Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 12:54, 10 February 2012 editHut 8.5 (talk | contribs)Administrators62,802 edits r to KimDabelsteinPetersen← Previous edit Revision as of 13:14, 10 February 2012 edit undoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming: cleanup formatting; please use bullets only for your declaration of keep/delete; and simple indenting for back and forth discussionNext edit →
Line 44: Line 44:
*'''Delete''' - a ], a ], has NPOV problems - darn good reasons why people keep renominating this. The fact that a bunch of people like it doesn't seem like a compelling reason for keeping. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - a ], a ], has NPOV problems - darn good reasons why people keep renominating this. The fact that a bunch of people like it doesn't seem like a compelling reason for keeping. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
*''''Delete''': Clearly in violation of basic NPOV policies, and could never be brought within them in anything like its current form. An appalling article, probably the worst thing Misplaced Pages's made. It's had several AfDs which were closed as No Consensus in the hopes that it might be fixable; this only resulted in the ]ers chasing off anyone who was trying to suggest changes, by insisting on endless bureaucracy before any changes. Everyone knows this is a problem article, no reasonable person thinks, after 4 AfDs, that the people who have claimed ]ership will ever allow it to be brought in line with policy unless it's deleted. It's a Quotefarm, meant to push a signgle sifde of the devbate, by presenting arguments from one side in EXTREME detail, while forbidding the other side a response, because it's supposedly "just documenting views". And this is not going to change; it's been in this state since before the first AfD, and is only getting worse as time goes on. When an article violates basic Misplaced Pages policy - NPOV is one of the ] - and its very nature means that it can ''never'' be brought into line with this fundamental Misplaced Pages policy without throwing everything out and starting over, it '''must''' be gotten rid of. ] (]) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *''''Delete''': Clearly in violation of basic NPOV policies, and could never be brought within them in anything like its current form. An appalling article, probably the worst thing Misplaced Pages's made. It's had several AfDs which were closed as No Consensus in the hopes that it might be fixable; this only resulted in the ]ers chasing off anyone who was trying to suggest changes, by insisting on endless bureaucracy before any changes. Everyone knows this is a problem article, no reasonable person thinks, after 4 AfDs, that the people who have claimed ]ership will ever allow it to be brought in line with policy unless it's deleted. It's a Quotefarm, meant to push a signgle sifde of the devbate, by presenting arguments from one side in EXTREME detail, while forbidding the other side a response, because it's supposedly "just documenting views". And this is not going to change; it's been in this state since before the first AfD, and is only getting worse as time goes on. When an article violates basic Misplaced Pages policy - NPOV is one of the ] - and its very nature means that it can ''never'' be brought into line with this fundamental Misplaced Pages policy without throwing everything out and starting over, it '''must''' be gotten rid of. ] (]) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Abuse of process''' - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. ] (]) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *'''(Keep) Abuse of process''' - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. ] (]) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) <small>To facilitate the discussion I added the keep to this comment.] (]) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)</small>
**It had run for a matter of ''hours'' when it was closed. The abuse of process was the premature shutting down, when only the page regulars had a chance to respond. ] (]) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ::It had run for a matter of ''hours'' when it was closed. The abuse of process was the premature shutting down, when only the page regulars had a chance to respond. ] (]) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's not a POV fork; the page clearly states what the consensus position is and how the people on the list are disagreeing with the consensus position. NPOV is defined as: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I don't see how this article takes sides. With specific reference to Undue Weight, the article even uses a graphic to point out in how small a minority the listed scientists are. ] is an essay, not a guideline, and the article is not even in violation of QUOTEFARM, as QUOTEFARM specifically allows as many and as long quotes as are ''pertinent''; in this case, the quotes are no longer than necessary to demonstrate that the person belongs in the list, i.e. the quotes are all pertinent. I also disagree with many of 86.*'s assertions regarding the article "getting worse", being "chased off", etc. I have, for example, cut down the length of some of the quotes, and provided additional context for many of them (although I haven't finished this yet). Have a look at for an indication of how 86.*'s suggestions were discussed on the Talk page; I don't think it's fair to characterize this as being "chased off". It would be more accurate to say that 86.* stopped contributing to the Talk page. --] (]) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Keep''' It's not a POV fork; the page clearly states what the consensus position is and how the people on the list are disagreeing with the consensus position. NPOV is defined as: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I don't see how this article takes sides. With specific reference to Undue Weight, the article even uses a graphic to point out in how small a minority the listed scientists are. ] is an essay, not a guideline, and the article is not even in violation of QUOTEFARM, as QUOTEFARM specifically allows as many and as long quotes as are ''pertinent''; in this case, the quotes are no longer than necessary to demonstrate that the person belongs in the list, i.e. the quotes are all pertinent. I also disagree with many of 86.*'s assertions regarding the article "getting worse", being "chased off", etc. I have, for example, cut down the length of some of the quotes, and provided additional context for many of them (although I haven't finished this yet). Have a look at for an indication of how 86.*'s suggestions were discussed on the Talk page; I don't think it's fair to characterize this as being "chased off". It would be more accurate to say that 86.* stopped contributing to the Talk page. --] (]) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' (5th nominator) - I think 86 just summed up my reasons for nominating better than I did in the nom plate. I just don't see how any reasonable person can construe this article as anything other than a POV fork of ] - in just the same way that an article called, let's say, ] would be an obvious POV fork of ], or ] would be a POV fork of ]. It seems so obvious that this article has gone way off the rails, and yet anyone pointing out that this article has serious, irreconcilable NPOV problems gets shouted down. The heart of my argument is this: ] states: *'''Delete''' (5th nominator) - I think 86 just summed up my reasons for nominating better than I did in the nom plate. I just don't see how any reasonable person can construe this article as anything other than a POV fork of ] - in just the same way that an article called, let's say, ] would be an obvious POV fork of ], or ] would be a POV fork of ]. It seems so obvious that this article has gone way off the rails, and yet anyone pointing out that this article has serious, irreconcilable NPOV problems gets shouted down. The heart of my argument is this: ] states:
::"A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article ''(in this case, ])'', often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. '''POV forks are not permitted in Misplaced Pages.'''" ::"A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article ''(in this case, ])'', often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. '''POV forks are not permitted in Misplaced Pages.'''"
:I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Misplaced Pages. " It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion. What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's '''fundamental policies''' has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions. Do we really even need consensus to delete something that obviously contradicts WP's most basic principles? I would think the very fact that this article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, if anything, would indicate a vote of no confidence from the broader WP community. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">]</font> <font face="Helvetica">(''']''')</font> 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC) :I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Misplaced Pages. " It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion. What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's '''fundamental policies''' has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions. Do we really even need consensus to delete something that obviously contradicts WP's most basic principles? I would think the very fact that this article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, if anything, would indicate a vote of no confidence from the broader WP community. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">]</font> <font face="Helvetica">(''']''')</font> 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC) <s>Further, I'm not saying there is nothing of any value here at all, but that what's useful here can and should be merged into ].
::You are aware that ] is a top-level article, and that it doesn't contain (or has room for) information, that could be considered to be forked off into this article? What you basically are saying is that ] is against fundamental Misplaced Pages policy... You claim that the article is POV, but you do not describe how this is the case, considering that the lede makes it extremely clear what the majority view on climate change is ''and'' that these scientists are in the tiny minority to fringe category. Your examples seem to be advocacy based, but what does this list advocate? --] (]) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::You are aware that ] is a top-level article, and that it doesn't contain (or has room for) information, that could be considered to be forked off into this article? What you basically are saying is that ] is against fundamental Misplaced Pages policy... You claim that the article is POV, but you do not describe how this is the case, considering that the lede makes it extremely clear what the majority view on climate change is ''and'' that these scientists are in the tiny minority to fringe category. Your examples seem to be advocacy based, but what does this list advocate? --] (]) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
<s>:Further, I'm not saying there is nothing of any value here at all, but that what's useful here can and should be merged into ].</s> If something here doesn't belong there, I wonder if it really belongs in the encyclopedia. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">]</font> <font face="Helvetica">(''']''')</font> 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC) :</s>If something here doesn't belong there, I wonder if it really belongs in the encyclopedia. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">]</font> <font face="Helvetica">(''']''')</font> 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::* By arguing for merger, you invalidate your deletion nomination. Please see ] and ], "''proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging''". ] (]) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) :: By arguing for merger, you invalidate your deletion nomination. Please see ] and ], "''proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging''". ] (]) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::You may be right about that, but there's really nothing to see here. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">]</font> <font face="Helvetica">(''']''')</font> 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::::You may be right about that, but there's really nothing to see here. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">]</font> <font face="Helvetica">(''']''')</font> 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' the existence of this article is inherently non-neutral. Anyone who reads it is going to be left with the impression that there is a large body of respectable scientists opposing the main aspects of global warming, giving ] to this tiny minority view. I know that there's a very brief explanation that these people are a tiny minority at the start of the page but that simply isn't going to be enough to counter the impression given by the walls of quotations that follow. ] additionally prohibits ''an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts'' - this article is highlighting the viewpoint that the mainstream understanding of global warming is flawed. The proper, neutral way to cover the topic of the level of support that global warming receives amongst scientists is to have an article which discusses both support and opposition to the idea and gives due weight to each. If we tried to do that here by adding much more discussion of scientists who support global warming then the article would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and start to become something like ], which already exists. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' the existence of this article is inherently non-neutral. Anyone who reads it is going to be left with the impression that there is a large body of respectable scientists opposing the main aspects of global warming, giving ] to this tiny minority view. I know that there's a very brief explanation that these people are a tiny minority at the start of the page but that simply isn't going to be enough to counter the impression given by the walls of quotations that follow. ] additionally prohibits ''an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts'' - this article is highlighting the viewpoint that the mainstream understanding of global warming is flawed. The proper, neutral way to cover the topic of the level of support that global warming receives amongst scientists is to have an article which discusses both support and opposition to the idea and gives due weight to each. If we tried to do that here by adding much more discussion of scientists who support global warming then the article would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and start to become something like ], which already exists. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Line 58: Line 58:
::] says that Misplaced Pages doesn't remove encyclopedic content because people may find it offensive. How is that remotely relevant to NPOV concerns? '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ::] says that Misplaced Pages doesn't remove encyclopedic content because people may find it offensive. How is that remotely relevant to NPOV concerns? '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
*Reluctantly, '''keep'''. I think this list is verging on being a coatrack for crackpottery, and certainly serves to encourage the lunatic fringe on Misplaced Pages. I also think it's bordering on a WP:SYN violation, and certainly we ought to rename it to something closer to NPOV (see the third AfD for reasoning and discussion about this). But we also have to recognise that climate change deniers do exist, and some of them are scientists. It's not completely unreasonable to have a list of those scientists on Misplaced Pages.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *Reluctantly, '''keep'''. I think this list is verging on being a coatrack for crackpottery, and certainly serves to encourage the lunatic fringe on Misplaced Pages. I also think it's bordering on a WP:SYN violation, and certainly we ought to rename it to something closer to NPOV (see the third AfD for reasoning and discussion about this). But we also have to recognise that climate change deniers do exist, and some of them are scientists. It's not completely unreasonable to have a list of those scientists on Misplaced Pages.—] <small>]/]</small> 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:*But the thing to consider is, are they notable ''en masse''? Surely we can note on the scientists' individual articles their stated concerns about global warming, but what are we here saying collectively about such people? I have a hard enough time accepting wiki-categorization on ideology, but this IMO isn't even that, it is just a stance on a scientific matter. ] (]) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ::But the thing to consider is, are they notable ''en masse''? Surely we can note on the scientists' individual articles their stated concerns about global warming, but what are we here saying collectively about such people? I have a hard enough time accepting wiki-categorization on ideology, but this IMO isn't even that, it is just a stance on a scientific matter. ] (]) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::*Oh, I definitely think anthropogenic climate change denial counts as ideology. There are fundamentalists and everything. But on the more substantive point, I don't think they ''are'' notable en masse. I also don't think they need to be. This list is basically navigational: a way to group content that's thematically related, as an aid to researchers.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC) :::Oh, I definitely think anthropogenic climate change denial counts as ideology. There are fundamentalists and everything. But on the more substantive point, I don't think they ''are'' notable en masse. I also don't think they need to be. This list is basically navigational: a way to group content that's thematically related, as an aid to researchers.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' for the reasons I advanced in the previous discussion: The argument that this list constitutes original research is convincing. In the light of ], a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The reference to Misplaced Pages's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this. <p>In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources.Also, as the lead makes clear, the position of the people listed here is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious ] and ] concerns, because it gives undue prominence to the view of a small minority in a very controversial field. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' for the reasons I advanced in the previous discussion: The argument that this list constitutes original research is convincing. In the light of ], a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The reference to Misplaced Pages's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this. <p>In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources.Also, as the lead makes clear, the position of the people listed here is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious ] and ] concerns, because it gives undue prominence to the view of a small minority in a very controversial field. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep, and restrict AfD nominations to one per year'''. These persistent attempts to delete the article are tendentious, tantamount to repeatedly throwing crap on a wall hoping that someday it will stick. It's the same old tired arguments, hashed and rehashed, with no showing that there will be any different result except by exhaustion of the parties. It's an '''abuse of process'''. ~ ] (]) *'''Keep, and restrict AfD nominations to one per year'''. These persistent attempts to delete the article are tendentious, tantamount to repeatedly throwing crap on a wall hoping that someday it will stick. It's the same old tired arguments, hashed and rehashed, with no showing that there will be any different result except by exhaustion of the parties. It's an '''abuse of process'''. ~ ] (])
*'''Strong Keep''' we're apparently once again back to the invalid POV-fork argument. ] of ''what'' content? POV fork is not just a term to throw around, they have characteristics, none of which this list falls under. The ] claim is an argument that calls for ] not deletion. Basically this is a ] AfD. What should be considered is ] and nothing else, and to claim that the topic-area (sceptical scientists) that the list covers isn't notable, is to me rather strange. --] (]) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' we're apparently once again back to the invalid POV-fork argument. ] of ''what'' content? POV fork is not just a term to throw around, they have characteristics, none of which this list falls under. The ] claim is an argument that calls for ] not deletion. Basically this is a ] AfD. What should be considered is ] and nothing else, and to claim that the topic-area (sceptical scientists) that the list covers isn't notable, is to me rather strange. --] (]) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
**Your argument would be far more believvable if it wasn't in exactly the same state as it was before every previous AfD closed with it being given another chance. If this article WAS fixable, the dozens of people who have tried would have. It's not. It's unrepairable garbage, which, if this is closed any other way than delete, will just need to be AfD'd again after a certain amount of time, in a further attempt to get rid of the biggest violation of policy on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::Your argument would be far more believvable if it wasn't in exactly the same state as it was before every previous AfD closed with it being given another chance. If this article WAS fixable, the dozens of people who have tried would have. It's not. It's unrepairable garbage, which, if this is closed any other way than delete, will just need to be AfD'd again after a certain amount of time, in a further attempt to get rid of the biggest violation of policy on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::: (laughing) Check your facts, please 86. The article has been edited this very evening, in an attempt to make the article comply with ] even better than it did before. ] (]) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::: (laughing) Check your facts, please 86. The article has been edited this very evening, in an attempt to make the article comply with ] even better than it did before. ] (]) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::::'''The edits fail to engage with any of the primary problems, and my point stands, despite deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic'''. The quotations contain a host of allegations, speculations, false facts, and fringe theories; the content of these is not engaged with in any way, and the mainstream view's response to these fringe theories does not appear. The quotations are the problem, a couple copyedits to the lead do nothing to fix that. ] (]) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::::'''The edits fail to engage with any of the primary problems, and my point stands, despite deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic'''. The quotations contain a host of allegations, speculations, false facts, and fringe theories; the content of these is not engaged with in any way, and the mainstream view's response to these fringe theories does not appear. The quotations are the problem, a couple copyedits to the lead do nothing to fix that. ] (]) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
**Hmmm? Besides what NAEG says: If i check the talk-page, then what i find is a very active discussion on improvement, an RfC just closed with such (unfortunately with no consensus), so i cannot see that your assertion even remotely relates to reality. But you do make a good point for ]. --] (]) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC) :::::Hmmm? Besides what NAEG says: If i check the talk-page, then what i find is a very active discussion on improvement, an RfC just closed with such (unfortunately with no consensus), so i cannot see that your assertion even remotely relates to reality. But you do make a good point for ]. --] (]) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::Utter nonsense. You don't get to put in quotes promoting specific fringe theories, and claim that there's no need to even discuss those fringe theories. A reasonable article using those quotes would need to be four times longer in order to put the quotes in the context ''''required''' by ], but because it's such a massive ], and almost every quote has these sorts of problems, it'd be unreadable then. The quotes, in these massive blocks, have no encyclopedic use on Misplaced Pages, and thus the article is merely one big ]. The discussion cannot bring the article in line with policy, it's outside of policy ''by its very design''. ] (]) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::::::Utter nonsense. You don't get to put in quotes promoting specific fringe theories, and claim that there's no need to even discuss those fringe theories. A reasonable article using those quotes would need to be four times longer in order to put the quotes in the context ''''required''' by ], but because it's such a massive ], and almost every quote has these sorts of problems, it'd be unreadable then. The quotes, in these massive blocks, have no encyclopedic use on Misplaced Pages, and thus the article is merely one big ]. The discussion cannot bring the article in line with policy, it's outside of policy ''by its very design''. ] (]) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}}No, it is not ''"utter nonsense"''. I suggest that you sit down and read ] again. When covering topics that are inherently tiny minority to fringe, we do not debunk things ''per line'' (which makes it unreadable), what we must do instead, is to make it abundantly clear to the reader as soon as possible that these views are tiny minority->fringe, and that is certainly what this list does. The entire lede is nothing but such a description. The specific section in WP:NPOV covering this is ] second paragraph. (I refer you to ]'s comment regarding "quotefarm" above) --] (]) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC) :::::::{{ec}}No, it is not ''"utter nonsense"''. I suggest that you sit down and read ] again. When covering topics that are inherently tiny minority to fringe, we do not debunk things ''per line'' (which makes it unreadable), what we must do instead, is to make it abundantly clear to the reader as soon as possible that these views are tiny minority->fringe, and that is certainly what this list does. The entire lede is nothing but such a description. The specific section in WP:NPOV covering this is ] second paragraph. (I refer you to ]'s comment regarding "quotefarm" above) --] (]) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
*I'm going to have to say '''delete'''. This list seems rather pointless, and not very encyclopedic. Plus as others before brought up, there are some POV issues with this list too. ] (]) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC) *I'm going to have to say '''delete'''. This list seems rather pointless, and not very encyclopedic. Plus as others before brought up, there are some POV issues with this list too. ] (]) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
*:The point of the article is to be a navigation list that directs the reader to minority->fringe viewpoints on global warming. The reason that such a list is necessary is (amongst others) that views that are tiny minority to fringe cannot (per ]) be covered in the main articles about the topic. --] (]) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::The point of the article is to be a navigation list that directs the reader to minority->fringe viewpoints on global warming. The reason that such a list is necessary is (amongst others) that views that are tiny minority to fringe cannot (per ]) be covered in the main articles about the topic. --] (]) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
**:You do NOT need unchallenged tiny-minority fringe claims in an endless ] in order to allow navigation. ] requires that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This article doesn't do that, since it just lets the proponents of the fringe views say whatever the hell they want, unchallenged. ] (]) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC) :::You do NOT need unchallenged tiny-minority fringe claims in an endless ] in order to allow navigation. ] requires that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This article doesn't do that, since it just lets the proponents of the fringe views say whatever the hell they want, unchallenged. ] (]) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
**::You are repeating yourself. The quotes are there for ] purposes against the list criteria. And <u>the majority view is ''explicitly'' described in the lead</u>, if need be it can be described even further if anyone is in doubt... A reader cannot be in doubt that these are tiny minority->fringe viewpoints. What you appear to want, is not an NPOV description - but a debunking - but that would definitively not be NPOV (nor would it be encyclopaedic). --] (]) 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::::You are repeating yourself. The quotes are there for ] purposes against the list criteria. And <u>the majority view is ''explicitly'' described in the lead</u>, if need be it can be described even further if anyone is in doubt... A reader cannot be in doubt that these are tiny minority->fringe viewpoints. What you appear to want, is not an NPOV description - but a debunking - but that would definitively not be NPOV (nor would it be encyclopaedic). --] (]) 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
⚫ ***'''No other article on Misplaced Pages uses massive ]s for supposed "verificaion" purposes.''' As well, the specific claims need discussed. That's what policy says. The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are. The majority view ''about the claims actually made in the article'' is the one that needs discussed. Example: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future." - the mainstream view on sea-level rise '''isn't even mentioned outside of this quote'''. "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural." - is the majority view discussed in enough detail to put that in context? '''not in the least'''. And the same could be said about claims in most of the quotes, which challenge aspects of the mainstream which are '''not described at all outside of the denialist quotefarm'''. A quick summary:
<small>This is a breakout of an extended dialogue between editors who previously declared their keep/delete opinion. Please add additional !votes after this section.] (]) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
----
</small>
⚫ '''No other article on Misplaced Pages uses massive ]s for supposed "verificaion" purposes.''' As well, the specific claims need discussed. That's what policy says. The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are. The majority view ''about the claims actually made in the article'' is the one that needs discussed. Example: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future." - the mainstream view on sea-level rise '''isn't even mentioned outside of this quote'''. "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural." - is the majority view discussed in enough detail to put that in context? '''not in the least'''. And the same could be said about claims in most of the quotes, which challenge aspects of the mainstream which are '''not described at all outside of the denialist quotefarm'''. A quick summary of

'''Parts of ] violated by this article:''' '''Parts of ] violated by this article:'''
* "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight." - this article includes mainly non-climate-scientists. * "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight." - this article includes mainly non-climate-scientists.
Line 102: Line 105:
:Third point: Erh? The context here <u>is</u> that these quotes and scientists are in the tiny minority->fringe category. That is what the whole list is about, and what we use the <u>entire lead</u> to describe! We can certainly add more, but saying that we do not contextualize is utter nonsense. :Third point: Erh? The context here <u>is</u> that these quotes and scientists are in the tiny minority->fringe category. That is what the whole list is about, and what we use the <u>entire lead</u> to describe! We can certainly add more, but saying that we do not contextualize is utter nonsense.
:Fourth point: Again, the entire premise of the list, is that these are tiny minory->fringe views. So to state (again) that they aren't, contextualized, and described as minority->fringe is (again) nonsense. --] (]) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC) :Fourth point: Again, the entire premise of the list, is that these are tiny minory->fringe views. So to state (again) that they aren't, contextualized, and described as minority->fringe is (again) nonsense. --] (]) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}

*'''strong keep''' per ]. The subject is notable and encycopedic and supported by reliable sources ] (]) 09:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC) *'''strong keep''' per ]. The subject is notable and encycopedic and supported by reliable sources ] (]) 09:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:14, 10 February 2012

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 February 1. The result of the deletion review was Overturn and reopen.
For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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 article is an inherently non-neutral WP:POVFORK with several problems related to WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE and other issues. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Changed to delete per the reasoning of the below commentary. Upon further investigation, the article does read very much like a POV fork.--WaltCip (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
POV fork of what? Where is the article, subset of an article, or list that this is a POV rewrite of? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah let's get rid of that non-consensus galileo bastard as well. Obviously science is a vote not a process. Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – Misplaced Pages notability ≠ scientific importance. Article has sufficient notability per Misplaced Pages standard. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is part of the problem the title of this list? It gives a characterization that is too strong for some of the scientists on the list. "List of scientists questioning the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" would be more accurate. "List of scientists who are climate-change skeptics" has the additional advantage of being much shorter.  --Lambiam 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hurrah, a positive suggestion Greglocock (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and Comment This (edit) is "could be" a "hit list". It is possible that such articles are not neutral in point of view in general. Such articles may/could do little more then single people/persons out as possible targets for any number of abuses. Perhaps such lists require a policy review and amendment by the Wiki. in my opinion. That the article has been nominated for numerous deletions is an indication of an inherently flaw in the deletion process requiring perhaps administrative oversight or it is very likely we will review it yet, again. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
See my speedy-delete policy proposal at the village pump. Specifically, I am proposing that any renom in under 6 months must set forth a new argument or it can be SK'd, but any renom based on a new argument would always be OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - a WP:QUOTEFARM, a WP:POVFORK, has NPOV problems - darn good reasons why people keep renominating this. The fact that a bunch of people like it doesn't seem like a compelling reason for keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Delete: Clearly in violation of basic NPOV policies, and could never be brought within them in anything like its current form. An appalling article, probably the worst thing Misplaced Pages's made. It's had several AfDs which were closed as No Consensus in the hopes that it might be fixable; this only resulted in the WP:OWNers chasing off anyone who was trying to suggest changes, by insisting on endless bureaucracy before any changes. Everyone knows this is a problem article, no reasonable person thinks, after 4 AfDs, that the people who have claimed WP:OWNership will ever allow it to be brought in line with policy unless it's deleted. It's a Quotefarm, meant to push a signgle sifde of the devbate, by presenting arguments from one side in EXTREME detail, while forbidding the other side a response, because it's supposedly "just documenting views". And this is not going to change; it's been in this state since before the first AfD, and is only getting worse as time goes on. When an article violates basic Misplaced Pages policy - NPOV is one of the five pillars - and its very nature means that it can never be brought into line with this fundamental Misplaced Pages policy without throwing everything out and starting over, it must be gotten rid of. 86.** IP (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (Keep) Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) To facilitate the discussion I added the keep to this comment.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It had run for a matter of hours when it was closed. The abuse of process was the premature shutting down, when only the page regulars had a chance to respond. 86.** IP (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a POV fork; the page clearly states what the consensus position is and how the people on the list are disagreeing with the consensus position. NPOV is defined as: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." I don't see how this article takes sides. With specific reference to Undue Weight, the article even uses a graphic to point out in how small a minority the listed scientists are. WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, not a guideline, and the article is not even in violation of QUOTEFARM, as QUOTEFARM specifically allows as many and as long quotes as are pertinent; in this case, the quotes are no longer than necessary to demonstrate that the person belongs in the list, i.e. the quotes are all pertinent. I also disagree with many of 86.*'s assertions regarding the article "getting worse", being "chased off", etc. I have, for example, cut down the length of some of the quotes, and provided additional context for many of them (although I haven't finished this yet). Have a look at for an indication of how 86.*'s suggestions were discussed on the Talk page; I don't think it's fair to characterize this as being "chased off". It would be more accurate to say that 86.* stopped contributing to the Talk page. --Merlinme (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete (5th nominator) - I think 86 just summed up my reasons for nominating better than I did in the nom plate. I just don't see how any reasonable person can construe this article as anything other than a POV fork of Global warming - in just the same way that an article called, let's say, List of reasons to vote for Mitt Romney would be an obvious POV fork of Mitt Romney, or List of critics that gave Moneyball a negative review would be a POV fork of Moneyball (film). It seems so obvious that this article has gone way off the rails, and yet anyone pointing out that this article has serious, irreconcilable NPOV problems gets shouted down. The heart of my argument is this: WP:NPOV#Point of view forks states:
"A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article (in this case, Global warming), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Misplaced Pages."
I see no room for ambiguity in the fact that Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality, one of our most basic guiding principles, states "POV forks are not permitted in Misplaced Pages. " It's not just something to be considered and argued about for months on end. It's grounds for deletion. What I don't understand is how the wide variance between this article and WP's fundamental policies has evaded several editors and a few admins in these deletion discussions. Do we really even need consensus to delete something that obviously contradicts WP's most basic principles? I would think the very fact that this article has been nominated for deletion 5 times, if anything, would indicate a vote of no confidence from the broader WP community. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Further, I'm not saying there is nothing of any value here at all, but that what's useful here can and should be merged into Global warming.
You are aware that Global warming is a top-level article, and that it doesn't contain (or has room for) information, that could be considered to be forked off into this article? What you basically are saying is that WP:Splitting is against fundamental Misplaced Pages policy... You claim that the article is POV, but you do not describe how this is the case, considering that the lede makes it extremely clear what the majority view on climate change is and that these scientists are in the tiny minority to fringe category. Your examples seem to be advocacy based, but what does this list advocate? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If something here doesn't belong there, I wonder if it really belongs in the encyclopedia. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
By arguing for merger, you invalidate your deletion nomination. Please see WP:MAD and WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You may be right about that, but there's really nothing to see here. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete the existence of this article is inherently non-neutral. Anyone who reads it is going to be left with the impression that there is a large body of respectable scientists opposing the main aspects of global warming, giving undue weight to this tiny minority view. I know that there's a very brief explanation that these people are a tiny minority at the start of the page but that simply isn't going to be enough to counter the impression given by the walls of quotations that follow. WP:POVFORK additionally prohibits an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts - this article is highlighting the viewpoint that the mainstream understanding of global warming is flawed. The proper, neutral way to cover the topic of the level of support that global warming receives amongst scientists is to have an article which discusses both support and opposition to the idea and gives due weight to each. If we tried to do that here by adding much more discussion of scientists who support global warming then the article would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and start to become something like Scientific opinion on climate change, which already exists. Hut 8.5 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep It is our policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Warden (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR says that Misplaced Pages doesn't remove encyclopedic content because people may find it offensive. How is that remotely relevant to NPOV concerns? Hut 8.5 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, keep. I think this list is verging on being a coatrack for crackpottery, and certainly serves to encourage the lunatic fringe on Misplaced Pages. I also think it's bordering on a WP:SYN violation, and certainly we ought to rename it to something closer to NPOV (see the third AfD for reasoning and discussion about this). But we also have to recognise that climate change deniers do exist, and some of them are scientists. It's not completely unreasonable to have a list of those scientists on Misplaced Pages.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
But the thing to consider is, are they notable en masse? Surely we can note on the scientists' individual articles their stated concerns about global warming, but what are we here saying collectively about such people? I have a hard enough time accepting wiki-categorization on ideology, but this IMO isn't even that, it is just a stance on a scientific matter. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely think anthropogenic climate change denial counts as ideology. There are fundamentalists and everything. But on the more substantive point, I don't think they are notable en masse. I also don't think they need to be. This list is basically navigational: a way to group content that's thematically related, as an aid to researchers.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons I advanced in the previous discussion: The argument that this list constitutes original research is convincing. In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The reference to Misplaced Pages's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this.

    In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources.Also, as the lead makes clear, the position of the people listed here is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious WP:FRINGE and WP:POVFORK concerns, because it gives undue prominence to the view of a small minority in a very controversial field.  Sandstein  19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, and restrict AfD nominations to one per year. These persistent attempts to delete the article are tendentious, tantamount to repeatedly throwing crap on a wall hoping that someday it will stick. It's the same old tired arguments, hashed and rehashed, with no showing that there will be any different result except by exhaustion of the parties. It's an abuse of process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
  • Strong Keep we're apparently once again back to the invalid POV-fork argument. WP:POVFORK of what content? POV fork is not just a term to throw around, they have characteristics, none of which this list falls under. The WP:POV claim is an argument that calls for WP:SOFIXIT not deletion. Basically this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT AfD. What should be considered is notability and nothing else, and to claim that the topic-area (sceptical scientists) that the list covers isn't notable, is to me rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Your argument would be far more believvable if it wasn't in exactly the same state as it was before every previous AfD closed with it being given another chance. If this article WAS fixable, the dozens of people who have tried would have. It's not. It's unrepairable garbage, which, if this is closed any other way than delete, will just need to be AfD'd again after a certain amount of time, in a further attempt to get rid of the biggest violation of policy on Misplaced Pages. 86.** IP (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
(laughing) Check your facts, please 86. The article has been edited this very evening, in an attempt to make the article comply with WP:FRINGE even better than it did before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The edits fail to engage with any of the primary problems, and my point stands, despite deckchairs being rearranged on the Titanic. The quotations contain a host of allegations, speculations, false facts, and fringe theories; the content of these is not engaged with in any way, and the mainstream view's response to these fringe theories does not appear. The quotations are the problem, a couple copyedits to the lead do nothing to fix that. 86.** IP (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm? Besides what NAEG says: If i check the talk-page, then what i find is a very active discussion on improvement, an RfC just closed with such (unfortunately with no consensus), so i cannot see that your assertion even remotely relates to reality. But you do make a good point for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. You don't get to put in quotes promoting specific fringe theories, and claim that there's no need to even discuss those fringe theories. A reasonable article using those quotes would need to be four times longer in order to put the quotes in the context 'required by WP:FRINGE, but because it's such a massive WP:QUOTEFARM, and almost every quote has these sorts of problems, it'd be unreadable then. The quotes, in these massive blocks, have no encyclopedic use on Misplaced Pages, and thus the article is merely one big WP:POVPUSH. The discussion cannot bring the article in line with policy, it's outside of policy by its very design. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, it is not "utter nonsense". I suggest that you sit down and read WP:DUE again. When covering topics that are inherently tiny minority to fringe, we do not debunk things per line (which makes it unreadable), what we must do instead, is to make it abundantly clear to the reader as soon as possible that these views are tiny minority->fringe, and that is certainly what this list does. The entire lede is nothing but such a description. The specific section in WP:NPOV covering this is WP:DUE second paragraph. (I refer you to User:merlinme's comment regarding "quotefarm" above) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The point of the article is to be a navigation list that directs the reader to minority->fringe viewpoints on global warming. The reason that such a list is necessary is (amongst others) that views that are tiny minority to fringe cannot (per WP:UNDUE) be covered in the main articles about the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You do NOT need unchallenged tiny-minority fringe claims in an endless WP:QUOTEFARM in order to allow navigation. WP:UNDUE requires that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This article doesn't do that, since it just lets the proponents of the fringe views say whatever the hell they want, unchallenged. 86.** IP (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. The quotes are there for verification purposes against the list criteria. And the majority view is explicitly described in the lead, if need be it can be described even further if anyone is in doubt... A reader cannot be in doubt that these are tiny minority->fringe viewpoints. What you appear to want, is not an NPOV description - but a debunking - but that would definitively not be NPOV (nor would it be encyclopaedic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Parts of WP:FRINGE violated by this article:

  • "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight." - this article includes mainly non-climate-scientists.
  • "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Misplaced Pages." - these are just random quotes that someone on Misplaced Pages thinks denies global warming. There is no test to show that the specific fringe views in the quotes are at all notable.
  • Misplaced Pages:FRINGE#Quotations is completely violated.
    • "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject." - Completely and utterly violated by this article
  • [After an example that's basically representative of every quote in this article: "Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the lead or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point-of-view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all."

WP:NPOV/FAQ

  • The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

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

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

"There is no test to show that the specific fringe views in the quotes are at all notable." I would have thought it would be relatively easy to show that variations of the arguments used in the quotes are all used in secondary sources discussing climate change. I'm not entirely sure what the point would be, or whether it would make the list article better, and it might be tricky to agree how to briefly demonstrate that these are notable positions; would this in fact give what are minority positions more apparent respectability? But this could be done, if it's really felt to be worthwhile.
"The majority view isn't described in any sort of depth, only the minority views are." The majority view is described, in detail, in the lead. There is a case to be made for adding more context to individual sections, possibly even individual quotes. We were involved in a discussion on this when you reverted to attempting to get the page deleted on Jimbo's page. If you spent half the energy improving the article you spent trying to delete it, we would end up with a better article.
"No other article on Misplaced Pages uses massive WP:QUOTEFARMs for supposed "verificaion" purposes"." This is an "other stuff exists" argument (or in this case, other stuff doesn't exist). It is not an argument as to whether it works for this particular article. And as I have stated repeatedly, the quotes don't violate QUOTEFARM anyway, as long as they are "pertinent", and they seem very pertinent to me. --Merlinme (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I give examples of how the majority view is not by a long shot described in enough detail, and almost certainly cannot be described in enough detail to fix the quotefarm. And they are typical of how this article handles them. Also, Kim claims that quotes are necessary for verification. They cannot be necessary for verification if every other article on Misplaced Pages does not need to violate the NPOV policy to "verify" its claims. Finally, I'm quoting policy. Don't act as if the policy doesn't exist when you reply. 86.** IP (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you clarify which policy you think I'm "acting as if it doesn't exist"? Thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
We most certainly need to verify the additions to the list, that is one part of WP:BLP that cannot be broken. The choice to have this as quotes in the list, as opposed to in the reference section, is an editorial decision. Personally i prefer them in the list, but am not at all oposed to alternatively having them in the reference section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The fact that the subject of an article is non-notable is a valid reason to delete the article but if the subject is notable that doesn't mean that the article must be kept, only that it can't be deleted for notability reasons. Pages can be (and are) deleted for many other reasons including WP:NOT, WP:BLP and, yes, WP:NPOV. Hut 8.5 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed they certainly can, NOT and BLP being the obvious ones, none of which are being argued here... strangely enough btw. since BLP really is something that should be considered here.. But NPOV? Nothing is inherently POV, it is in fact the 1st given point in WP:AfD, as what you should not AfD for... it is considered a very weak argument for deletion. Btw. what POV does the list argue? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • NPOV is a very weak argument for deletion if the content can be salvaged through normal editing, as WP:AFD#How to contribute says. My point here is that the problem cannot be fixed through normal editing and that any article of this type would violate NPOV. It is well established that problems with an article subject that cannot be fixed through normal editing are suitable grounds for deletion.

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

First point: That the scientists are outside mainstream is used to argue deletion? That's not in line with policy - despite your dislike for tiny minority->fringe viewpoints - we most certainly cover such views. (see btw. WP:DUE 2nd paragraph).
Second point about the list being non-notable is strange, since there is quite a lot of scholarly articles discussing the tiny-minority->fringe viewpoints in this area of science. Then afterwards you conflate the notability of the list, with the notability of the views presented - that seems equally strange... of course they are minority views - thats what the list is about!
Third point: Erh? The context here is that these quotes and scientists are in the tiny minority->fringe category. That is what the whole list is about, and what we use the entire lead to describe! We can certainly add more, but saying that we do not contextualize is utter nonsense.
Fourth point: Again, the entire premise of the list, is that these are tiny minory->fringe views. So to state (again) that they aren't, contextualized, and described as minority->fringe is (again) nonsense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories: