| Revision as of 11:18, 27 January 2010 editDmcq (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,599 edits →Content Fork: ->Neutral point of view noticeboard← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:27, 27 January 2010 edit undoGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits →Content ForkNext edit → | ||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
| :::::The problem with doing nothing is that the content fork would remain, in contravention of ], which prohibits their creation and existence. A content fork is not a reasonable article as Dmcq suggests, nor is it reasonable to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of commentary, criticism and analysis, as to do so would be to condone intellectual apartheid. To provide balanced coverage of climate change, global warming, and other related topics, both scientific and opionion from other sources must be brought together. There is nothing novel about such an approach, as sources such as Oreskes apply this approach in their own scientific papers by citing both scienfic and governmental sources in her paper, which also took into account criticisms from political sources.<br />The only wining move is to do the right thing, and that is to merge the sources in this article into its the arching topics which they address directly and in detail. --] (]|] 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | :::::The problem with doing nothing is that the content fork would remain, in contravention of ], which prohibits their creation and existence. A content fork is not a reasonable article as Dmcq suggests, nor is it reasonable to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of commentary, criticism and analysis, as to do so would be to condone intellectual apartheid. To provide balanced coverage of climate change, global warming, and other related topics, both scientific and opionion from other sources must be brought together. There is nothing novel about such an approach, as sources such as Oreskes apply this approach in their own scientific papers by citing both scienfic and governmental sources in her paper, which also took into account criticisms from political sources.<br />The only wining move is to do the right thing, and that is to merge the sources in this article into its the arching topics which they address directly and in detail. --] (]|] 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::As I said at the very very beginning please take your complaint to a noticeboard about content disputes. What will happen there is that either other people besides those here will also tell you that you are wrong, or else you will get the backing of people who specialize in dealing with the type of problem you assert is happening here. For NPOV problems the appropriate noticeboard is ]. ] (]) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | ::::::As I said at the very very beginning please take your complaint to a noticeboard about content disputes. What will happen there is that either other people besides those here will also tell you that you are wrong, or else you will get the backing of people who specialize in dealing with the type of problem you assert is happening here. For NPOV problems the appropriate noticeboard is ]. ] (]) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Whilst you are entitled to claim this article is not a content fork, the evidence is against you: the lack wider recognition of the title, the original research in the definition, and the lack of reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail. Since these criticism are direct at this title, this is the appropriate venue for discussion. --] (]|] 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:27, 27 January 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific consensus on climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 9 days  |
Template:Community article probation
| ||||||||||
 | 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.
| ||||||||||||||
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific consensus on climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientific consensus on climate change at the Reference desk. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 faq page Frequently asked questions
One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling. On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional, based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers. (See also GW/FAQ:A13) Q6: Why should we trust scientists that work for the government? ‡ (Discussion) Q7: Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC? Because the conclusions of the IPCC, produced through the collaborative efforts of thousands of experts, are the result of the most thorough survey of the state of climate science (or of any science) ever done. There is simply no other organization or effort that is comparable. Q9: Isn't the IPCC a biased source? ‡ (Discussion) Q10: Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists? The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A11) Q11: Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors? The IPCC consensus regarding climate change was formally developed by thousands of experts, based on the entirety of climate science research and interpretation. The "several prominent contributors" said to be "critical" of the consensus do not constitute a sufficiently significant minority view to warrant inclusion (per the policy of WP:WEIGHT). Nor has any scientific authority been cited that suggests these criticisms in any way challenge the science of the consensus.See also the next two questions. (Discussion) Q12:There are plenty of scientists who dispute human-caused global warming. Why aren't their opinions included? Numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. Including those statements here would make the article overwhelming long and cumbersome, and would be granting them far too much undue weight. Public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. (Discussion) Q13: Why doesn't this article include any dissenting views?
It would be more sensible to ask, "what is the scientific case that global warming is not anthropogenic?" But this case is so overwhelmed by the evidence, and held by so few scientists (if any!), that it simply lacks sufficient weight for consideration. (The argument that there is no global warming, that it is not human caused, and that the expected effects are only "alarism", is prominent only in non-scientific venues, and this article is about scientific opinion.) (Discussion, discussion) Q16: Is this article slanted or biased because it presents only one side of the debate? ‡ (Discussion) Q17: Is this article a prohibited synthesis of the opinions of the listed scientific bodies? No. The synthesis of scientific opinion on climate change (based on the primary sources) was done by the IPCC (a reliable secondary source). The statements of the various scientific organizations are affirmations of the IPCC's conclusion; their inclusion in the article establishes the IPCC as a reliable source, and affirms the synthesis it reached as a consensus view. (Discussion) Q20: What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"? An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, for academies or societies that produce scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered to be among the world's most influential and prestigious. (Discussion) Q21: What are the criteria for including organizations? ‡ (Discussion) Q22: Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed as supporting are undecided? No. It is fairer to ask, what organizations? It is more likely that any "organizations not listed" simply do not exist, as a reasonable search has not found any. Even easing the definition of a scientific organization to a point that became questionable did not find any undecided organizations (aside from the AAPG). An earlier form of the question noted that the listed organizations are predominately American or British Commonwealth (which is what might be expected for the English-language Misplaced Pages), and questioned whether there might be smaller, non-English speaking nations with scientific societies that are undecided on the issue. This is a possibility, but unlikely; the InterAcademy Council that represents the world's scientific and engineering academies affirms global warming and its dangers. (Discussion) Q25: Given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV?
|
 | Scientific consensus on climate change received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Locked
Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that edit warring would have resumed, so I have locked the article until just after the RfC concludes. If anyone else would prefer to unprotect now without waiting for the discussion below, you have my endorsement as long as you monitor the article aggressively afterwards. I would like to unlock this article for the reasons below, but if necessary to prevent disruptive and tendentious editing, the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through {{editprotected}}.
The proposed merge target for Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might this diff from GoRight, above. As at least the majority of the sources used in the section are solid and arguably on-topic, this question should not require protection; perhaps it could be rewritten to avoid bullet-point style. The several renaming discussions do not at this point seem disputatious enough to require edit-protection. Adding sources documenting views of non-scientific organizations or individual scientists would be out of the scope of the current title and article scope, and so discussion can be tabled until such a time as such a move has consensus. The issue of naming and targeting redirects has some bearing on this article, but does not justify protection. The wording and links in the hatnote have been discussed ad nauseum, but seem amenable to normal editing methods. Other dispute resolution mechanisms are in place or in preparation, but resumption of normal editing should not be dependent upon them. Assuming that it survives AfD, Public opinion on climate change should probably be linked somewhere in this article; excessive protection damages the encyclopedia.
For these reasons, I plan to unprotect the article in about a day, after everyone has had a chance to read and offer feedback on this section. The basic outline of #Proposal #2 has consensus, though not unanimity. The arguments offered in the surrounding sections, some of which are now archived, offer nuance and explanation to the bare poll. The {{POV-check}} has received input here, and no contrary input at WP:CNB. The tagging project has devoted a fair bit of effort to ensuring that the templated text does not take a position one way or the other, but its fundamental purpose is to attract interested editors. This article is actively edited, and other more effective input-gathering mechanisms are in place. For these reasons and none other, I plan to remove the tag in my capacity as an administrator enacting the clearly-expressed will of involved editors; had the article not been locked, I expect that it would have been removed already (again evidence that excessive protection damages the encyclopedia). Adding any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Removing any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to consensus at a talkpage section; for example: tag removed per Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #2 and Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption and edit warring. Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted. If a relevant talkpage discussion does not yet exist, the reverting editor should start one, clearly expressing his or her concerns. It is best practice to start the section before reverting the edit, and to include a compromise proposal. Please comment and advise. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: For clarification, how do you advise on (as restated by me) "Take the sources to the RS notice board", "Put the IPCC Mission in for context", "May I have the next RfC?" and "This dispute may be resolved by creating a Opinions on Climate Change" article points I have raised? Finally WP:1RR should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Obligatory Statement)
Question: You mention consensus for proposal 2 above. Does this mean that 1RR is in effect, and what are the parameters around it's meaning since this was unclear the last time it was brought up? Is this WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The prohibition applies only to adding or removing such a tag without first gathering consensus here; if the editors here agree that adding or removing a tag is likely to lead to article improvement, then I support that. I left the time period deliberately open-ended in the hopes that at some point in the decently near future a consensus supported by everyone will develop and we can drop all this. If, after the current kerfluffle dies down, a proposal here detailing NPOV concerns goes unanswered, adding a tag would no longer be prima facie evidence of edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Short version: only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unlocked. Please edit only according to clearly expressed consensus. Any edit warring will lead to blocks, as this article has been protected too long already. I intend to monitor this article as closely as I can for the next little while, but if problems develop without speedy redress, please make use of WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have retroactively logged this at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Log of sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Remote future timestamp to stop premature archiving. --TS
- This is basically covered by Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation now, and the rest I put in an editnotice, so it should be okay to let the bot archive this now - removed timestamp above. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest adding Scientific American link "... . Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=4 ... "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity. > It is virtually impossible to disprove accusations of giant global conspiracies to those already convinced of them (can anyone prove that the Freemasons and the Roswell aliens aren't involved, too?). Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years ... " 99.155.155.73 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- That should probably be in Climate change consensus or Climate change denial, it doesn't really fit into this article which is bout the scientific opinion on it. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is the difference? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Between the two articles? The first says it is about the public debate over whether there is actually a scientific consensus and the second is specifically about the campaign to rubbish the science, or expose the conspiracy or however one views it. There's a couple of others too that are fairly close in their shades of meaning and that's why I said two instead of one - I'm not sure which is best. I think the climate change denial one perhaps as the Scientific American article is about fighting it rather than just giving or describing an opinion. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, if you read the Sci.Am article , specifically "Claim 5", and click on the hyperlink "official positions of dozens of scientific organizations"...guess where it takes you.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Between the two articles? The first says it is about the public debate over whether there is actually a scientific consensus and the second is specifically about the campaign to rubbish the science, or expose the conspiracy or however one views it. There's a couple of others too that are fairly close in their shades of meaning and that's why I said two instead of one - I'm not sure which is best. I think the climate change denial one perhaps as the Scientific American article is about fighting it rather than just giving or describing an opinion. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
An addition to this, or another page? Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning?
Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning? by Daniel Gilbert (psychologist) 99.35.9.49 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- No thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Include "List of ..." in section headings
Per WP:LISTNAME - should we change
- Synthesis reports
- Statements by organisations
- Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
To each be 'List of _________' ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. "Should" /= "must," so in the absence of complaints I'd ask the question "Does it improve the article?" If not, perhaps it's best as is. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that style guideline related to whole article names, not section names, and so not even relevant here? --Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
IPCC to retract remarks that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035
See World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown from the The Sunday Times. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Storm in a teacup. Refers to a paragraph prepared by the Asian working party of Work Group II (effects of global warming). The output of Work Group I (physical basis) is not affected, or are other aspects of Work Group II. --TS 22:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't minimise it - the IPCC author/review system fell down in one place. It's impossible to really know for certain whether it's a single occurrence (probable), or a systematic issue (unlikely). Regardless, the IPCC will need to address it's review systems to avoid recurrence. Regardless of all that; it's got nothing to do with this article. (another example of the article title being a touch ambiguous) ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Content Fork
Going back to the thread Content fork, it is clear that issues raised have not been adressed in any shape or form.
- As this article stands, its title "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a recognised term used to address its subject matter by the world at large.
- The article lacks any form of definition from a reliable secondary source. In fact, there is no single source cited that mentions, let alone address directly and in detail, the subject of "Scientific opinion on climate change".
- The hatnote and lead of this article which define the articles subject matter is comprised of original research.
The legitimacy of this content fork in relation to Misplaced Pages's content policies is in question, yet nothing has been done to address this key issue. What is to be done? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The reason it was archived in early December and not raised or discussed since is that you are the only proponent we have for this viewpoint. --Nigelj (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:WASTEOFTIME. Speedy close William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT might be more relevant in this context. The question still remains, what sources are there that can establish this article's notability in its own right? Which source addresses the article's title directly and in detail? I think more than just bald statements of opinion are needed to answer these questions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The matter has been dealt with as far as consensus on this page is concerned. Nobody else was much interested. What you've got to do if you still disagree and think it is important enough to be worth the bother is raise the matter somewhere else. See WP:Dispute resolution. Things can be raised again every so often on the talk page but this is too soon. Probably the only place I can see where this would go is the notice board for notability at Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I can read the objections to my criticisms, but the evidence in support of these objections sees to be wholly lacking. Instead of dealing with evidence that this article is a content fork as an open window, it seems that the objectors view criticism as a wall, which by definition precludes any access to reality. This extreme attitude, which considers all reference to Misplaced Pages content policies as theoretical naivete, is in reality a perversion of of the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS.
If you have evidence that this is a recognised article topic that is the subject of reliable secondary sources in its own right, bring them forward by all means. But to baldly assert that this "matter has been dealt with as far as consensus is concerned" is wholly disingenuous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what adding links to various websites, including those that cite Misplaced Pages as their source, in any way diminishes the criticism. What is lacking are at least several reliable secondary sources to identify "Scientific opinion on climate change" as a seperate subject in its own right. The fact that the subject of these links is Climate change is not helping the discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- It shows that at least 3 reliable sources consider the Scientific opinion on climate change both interesting and worthy of reporting about. And that should be all that is needed to match your previous objections. Now please back away from the poor equine stiff :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Correction. Only one source is reliable (the rest are unpublished websites) and the subject of the only peer reviewed article is "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". This article is probably nearer to the article title, but it only mentions "Mainstream scientific opinion". The fact remains that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a defined or recognised subject in its own right. If scientific opinion is cited in Misplaced Pages articles, it is used within the context of recognised article topics such as Climate Change, Global Warming or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not split out from articles addressing the same topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't an "unpublished web site" not be on some intranet? Preferably a small one? Of course the sites are published. You might try to argue reliability, but Science Daily has been around for 15 years, has an editorial staff, and has won numerous awards. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, but for general comments and notability it's plenty good enough. And the Science Council looks pretty reliable to me, as well... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article may not be a prime candidate for deletion, but the title is not ideal. It is vague and could lead to a WP:COATRACK of pro and anti global warming sources. My view is that the issues here are best dealt with in other articles about climate change, with care taken about sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Correction. Only one source is reliable (the rest are unpublished websites) and the subject of the only peer reviewed article is "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". This article is probably nearer to the article title, but it only mentions "Mainstream scientific opinion". The fact remains that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a defined or recognised subject in its own right. If scientific opinion is cited in Misplaced Pages articles, it is used within the context of recognised article topics such as Climate Change, Global Warming or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not split out from articles addressing the same topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Scientific consensus on climate change might be a bit better I think but I really can't see the need. I do not see why you think my reply was disingenuoius and I see nothing relevant at the attached link Denying the antecedent. The point is the best way to get something done on Misplaced Pages is to do something positive like suggesting a new name and giving reasons or proposing a delete and giving reasons why it is a good idea. What has been done here is totally negative - and the replies have been dismissed in a negative way with no positive contribution. There's been other complaints about the title and hatnote and the existence of the article, they have been a bit more positive with suggestions about new names, changes or where to merge. The consensus so far seems to have been to do very little. There is no point expecting any action when nothing except complaints are voiced and people have talked about it before. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia which is written by its contributors and the operative word is contribute. Say what you want rather than what you don't want or write a bit of article text if you want something useful to happen. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dmcq, a valiant attempt, but it will fall on deaf ears. Having watched Gavin Collins' lengthy objections last month (and responding to some of them because I assumed good faith on his part), I finally decided to stop wasting time by addressing them. My recommendation? Read through some of his archived posts. If he's saying something different now, feel free to respond. If he's just repeating something that did not gain consensus before, it's best to save time by not typing responses. Worse, lengthy discussions lend credibility to otherwise senseless arguments. Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The issues which I addressed in my previous posts are just as relevant now as they were then, and dismissing them as being "negative" or "time wasting" is not shedding any light on this article being a content fork, or the damaging consequences of allowing this state of affairs to persist.
- To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
- Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way.
- The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while referenced and ordered, address topics which fall outside this article, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
- Instead, original research has been employed to provide context, rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Since these issues were brought to your attention on this talk page, there have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved.
- No matter how innocuous the lead is, is wholly unsatisfactory for an article to lead with analytic or evaluative claims that "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists", when in fact this statement is unsupported and misleading. In reality, opinion on climate change comes from many sources, and must be evaluated together, not seperately.
- If this article topic is not a recognised by the wider world, and its subject matter and scope can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.
- In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is a form of intellectual apartheid, whereby opinions about similar topics are being artifically sepeated from each other, rather than being used to provide balanced coverage of a particular topic. Seperating scientific opinion from other sources of opinion is generally considered to be unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article, rather than being split into content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you. You have some points. But so what? This has been discussed before recently by others as well as you with no conclusion and you have made no suggestions which will change that. You have just reinterated complaints. What is your point? The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and this is leading nowehere. Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Bait not taken" to quote another author here. Airborne84 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The phrase used in the article's title appears in the title of the following works, Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences. More works seem to study public opinion on the matter as a topic in itself. As this material seems rather thin, we should perhaps generalise the article to cover opinions in general, with sub-headings which consider the opinions by grouping - public, scientific, political or whatever. The article would cover the changing attitudes of these various demographics to the extent that the sources cover them. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Dmcq, I don't think improving a content fork is in any way supported by Misplaced Pages's content policies, as the segregation of scientific opinion about Climate Change and Global Warming from other commentators goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV, and in any case, the reader is not served by seperation of content on a purely arbitary basis. If there is a body of scientific opinion available in the form of reliable secondary sources as Colonel Warden suggests, then it need to be added to the relevant article to which it is addressed. Scientific opinion does not form in a vacuum; it grows and changes within the framework of an area of a particular subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, after someone has succeeded in merging the Intelligent design and Evolution articles, we'll have something to talk about. That will be after all the articles on electronics include coverage of how there's magic smoke inside the wires and phlogiston has been restored to its rightful place, I imagine. --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nigelj is right, there are no other articles like this, such as Scientific opinion on Intelligent design or Scientific opinion on Evolution nor Scientific opinion on electronics. If there were, they would be merged in their respective article topics that address their subject matter directly and in detail. No, my criticism is that sources about a particular topic should feature in the article topic to which they relate, not an article that has "Scientific opinion on.." attached to its title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The split is explicitly encouraged by wikipedia. See WP:Splitting, the very first criterion is the size of the article. Click on edit on this article or on Global warming and you'll get advice that splitting is a good idea. They are currently 101KB and 87KB Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. You misunderstood me, I think, Gavin. I meant that in other areas where there are scientific views on something, and widely separate unscientific views, they are treated in separate articles, with actually very little chance of merging the two viewpoints into large super-articles. As to the naming, we have actual names for the viewpoints in other cases, but in the case of climate change, that hasn't happened. We have the scientific viewpoints discussed here, religious-based views that man 'has dominion' over the earth and the 'end of days' will solve all these problems, anti-science views that scientists are mostly crooks who make up theories for their own financial gain and funding, right-wing views that all this is an anti-capitalist plot to reduce their business profits and growth, conspiracy theorists who think that there is a shadowy cabal who want to use these theories to rule the world etc. There is no way that these other theories will get equal, 'fair' coverage in this article. Some of them have sub-articles of their own, but even the editors of those articles often can't decide on the names they should use there, and they change and fork quite regularly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because Misplaced Pages is not a paper based encyclopedia, article spliting is indeed encouraged, provided of course the article is notable in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. However, if this article is indeed a sub-topic that has been split out of one or more articles, how come it does not provide any evidence that the topic of scientific opinion on climate change is notable in it its own right? Several editors have cited articles which are entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change" or mention this term by name, yet none of them are cited in this article. What makes this article so special that this terms is only mention used twice, and yet that mention (in the hatnote and the lead) are original research? It seems to me, but correct me if I am wrong, but the notability of this article's title is not cited once to provide evidence that it meets the reqirements of WP:NAME, , nor has the notability of its subject matter been established in this article as a result. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. I am not going through this point with you again. Read the Talk archives. Look up WP:NAME. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then let me do it for you. WP:NAME says that article titles should use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Yet not one reliable secondary source mentions "Scientific opinion on climate change" in this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what do you want to do or to happen? Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then let me do it for you. WP:NAME says that article titles should use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Yet not one reliable secondary source mentions "Scientific opinion on climate change" in this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. I am not going through this point with you again. Read the Talk archives. Look up WP:NAME. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because Misplaced Pages is not a paper based encyclopedia, article spliting is indeed encouraged, provided of course the article is notable in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. However, if this article is indeed a sub-topic that has been split out of one or more articles, how come it does not provide any evidence that the topic of scientific opinion on climate change is notable in it its own right? Several editors have cited articles which are entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change" or mention this term by name, yet none of them are cited in this article. What makes this article so special that this terms is only mention used twice, and yet that mention (in the hatnote and the lead) are original research? It seems to me, but correct me if I am wrong, but the notability of this article's title is not cited once to provide evidence that it meets the reqirements of WP:NAME, , nor has the notability of its subject matter been established in this article as a result. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. You misunderstood me, I think, Gavin. I meant that in other areas where there are scientific views on something, and widely separate unscientific views, they are treated in separate articles, with actually very little chance of merging the two viewpoints into large super-articles. As to the naming, we have actual names for the viewpoints in other cases, but in the case of climate change, that hasn't happened. We have the scientific viewpoints discussed here, religious-based views that man 'has dominion' over the earth and the 'end of days' will solve all these problems, anti-science views that scientists are mostly crooks who make up theories for their own financial gain and funding, right-wing views that all this is an anti-capitalist plot to reduce their business profits and growth, conspiracy theorists who think that there is a shadowy cabal who want to use these theories to rule the world etc. There is no way that these other theories will get equal, 'fair' coverage in this article. Some of them have sub-articles of their own, but even the editors of those articles often can't decide on the names they should use there, and they change and fork quite regularly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, after someone has succeeded in merging the Intelligent design and Evolution articles, we'll have something to talk about. That will be after all the articles on electronics include coverage of how there's magic smoke inside the wires and phlogiston has been restored to its rightful place, I imagine. --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Dmcq, I don't think improving a content fork is in any way supported by Misplaced Pages's content policies, as the segregation of scientific opinion about Climate Change and Global Warming from other commentators goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV, and in any case, the reader is not served by seperation of content on a purely arbitary basis. If there is a body of scientific opinion available in the form of reliable secondary sources as Colonel Warden suggests, then it need to be added to the relevant article to which it is addressed. Scientific opinion does not form in a vacuum; it grows and changes within the framework of an area of a particular subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think Colonel Warden's comments have been adequately addressed. If not, please refer to the archives for extensive discussion on this topic.
- As to the rest of the discussion, I can only repeat my recommendation to simply refer GC to the archives until he comes up with something new. Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Airborne, an examination of the archive shows you have already rejected the approach being put forward by Colonel Warden. In answer to Dmcq, I don't think there is any point in putting forward a proposal at this time if there is unwillingness to accept the three criticisims raised at the begining of this thread, but it would involve merging the content of this article with the various over-arching topics to which its subject matter relates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- An actual proposal at long last, thanks. Merge this article which is already considered on the large side with other articles which are way over the large side and where splitting is highly recommended. Is that correct? Any takers? Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take it. Refer to the archives for the consensus on this proposal. Airborne84 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's nonsense. The first thing policy would require would be that we spin off smaller articles from the monster so created. So, we would separate the peer-reviewed science out from the politics and public opinion stuff, and be back exactly where we are today. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense? It what way is the elimination of a content fork nonsense? If the subject matter of this article is dealt directly and in detail in various other articles, chances are that the coverage of this article is aleady present else where. In any case, what is the alternative? To continue to augment, revise and update this article knowing it is a content fork? This would appear to be the least sensical choice of action, for that would bring its contributors into contravention with Misplaced Pages content polices; I think good editors will not wish to down this path.
Of course some editors would continue to edit this article, oblivious to its status. In some ways, that is the case at the moment: some editors continue to add, revise and update the original research contained in the hatnote and the lead in an attempt to legitimize this article's segraegated existence. But those editors with genuine concern for scientic opinion in relation to Climate Change, Global Warming or the IPCC will focus their efforts making constructive contributions to articles which address those topic directly and in detail. If there is a way to split the overarching topics into more manageable articles, surely it will take the form of splits into article topics which are the subject of scientific opinion, such as greenhouse effect or solar variation. However to continue editing this content fork, or to spawn more content forks such as "Scientific opinion on globa warming" seem to be to run contrary to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, knowing what you know now that the segregation of scientific opinion from other sources of commentary, criticism or analysis is to direct the reader down a garden path that leads in an intellectual dead end. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)- see the FAQ at the top of this talk page about scientific opinion. And opinion about it too. It doesn't include everybody's opinion. There's other articles about all that. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense? It what way is the elimination of a content fork nonsense? If the subject matter of this article is dealt directly and in detail in various other articles, chances are that the coverage of this article is aleady present else where. In any case, what is the alternative? To continue to augment, revise and update this article knowing it is a content fork? This would appear to be the least sensical choice of action, for that would bring its contributors into contravention with Misplaced Pages content polices; I think good editors will not wish to down this path.
- The problem with the FAQ, the hatnote and the lead is that they are all original research, rather than being the subject of reliable secondary sources in their own right. This would not be so bad if a rationale for this article were provided in the body of the article itself, but it is not; there is not a single reference to "Scientific opinion on climate change" even though it runs to more than 9,500 words (over 10,000 if you include the reference list). In answer to Dmcq, I can understand why some form of rationale, such as your statement that "It doesn't include everybody's opinion" should be the starting point for this article, but using personal opinion to determine what should or should not go into an article are not supported by Misplaced Pages's content guidelines.
WP:NPOV is pretty clear that scientific opinion should not be segregated from any other source of opinion, because even scientific opinion is the subject of commentary and analsysis from other sources, some of which may be critical. As editors, our objective is to provide the reader with a neutral point of view, that is to say, we present scientific and non-scientific opinion in an even handed way. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints, such as scientific opinion as opposed to non-scientific opnion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)- Taking a neutral point of view between 'science' and 'non-scientific opinion' on a scientific subject is nonsense. Try that on the Laws of thermodynamics and see how you get on. --Nigelj (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I think you proved my point. There is no other article like this, such as Scientific opinion on the Laws of thermodynamics. All of the sources of opinion are included in the one article, whether they are from scientists or not, and no viewpoint is excluded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see why you want to spend some of your finite lifetime on arguments like that. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that this article is not a content fork? If so, what evidence, in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail can you cite to support your view?
I only ask this because your comments suggest to me that you are sceptical about the criticisms at the start of this thread. At the end of the day, you are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, but if you are unable to support it with some form of verifiable evidence, then "what you can see" seems to be a selective and personal view of this article's status. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)- I'm not trying to say anything except what I've said. I started off at the beginning of this discussion warning that if you really felt you had a point you wouldn't get anywhere here but you might be able to get some admin to agree with you on a noticeboard. I don't think you would get anywhere but it was my best advice and I felt the chance you would get anywhere here were very much slimmer. I also advised you to try and be constructive, you've come up with that anything you say would mean sticking some very large articles together to make something humongous, I think you'd have to be a bit more specific about such plans as what is the point of discussing the wrongs and rights if the result of doing things 'right' according to you looks like it would be unreadable? There's lots of quite important articles that are in far far worse condition than this. It may not make featured article but so what? Your plans wouldn't make a featured article either. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and no I don't see it as a content fork. If it was a content fork then merging it with something else would produce something much less than the sum of their individual sizes but I can't see much duplication of the contents of this article anywhere else. And with such size reduction merging currently is just not on. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that this article is not a content fork? If so, what evidence, in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail can you cite to support your view?
- In reply to Dmcq, if that is your final view, then that is fair enough. You have answered my questions about this article's status, and I respect that, although I disagree with our view that it does not duplicate subjects that are addressed directly and in detail elsewhere, such as Climate Change, Global Warming or the IPCC as its sources suggest.
As regards your questions, I think that eliminating a content fork is always going to be more constructive than simply allowing it to exist, as its existence precludes consensus building which is what Misplaced Pages is all about. Whether or not merging the content of this article into one or more others would result in a "humongous" article, I could not say at this point, but as I said earlier, it is likely that the coverage contained in this article is already present elsewhere, so that might not be a problem.
One thing I do agree with you: that this content fork will never reach featured article status. On the contrary, it is likely to be the target of repeated merger proposals, or failing that, it will be nominated for deletion again. I say this because the hatnote and lead are magnets original research, which makes this article an obvious deletion target.
Where I think we could collectively make a constructive contribution is to break it down into the individual sources cited in this article, and then instigate move proposals for each one. At least that way its content can be saved in other articles, and used in a way that is not conflicting with Misplaced Pages content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)- It's your life to do with as you wish. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see why you want to spend some of your finite lifetime on arguments like that. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I think you proved my point. There is no other article like this, such as Scientific opinion on the Laws of thermodynamics. All of the sources of opinion are included in the one article, whether they are from scientists or not, and no viewpoint is excluded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Taking a neutral point of view between 'science' and 'non-scientific opinion' on a scientific subject is nonsense. Try that on the Laws of thermodynamics and see how you get on. --Nigelj (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's nonsense. The first thing policy would require would be that we spin off smaller articles from the monster so created. So, we would separate the peer-reviewed science out from the politics and public opinion stuff, and be back exactly where we are today. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take it. Refer to the archives for the consensus on this proposal. Airborne84 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- An actual proposal at long last, thanks. Merge this article which is already considered on the large side with other articles which are way over the large side and where splitting is highly recommended. Is that correct? Any takers? Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Airborne, an examination of the archive shows you have already rejected the approach being put forward by Colonel Warden. In answer to Dmcq, I don't think there is any point in putting forward a proposal at this time if there is unwillingness to accept the three criticisims raised at the begining of this thread, but it would involve merging the content of this article with the various over-arching topics to which its subject matter relates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are so many relevant responses to these discussions that its hard to hold back. However, my original comment still stands: it's best simply to not respond sometimes since it lends credibility to arguments that have no consensus and are just beating a dead horse. I won't repeat my recommendation again, however, since I don't want to be accused of WP:Tendentious editing. Anyway, GC - take a break, come back in a month or two and see if something has changed so you don't turn into these guys. , . In the meantime, there are original research hatnotes in the Creationism and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming articles (among many others) that also deserve your attention. Airborne84 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Airborne, if only you could cite significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that addresses the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail, you could have silenced my criticisms from the onset, but so far you have not. Perhaps you still believe this article is not a content fork, and I can respect that. Maybe you are one of the many editors who believes it to be a seperate article topic in it own right, but just don't have any sources to back up your firmly held opinion, and again I understand your position. However, it seems to me that we are almost in agreement that the hatnote and the lead of this article are comprised of original research. Am I correct in this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- No we don't agree on that. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's certainly arguable - just not here for a while. Have you checked out the other articles and hit their talk pages yet? If it's original research, they deserve equal consideration of your valuable time. I wish you had hit my link for this though. . Too bad. And now I have to follow my own advice and remain silent. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- No we don't agree on that. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- In answer to Airborne, if only you could cite significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that addresses the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail, you could have silenced my criticisms from the onset, but so far you have not. Perhaps you still believe this article is not a content fork, and I can respect that. Maybe you are one of the many editors who believes it to be a seperate article topic in it own right, but just don't have any sources to back up your firmly held opinion, and again I understand your position. However, it seems to me that we are almost in agreement that the hatnote and the lead of this article are comprised of original research. Am I correct in this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Recommend close. Airborne84 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Should have been closed a long time ago. It has been going in circles for way too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an example why I considered consensus better than opinion that does the job , that's been reprinted in a book. But I see others have mentioned references with opinion and they've been ignored. Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It has not been ignored in fairness, as we have discussed it. The book by Oreskes is already cited in this article in the section Oreskes, 2004, but it does not address the subject of Scientific opinion on climate change as if it is a standalone topic in its own right. Instead this section says that "the essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". That is a clear indication that the conclusions which she reached support anthropogenic climate change, not scientific opinion per se.
Scientific opinion is about ideas and theories that are the subject of standalone articles, and for each of the sources contained in this article, there is an over arching article topic that corresponds to it. In no other article is the title "Scientific opinion on.." used, and this a commonsense indicator that this article is a content fork. It is not a recognised as a seperate subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)- I'm afraid I simply do not see the separate strands you think you have split this hair into. Are you saying there is some big distinction between scientific opinion and scientific consensus that would affect the contents of the article? Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is partly the issue (consensus is not the same as opinion, afterall), but it is also the substance of what Oreskes is saying that should be taken into consideration. She writes that "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and that "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". In this context "Scientific opinion" is the merely the source of her information, not the over-arching subject.
This is a pattern that you will find repeated in all of the scientific opinions expressed in this article: opinions are expressed about article topics such as Climate change, Global warming that are addressed directly and in detail elsewhere. That is why there are no other content forks like this one in existence, otherwise there would articles along the lines of "Scientific pronouncements on climate change", "Scientific papers on climate change", "Scientific consensus on climate change", or "Scientific thinking on climate change". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is partly the issue (consensus is not the same as opinion, afterall), but it is also the substance of what Oreskes is saying that should be taken into consideration. She writes that "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and that "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". In this context "Scientific opinion" is the merely the source of her information, not the over-arching subject.
- I'm afraid I simply do not see the separate strands you think you have split this hair into. Are you saying there is some big distinction between scientific opinion and scientific consensus that would affect the contents of the article? Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It has not been ignored in fairness, as we have discussed it. The book by Oreskes is already cited in this article in the section Oreskes, 2004, but it does not address the subject of Scientific opinion on climate change as if it is a standalone topic in its own right. Instead this section says that "the essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". That is a clear indication that the conclusions which she reached support anthropogenic climate change, not scientific opinion per se.
- Here's an example why I considered consensus better than opinion that does the job , that's been reprinted in a book. But I see others have mentioned references with opinion and they've been ignored. Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
{UNDENT} One issue I have raised in the past is that this article relies very heavily on some pretty weak sources. For example the claim that "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." Is the central point of this article and yet it is very weakly sourced. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Without that one phrase, that here is used to "prove" the consensus on Global Warming, this article is a clear content fork and everything in this article is covered in the other Global Warming article, of which there are several on Misplaced Pages. However despite my own misgivings I suspect this is a clear case of the snowball rule. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- But that's the elephant in the china shop about all this business, it isn't repeated in other articles. There may be short little snippets but they then refer to here. If this article was stuck into climate change consensus for instance it would mean you'd have to delete practically everything else there in the cause of neutral point of view, it would be like trying to stick creationism and evolution together, creationism would just be relegated to a paragraph as fringe or else you'd have to make an enormous article just so it got a look in. That really wouldn't be fair in other ways to the subject as currently expressed in climate change consensus which is able to describe the overall public opinion without too much reference to the science. And it can't go into global warming, that's far too big already. The other business in a content issue you have and should be a separate thread. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness to Voiceofreason01, the content issue about the hatnote and lead being comprised of original research is just one indicator that this is article is a content fork, and so is relevant to the discussion. As regards the uniquness of sources, the one source we have discussed (Oreskes), is already cited in the articles Climate change consensus and Attribution of recent climate change. Merging the content of this article would not be easy, I agree, but it is not rocket science either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth would be the purpose of sticking the contents of this article somewhere else? You just go on with these unconstructive ideas to no great purpose that I can see. Why do something silly? The public debate on whether there is a scientific consensus is different from whether there is a scientific consensus, sticking the two together would ruin two perfectly reasonable articles and in particular only leave some articles that sound very POV like climate change denial to document the public debate. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can't "win" this argument with GC Dmcq. To quote from the movie WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play."
- As to the comments of Voiceofreason01, please refer to the lengthy discussions on this subject in the archives. Airborne84 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with doing nothing is that the content fork would remain, in contravention of WP:NPOV, which prohibits their creation and existence. A content fork is not a reasonable article as Dmcq suggests, nor is it reasonable to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of commentary, criticism and analysis, as to do so would be to condone intellectual apartheid. To provide balanced coverage of climate change, global warming, and other related topics, both scientific and opionion from other sources must be brought together. There is nothing novel about such an approach, as sources such as Oreskes apply this approach in their own scientific papers by citing both scienfic and governmental sources in her paper, which also took into account criticisms from political sources.
The only wining move is to do the right thing, and that is to merge the sources in this article into its the arching topics which they address directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)- As I said at the very very beginning please take your complaint to a noticeboard about content disputes. What will happen there is that either other people besides those here will also tell you that you are wrong, or else you will get the backing of people who specialize in dealing with the type of problem you assert is happening here. For NPOV problems the appropriate noticeboard is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst you are entitled to claim this article is not a content fork, the evidence is against you: the lack wider recognition of the title, the original research in the definition, and the lack of reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail. Since these criticism are direct at this title, this is the appropriate venue for discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I said at the very very beginning please take your complaint to a noticeboard about content disputes. What will happen there is that either other people besides those here will also tell you that you are wrong, or else you will get the backing of people who specialize in dealing with the type of problem you assert is happening here. For NPOV problems the appropriate noticeboard is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with doing nothing is that the content fork would remain, in contravention of WP:NPOV, which prohibits their creation and existence. A content fork is not a reasonable article as Dmcq suggests, nor is it reasonable to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of commentary, criticism and analysis, as to do so would be to condone intellectual apartheid. To provide balanced coverage of climate change, global warming, and other related topics, both scientific and opionion from other sources must be brought together. There is nothing novel about such an approach, as sources such as Oreskes apply this approach in their own scientific papers by citing both scienfic and governmental sources in her paper, which also took into account criticisms from political sources.
- What on earth would be the purpose of sticking the contents of this article somewhere else? You just go on with these unconstructive ideas to no great purpose that I can see. Why do something silly? The public debate on whether there is a scientific consensus is different from whether there is a scientific consensus, sticking the two together would ruin two perfectly reasonable articles and in particular only leave some articles that sound very POV like climate change denial to document the public debate. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness to Voiceofreason01, the content issue about the hatnote and lead being comprised of original research is just one indicator that this is article is a content fork, and so is relevant to the discussion. As regards the uniquness of sources, the one source we have discussed (Oreskes), is already cited in the articles Climate change consensus and Attribution of recent climate change. Merging the content of this article would not be easy, I agree, but it is not rocket science either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)