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 20 July 2014

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public opinion on climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

October 2013 edits

Fluff. Smithery. Run-on. Christmas tree. Too vague. These are opinions, not policies. So too with your claims of weight and synth. But let me clarify my position. I have no problem with you trying to clean up the text and to improve the article. I encourage you to do so. My complaint with your latest changes is the removal of long standing, on topic, properly sourced material. I don't care if you shuffle things about but I do care about you wholesale removing all mention of some existing references. For example, the graphic indicating the percentages of the public which believe scientific research may have been falsified. --174.238.164.64 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You were reverted three times by three different editors which should give you a clear idea where consensus is. I agree with the full changes made by NewsAndEventsGuy. Please explain one by one your disagreements with them or self revert your blanket reversal and edit by parts as he did. Regards. Gaba 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored all my edits, except I have preserved the single specific issue you have identified for discussion, i.e., the graphic based on the (questionable) Rassmussen survey. Repeat.... I first reverted the IP to restore all my edits, and then I put back the Rassmussen Reports poll and graphic (though it may not be formatted the same way).

The Rassmessen Reports poll should be deleted due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. They are the group that grossly flubbed a prediction for a GOP sweep in USA 2012 election by ignoring the numbers. The main guy who was in charge for both of these surveys has been forced out left the firm, and it has been shown that his standard procedure was to only poll cell phone users, which heavily biased those polls in favor of the GOP. Accordingly, this claim is dubious at best and of very little weight, IMO. It should be wasted. But since you want a chance at bat to defend Rassmussen polls as rigorously conducted, and sufficient to meet our test for what wikipedia calls a reliable source, even though (so I'm told) media outlets willing to cite Rassmussen have greatly declined, well.... have at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no need to enter into some debate over whether Rasmussen meets the RS threshold or not. That ship has already sailed: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=www.rasmussenreports.com

I agree that a lot of the rework you have done is an improvement so I am happy to avoiding throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you review the comment archives you will be reminded that you yourself have already acknowledged that the graphic adds value to the article. So from a WEIGHT perspective it seems OK to leave it. This certainly isn't a bloated article where we need to find things to delete. And from a content perspective the graphic itself presents all of the applicable viewpoints according to their weights so there is nothing to complain about there.

As long as you are willing to leave the graphic which had already been discussed previously and included for a year now I'll agree not to quibble further on the rest.

Assuming that we can agree to leave the current version in place I would only point out that the reference for the graphic is currently duplicated. I would fix it to remove the duplication but I am editing from an iPhone and such a complex edit would be difficult. If some else is so inclined could you please clean up this little nit? --174.255.64.234 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have other complaints about my edits other than the graphic, state them now please. You essentially did a WP:ROLLBACK and the original reason was WP:IDONTLIKE. This is your chance to list the tangible reasons for which you originally said "Not an improvement". I will reply on the merits of each, taken separately. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no value to be gained from a point by point review of your modifications. Most of what you have done is, from my perspective, inconsequential "smithery" as you have called it that basically boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. Since I don't care to debate the finer points of your "smithery" I am basically neutral on those changes. You obviously consider them net positive as do some others.

With the prior wholesale removal of content I considered your changes, taken as a whole, to be a net negative to the article and so I said it was not an improvement. I reverted back to the stable version prior to your changes to avoid any concern that I was trying to introduce bias by selective editing. Now, with my primary concern addressed I remain neutral on the value of your other changes and you and others consider them net positive. Given this I am ok to leave well enough alone and move on. --174.252.192.251 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you just said the single point you wish to argue in the "discussion" phase of WP:BRD is whether the Rasmussen survey should stay or go. Is that correct? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was merely trying to move things along to the end of the BRD and thus avoid a long drawn out discussion, but the formality of this response seems to flag that you are placing great significance on moving out of the "discuss" phase of the BRD process. Since it seems important to you that we formally complete the "discuss" phase let me back up. I would also like to discuss any changes that you plan to make beyond simply restoring the graphic. Can you please list any additional changes you plan to make to the article after we move beyond the formal "discuss" phase of BRD? --174.252.192.251 (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears you reverted many edits that you didn't actually find objectionable in order to use them as bargaining chips to keep the Rasmussen survey in. "I agree that a lot of the rework you have done is an improvement.... As long as you are willing to leave the graphic which had already been discussed previously and included for a year now I'll agree not to quibble further on the rest." I'm not interested in playing that game, so you got a formal response. Do you want to debate any of the edits you reverted other than the Rasmussen survey on their own merits? I'm just asking for the second, maybe third time: is the Rasmussen survey the only edit you reverted that you want to debate on its own merits? At WP:DISRUPT it says something about repeated failure to answer simple direct questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I explained my edits. I provided a direct response to every query you made. It appears you want to pick some sort of fight. I decline to oblige you in that. As I have said clearly multiple times I am happy with the article as it currently stands and am ready to move on. That is unless you have additional modifications you wish to propose at this time. --174.255.49.77 (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Suppose I still want to delete the Rasmussen survey? Would that cause you to argue over unrelated edits I made that you reverted? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy

At present the section "Global_warming_controversy#Public_opinion" rattles off results of various surveys, but does not contain text that elaborates on the nature of any controversy. Those survey results belong in this article, not the article about any of the subsidiary "controversies". Besides being not directly related to scope of the "global warming controversy" article, that recitation of survey results adds 14,000 off-topic bytes and ~1700 off-topic words to that article, while ironically pointing to this one as the "main article". To avoid the possible appearance of a POVFORK (whether one exists or not), and to reduce redundancy and/or mis-filing of that text in the wrong article, I propose cutting out Global_warming_controversy#Public_opinion" from that article and merging the text here, where it belongs.

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the title of the Global warming controversy article is that it lends (false) credence to the idea that science behind climate change is, itself, controversial. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a controversial subject, but the underlying science that shows that the climate is changing in unnatural ways is not. The controversy is then what the politicians do to mitigate the worst scenarios and adapt to whatever changes are inevitable. As is now, the article is somewhat confusing because on the one hand it defends the science behind climate change but on the other hand counterpoints that with a public debate on whether climate change is real (it is) or a hoax (which it is not). I feel that the article would be greatly improved by focusing on the political responses to the science and how public opinion is either driving or following political responses to climate change. There should not really be any need to defend the science of climate change, because there are (anyway) already copious Misplaced Pages articles that do that very well.

The focus here should be more on discussing what different governments have done, or not done. Discuss the debate between third world nations who stand to loose most from climate change and the first world nations who will, at least initially, suffer (relatively speaking) less. However, all nations will suffer. For example, the pivotal role of the relatively weak group (economically) has made a profound impact of the debate at the United Nations and, indirectly, on the national dialogue of many first world nations.

Enquire (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• No don't merge. 10stone5 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert

You can't link to another[REDACTED] article as your RS, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated poll information.

From Rassmussen in 2014

2014 Eurobarameter on Climate Change

Autumn Eurobarameter

These are all more up to date than the current information on this page. I would add but others seem to object. Perhaps other could have a try.

--216.36.172.107 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Claims of libel

The content in question is long standing and predates any lawsuit that you claim exists. Clarify how this poll is related to a lawsuit. Clarify how a poll result can be libelous? Who is committing the libel? --184.70.36.178 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, example

1. Said X to media: Mr. Y raped my daughter.
2. Media newscast: X says Y raped X's daughter
3. Poll: Do you think anyone raped X's daughter?
4. Defamation lawsuit filed
5. Statute of limitations would have expired if suit had not been filed

Here the poll essentially measures whether people heard the media broadcast and whether the reputation of "anyone" (code for Mr. Y) was negatively impacted as a result.

Whether libel exists is a legal question, which measures the basis X had to believe the statement was true, and if not, measures X' intent in making the statement anyway.

If the courts say no reasonable basis exists, and the intent was to harm Mr. Y via "defamation", then X is culpable.

Advertising the results of the poll simply compounds the gossip, which might in fact require payment of legal damages.

Mere fact that poll happened after the facts in the case but before the case was filed is rather irrelevant. Misplaced Pages doesn't do gossiping (See WP:BLP and everyone even mildly knowledgeable of Climategate knows claims about Mann's work are central to that media debacle, which this poll is all about.

See Michael_E._Mann#Defamation_lawsuit; He's got (or had) another one against Timothy Ball but I've lost track of that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles