Wikipedia:Featured article review/Global warming/archive1

Global warming

Review commentary

Messages left at WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Meteorology, Natalinasmpf, and Blue Tie.

This article blatantly fails to meet FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e), i.e. neutrality and stability. Since the first week of March 2007, there has been an ongoing POV discussion on the talk page, culminating in an edit war the last few days. During this conflict, NPOV and weasel word tags were inserted and removed. Yesterday, a mediatation was initiated, after which the article soon had to be protected to contain the edit war. This article clearly cannot be labeled as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community under these circumstances. The fact that stability is no longer achieved needs no assertion. And as long as a significant minority (or perhaps even a majority) disagrees that the article is NPOV, we cannot define it to be as such. Nick Mks 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as a few of the weaselly words can be removed and some other minor points can be addressed, I think the NPOV can be dealt with fairly easily. It's up to the dissenters though to take the initiative and agree to remove the weasel words (or provide a source other than Wikipedia that reiterates the statements). On stability, I agree the article is not stable, and has not been for quite a while. ~ UBeR 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some todo I think is necessary.

• Shorten the lede (not long enough to warrant 5 paragraphs)
• Terminology is very short, compared to the other sections. It should be expanded or moved, IMO.
• Get sources for every statement
• Shorten further reading (if some of them are references, they don't need to be listed twice)
• Pre-human Global warming and Pre-Industrial Global warming should be further to the top. It doesn't make sense to have the earliest stuff be last
• Mitigation should be expanded, given how important of a topic it is
• Attributed and expected effects should be later on, given that they're in the future
• Re-read and re-write to ensure it flows well

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is just fine. The problem is that there is one group of people (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) who are interested in keeping this article factually accurate, well cited, 'etc, and another group of POV pushers who are interested in pushing their anti-global warming POV into this article (Rameses, Britannia, Blue Tie, 'etc). They don't have a leg to stand on, factually, so they complain of POV, because POV is subjective and therefore it's harder to show they are flatly wrong. Raul654 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. The users you mention (William Connolley, Raymond Arritt, Stephen Schultz, 'etc) are the ones who are stubborn about introducing weasel words into the article yet they flatly refuse to provide a citation establishing consensus. These users appear to believe that WP:A doesn't apply to them. --Tjsynkral 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. I completely agree with the above quote by Tjsynkral. --Sm8900 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. I stand with Tjsynkral & Sm8900. The machine512 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole article of sources available - the trouble isn't that they refuse to provide sources - it is that you refuse to accept them (even if cited on page). Subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen 09:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stubborn use of weasel words has been demonstrated (see this discussion as well as this one). William M. Connolley most notably said that he sees "no need for a precise definition of 'climate scientist'". And the idea of a consensus, being built from a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement, remains original research. --Childhood's End 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, "a presumption that all the anonymous scientists in the world agree since they have not expressed disagreement" is pretty much the only way anyone establishes consensus isn't it, once those who want to have spoken? --BozMo talk 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, no. There exists no scientist on Earth that can wholly scientifically invalidate climate change predictions - they can only give opinions with regard to their specific fields of knowledge (climatology involves dozens of different fields of research). It could thus be that there are scientific agreement with regard to certain specific aspects of climate evolution, but when it comes to the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming, the idea of a consensus is OR. --Childhood's End 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence pretty much sums up the incredible huztpah of the "anthropogenic global warming is a lie" group. Even sceptical scientists now agree that human activities are resulting in a warming climate, but simply say that cannot ascertain how much. . The scientists in related fields that do contribute to the article are under almost constant barrage by those who obtain their opinions from information sources shaped by political and/or vested interests. I agree with Raul, Connelly, and others that this article is stable, balanced, and FA-worthy. --Skyemoor 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Research yes, but not original research surely? The whole point of the IPCC reports and vast list of signatories for their reports which give huge ranges in forecast and conclusion is that they are a consensus. You have to have a prejudiced view about the IPCC not to accept this: now please listen when I say that there may be all sorts of reasons to doubt the IPCC, but those reasons (valid though they may be) are where we are lacking notable sources, surveys of scientists and where we are in the realms of OR. There is not any kind of serious grouping (e.g. not more than for evolution) who oppose the IPCC conclusions as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem, BozMo, is the inclusion of what is either original research, a simple POV, or synthesis (counts as OR). If no source is saying it, why should we? If you can't find a reliable source that is saying what you are trying to include in the article, it's inclusion is meritless. It's really a simple idea, and I do not understand why a select few of you wish to gripe with this policy. ~ UBeR 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also about a misleading characterization of how the IPCC produces its reports. The contributors do not contribute to the whole reports, as the misleading concept of "climate scientists" wishes us to think. Each scientist contributes to a small part of them in his research field and has no scientific idea about the validity of the whole thing. --Childhood's End 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am listening, but synthesis AFAICT is only original research if it is done "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Without NPOV synthesis Wikipedia basically couldn't exist, we do it everywhere. So are you saying that the synthesis of IPCC is being done with a POV by WP editors, or that the IPCC reports themselves summarise with a bias or both? If the former, take me through what the IPCC summaries say. If the latter refuting a synthesis by a credible organisation is problematic and OR: lets find someone credible who has done it and quote them. --BozMo talk 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if you do not have a source outside of Wikipedia for something you are trying to include (for whatever reason), then do not add it! I'm honestly trying to make this as simple and basic as I can so I can illustrate my point. Wikipedia isn't about truth; it's about verifiability. If sources aren't saying, neither should we. ~ UBeR 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And what we have said dozens of times is that we even have quotes of sceptics saying there is a consensus they oppose. As for quoting other references in WP (if that's what you mean), we follow WP:SUMMARY. --Skyemoor 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This same old argument, even after I explained it to you? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (I can bold too, you know.) Here, I'll prove it to you with a quote: "Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. Can anyone who actually understands my logic here help me explain this simple point? I mean, I could explain how the WP:OR policy supports this conclusion, but if this simple idea cannot be grasped, I don't think it prudent to even bother. As for WP:SS, this applies to overly long sections that merit summarizing main points from what might be a more extensive article. It, of course, does not bar references in the article it's being summarized in. It does, however, limit it to sections, not leads. Read over the policy again. ~ UBeR 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You avoided acknowledging the point above about skeptics agreeing that there is AGW, just not sure how much. As for referring to other portions of WP, please quote the portion of WP:Summary that states that one cannot refer to references from spin-out articles in the lede. I have asked this same question before with no answer. --Skyemoor 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You avoid acknowledging I'm correct. I don't care which skeptics agree there is AGW (could they really be defined as skeptics, as such?), because so long as you aren't citing them, it means nothing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cares not for your original research, but rather verifiable data. If you're refusing to allow verifiability for what you're writing in Wikipedia, not much can be done. As for my discussion on WP:SS, maybe you're not looking hard enough. Try Talk:Global warming for starters. ~ UBeR 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Those skeptics who agree that there is some AGW are on the skeptic list at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and I indeed cited 3 of them above (which you avoided acknowledging above). You have again refused to support your claim about the lede being limited to what can be referenced, so we are left without any basis for your claim yet again. --Skyemoor 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as stability here is the diff for the last 500 edits, to March 5. 500 edits in three weeks is not all that uncommon for a high profile article like this. Furthermore, if you look at the diff, the content itself has barely changed - it's almost exclusively confined to changing the style of the references. In other words, there is no stability problem here at all. Raul654 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that Raul is correct about stability. However, if my experience on that page is an indication, the reason it is stable is over-zealous protection by a few editors who will revert and remove contributions by other editors in short order. Hence, their contributions remain stable over time.

I have already suggested a re-structuring of the article on the talk page. Other reviewers here have also suggested restructuring in this FAR. So it might be a reasonable idea. But it is rejected by the current guardians. --Blue Tie 02:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Raul. The article is stable, as the diff shows. The NPOV and weasel tags are spurious. The medcabal case is irrelevant. I disagree with some of Hh:

• The lead can be re-paragraphed, but thats trivia
• Terminology needs to be high up to be useful; it was once a side-box and was better as such, IMHO
• There is no reason to list things in chronological order. Pre-human stuff is of minor interest and so is best low down
• Mitigation is a sub-article
• Attributed and expected is important so needs ot be near the top

William M. Connolley 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (belated sig - date wrong by about 2h)

Not to get in the middle of high emotions, but a factor in reviewing this article has to be how much of the article is or should be for Global warming as fact or against. People have used Undue weight as an argument, but that would presume that Global warming is believed by most people or scientists, or that that matters more than science. Science is not subject to peoples opinions or emotions, so perhaps this article needs extensive copyediting for neutrality rather than de-featuring. Judgesurreal777 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree what you said. Science is not a subject that allows emotions to take its course. They need facts and theories to back up the findings. This is why scientific journals (e.g. Nature) requires extensive scientific community peer review prior to publishing articles. OhanaUnited 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed any of the text in the article but have been around it reverting vandalism etc for a while. I supported the request for a review but the summary at the top of this FAR bears no relationship to the reality of the article. In my opinion the article easily meets the requirements for neutrality and stability (compare it to a random choice from a couple of months ago: it evolves slowly thats all). The problem with the article is that it represents a fair selection (tip of the iceberg) of the spectrum of scientific view and gives due weight to small minority views, whereas a small number of editors have repeatedly tried to get undue weight to these views. The article does not reflect my own views on Global Warming, but it does reflect consensus in the scientific literature as far as I can tell. This review will be useful if it achieves one thing: making other Wikipedians with a scientific background aware that a flagship article is in danger of being seriously undermined by a narrow interest group. The behaviour of the attacking minority has been raised repeatedly at WP:AN/I but they always manage to swamp the complaint with so much additional material nothing much comes of it. --BozMo talk 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is really too much personal attack and defense going on here. It should be about the article and its quality. I view it as a weakness of those declaring the article to be of high quality that they should personally attack the individual editing instead of focusing on the article and the facts. If these are in your favor, there is no need for personal attack.

As far as a "flagship" article.. it is very good, but it is not perfect. It has NPOV problems. It appears that the article is suffering from ownership problems. There is no baby being killed here, but perhaps the main editors of the article feel like they are under personal attack when their article changes. Other editors may suggest changes and these should not be immediately condemned as they are. The whole process on wikipedia is to discuss. It does not happen on this page though. Instead, new editors are insulted. This page is not so wonderful that it cannot be significantly improved. And if it would take the fall of a so-called "flagship" article to bring some civility to the talk page there then I would vote for that in an instant.--Blue Tie 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is >300 kb of talk page content in just the last three weeks. It does get "discussed", but a large part of that discussion is pointless because a number of people don't approach it in good faith but rather use the talk page merely to advocate for their own preconceived notions, without any concern for seeing the other side. I've followed global warming since way before it was featured, and I don't believe the presense (or absense) of the featured label will have any lasting effect on the amount of conflict it generates. Dragons flight 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and it is sad to think about. --Blue Tie 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This artical sucks. It is totally a position artical and should only have facts, not oppinions. Leave the opinions to the consumers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.86.167.112 (talk • contribs).

What specifically is opinion in this article? It looks like there is a citation for most sentences, and only two "citation needed" tags. Overall, pretty good for a controversial topic. Gimmetrow 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the article should be featured -- yet. I believe it can be greatly improved in terms of structure (but perhaps not in content). I also believe that it is not exactly neutral. I believe that this is a matter of experts with too much depth in the subject and passion for the subject editing it. I would also add, that I have been falsly accused of being a POV pusher. That is a false charge. --Blue Tie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe a lot of the people complaining on this FAR about this article (specifically its neutrality) have no interest in doing productive work on the article. With their "help" this article would never have become a featured article. So claiming it's not a featured article "yet" is transparently disingenuous. Raul654 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with these accusations or their very appearance here, but at least you are open regarding your biases. One of the standards for defining ethical behavior is to ask "What if everyone behaved like this?" With you I would ask: "What if everytime there were disagreements, each side truly believed the other side was not interested in productive work but just disruption?" This is in direct opposition to the standards on wikipedia that say we should assume good faith. That is a standard that you, especially, should hold up high and live by example, yet you do not as you cop to above. How can others be expected to behave to a level of quality that wikipedia leaders do not abide by? Yet you will sit in judgment upon them. I have tried very hard, and am continuing to try to work with serious intent to improve the article, yet I have not been given a moment of consideration. No hard feelings about that, but your accusations would not hold up to scrutiny nor do your attitudes comport well with policy. --Blue Tie 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - Wikipedia:Assume good faith Raul654 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, I strongly suggest you retract your previous statements declaring those who have discussed in this FAR have no intentions in contributing in good faith and productively on global warming. Wikipedia asks you assume good faith. Because you disagree with them gives you no right to avoid this rule, considering you have no evidence to the contrary. ~ UBeR 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is manifold - Tony's off-wiki attack site (Right to Race), the sockpuppeting I uncovered using checkuser (Rameses, Britannia, Persephone), your now-deleted hit-list, and the blatantly biased edits you and others have been making to this article. Contrast that with William et al's infinite patience in putting up the never-ending supply of POV warriors who attack that page, and leave a month later only to be replaced by someone else - yourself included. William et al have gotten this article up to FA status despite the handicap of having to deal with such users. Raul654 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering you have not been involved in the article or this dispute whatsoever, your judgment is very poor. Considering you have made no real observations of either of latter claims, your faulty logic will be ignored. ~ UBeR 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A small POV section of editors (who come, go, and for the most part are replaced a few months later) have been waging war against this article for years now. It's been made a FA despite their efforts, and should stay that way. The controversy here has no correlation to reality. Mostlyharmless 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Raul654 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps even non-POV editors come and go because the guardians are so strict and even abusive that it discourages people from participating. --Blue Tie 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence of this, unless you mean strict in the sense of enabling the pillars of WP. --Skyemoor 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe he means what he said, in no uncertain terms, and I agree with him. I have felt crushingly demoralized by this article and its talk pages. Not so much do to my own insignificant requests being shot down, but from reading the discourse (to use a kind word) between others. This article is under the complete control of William Connolley, whether directly or indirectly. --64.222.222.25 06:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the article has been protected. It is not going anywhere for now. Would editors please be so kind as to state their objections to the current revision. As far as I can tell Hink and William Conelley are the only ones who have stated their objections clearly, but these don't seem to be enough to remove this article from Featured status. Please be civil and cool-headed beyond this point. Thank you. -RunningOnBrains 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a poll on the talk page to unprotect the page and revert to a particular old revision, which curretly has a high degree of support. Raul654 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That I can see. Still, I'd like to concentrate on the FAR, as discussion regarding that must occur here. Otherwise it will by default retain its FA status, and I'd rather see one of our project's articles removed than a sub-standard article remain an FA. I have not read the article fully yet, but I'd like to know if the consensus is that it needs reviewing or not. -RunningOnBrains 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:OWN. Any attempts to raise attribution, POV, or synthetic OR concerns get reverted on sight, preventing other editors from being made aware of issues on the article. --Facethefacts 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To Running: Yes per nom and Facethefacts and the rest of the discussion above. ~ UBeR 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To Running: No Support FA Status, per the discussion above. The complaints are from some who have a particular POV that only has tiny minority status among scientists, though there is still much discussion amongst politicians and pundits. Since the article is focused on the science, any political/punditry predilections should be identified on Global warming controversy. The article retains the quality required to continue its FA status. --Skyemoor 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Skyemoor on both counts. I haven't written more than a couple of words in the article but am often on the talk pages where these accusations keep being made. I keep asking what the substance of the POV complaint is and just get non-sequitors and abuse back from what seem to be a minority group of people who want to slant the article with fringe views and upset everyone in the process. I find it rather tiring and have complained at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacksWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Reigning_in_Uber.27s_trolling but this hasn't stopped e.g. [1] --BozMo talk 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I urge you to retract your statements. Once again, you fail to assume good faith. Is the view that statements should be sourced so fringe? Oh, really, BozMo? Is my view that original research should be withheld from articles a fringe view? Oh, really, BozMo? Is my view that attribution should be given to sources a fringe view? Oh, really, BozMo? Admittedly, it might upset those who insert their POV and unsourced claims, because these rules prevent this very thing. But that is not a good enough reason to ignore them. You you should also note the author of the previous complaint was unable to convene any evidence for his unfounded claims. Shame. ~ UBeR 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The views you present are mixed. I am happy to acknowledge that some of your contributions are appropriate and that some of the changes you make are improvements. However, I still find the way you conduct yourself often uncivil, personal and aggressive however good faith you are. And although with good faith I am happy to believe you are convinced that there is a valid POV complaint I still find your replies full of non-sequitors and don't know what the real complaint is. --BozMo talk 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought we already discussed this. I'm trying to figure out how I can make my message any clear, but it's difficult. I do not see how if a statement isn't sourced it does not follow that it should not be included in Wikipedia. Sequitur. It follows. However, note the current version is fine. ~ UBeR 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how people can claim that this article has the stability a FA requires. In the 30 hours following unprotection, there have been 53 substantial edits to the article, a countless number of them involving (sometimes full) reverts or POV/weasel word allegations. It is also my conviction that if a minority (no matter how small) continues to be of the opinion that this article is not NPOV, their concerns should be taken into account, or at least acknowledged on the article page. Not by allowing them to include whatever they want of course, but ignoring or supressing their opinion just because some of them are alledged trolls (if I can believe the above, I'm not choosing sides here) is just as unacceptable. And certainly if this is done to preserve FA status at all cost. I hate to make the comparison, but look at George W. Bush. This is also a flagship article (as you like to call this one), it's even one of the most edited articles, but due to constant problems is not featured either. I'm afraid this is just something we'll have to live with concerning controversial subjects. Nick Mks 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apart from a couple of page blankings (and there's a semi-prot on now) I don't see any of the changes in the last 30 hours as substantial? The odd word or reference here or there but personally I would have been happy with any of the versions in this time: not that I wouldn't want the odd bit of polish. --BozMo talk 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support FA status I personally have no qualms with the article. It is an ongoing issue, so of course there will be frequent edits to the article. However, it remains balanced and reflects scientific opinion on the subject very well. As other editors have already stated, the complaints about POV stem from very small minority viewpoints, and there is no reason to give significant weight to them. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support FA status Concerns about stability don't seem to have enough merit; I've seen real edit wars and this seems more like some minor quabbling over some wording.

I do have a few minor qualms however:

• "Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if no further greenhouse gases are released after this date." This could use a source, it is an important assertion.
• The "Global dimming" section is a stub, either merge it or expand it from the main article.
• Fix the few "citation needed" areas.
• Why does a single scientist with an admittedly minority view get a whole section? ("Pre-industrial global warming") If he is notable enough to mentioned so prominantly, there should be some sort of reference to the effect.

Other than that, I don't see many problems. Of course, I wasn't looking too hard for weasel words, can anyone spot any? -RunningOnBrains 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As for weasel words, I have pointed in an earlier discussion that "climate scientist" is weasel wording and it remains a problem in this article (2 occurences as of now). For example, in the Mitigation subsection, we have "The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase...". To who does this refer exactly? Each is left to guess. Please read these discussions (see this as well as this). This sort of wording is stubbornly used by climate activists roaming this article in order to give a false feeling of authority to claims that cannot be verifiable otherwise. Besides, I'm all willing to support the FA status if this sort of problem can be resolved. --Childhood's End 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer one of your points, Brains, Mr. Connolley has reverted any content added to the global dimming section. As to why Pre-Industrial Warming has so much content and very little helpful information, I do no know why it is expanded so much, especially considering his data is disputed. ~ UBeR 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to ROB for some helpful comments. Continued warming - its essentially obvious, but the AR4 says it bottom of p17. I've put that in. Global dimming - is nothing but a pointer to the GD article. If there is a better way to link it, I'd be happy to hear it. Pre-ind warming is a fairly short section (I'm afraid I don't understand so much content and very little helpful information). The view is marginal but not obscure... its not big enough to be its own article (yet). In scientific terms, the view is probably as well supported as the solar variation stuff, which gets far more prominence William M. Connolley 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the removal of the protection, this article has been steeped in POV edit warring by both sides. It is not stable due to these continued efforts to push one side's extremist view or the other's. There is no middle ground, apparently. Recommend de-featuring due to lack of stability and, apparent, POV problems. Kyaa the Catlord 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since unprotection we have done fairly well. While there still is quibbling about some details, very many of the edits are constuctive (if small).--Stephan Schulz 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: it has been rather peaceful and constructive for a bit/--BozMo talk 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not even a question that this page has a completely warped and biased point of view about Global Warming. The graph to the upper right of the page is labeled "Global mean surface temperatures from 1850 to 2006" and shows a huge increase over the last 20 years. However the index is labeled "Temperature Anomaly" with a spread of -.6 to +.6 C. Which is it? To a high school student it looks like global temperatures are increasing wildly which is I'm sure the point of view that the hysterics would like to convey. Either show a graph with actual temperatures for that time period or label it correctly to negate the clear slant in POV that there has been some huge increase in temperatures. Why am I the only person to point this out? I'm not even a Climatologist and I can see this without cracking a book? Connelley edits this page to correct grammar but yet ignores this type of gross misrepresentation and you wonder why people question the wisdom of being locked out of correcting this page.

The above critique of the article was left by Showman, deleted by Raul and then returned to the page by Showman. I believe that it is a fair critique of a graph in the article, one that I had also wondered about, and should not be deleted. However, I have moved it from the top of the section nearer to the bottom where it should have appeared originally. --Blue Tie 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see a POV problem. It in no way pushes a point, and all axes are clearly labeled. If someone is too lazy to even read what is represented on the graph, of course they are not going to get an accurate idea of what the graph is portraying, but how can we guard against that?? Why is it our responsibility if the person doesn't actually read anything?-RunningOnBrains 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because I added anomaly to the description after he pointed it out. ~ UBeR 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the scale of the graph was also an issue somehow. Perhaps the idea being that a few degrees is not a big deal? I think that with a long-enough time period displayed, the difference from a mean is the better way to go. But perhaps a graph that shows average temperatures and not difs from mean would be interesting too. --Blue Tie 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The actuals are not known as well as the anomalies. But since all it involves is shifting the whole graph up or down by a constant, or rather adding a constant to the labels on the y-axis, what difference would it make? If we're down to this level of trivia, the articles FA status is secure William M. Connolley 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the chart is a problem, an appropriately labeled and discussed, it is fine. ZBut I think the comment creates an interesting sort of problem. It would seem, based upon what I read, that the person writing there wants to see what they would call the "real" temperature. Maybe degrees C above zero. I think what he or she is getting at is the relative difference of temperature. Expand the scale and the numbers look smaller. But then, the only absolute temperature scale I can think of is Kelvin and that would too substantially minimize the graph. However, recognizing that this is the line of thinking that some folks may have when they see such a graph, somehow it would be a good thing to include words or discussion about the "how" of measuring the warming trend. I do not exactly know how to do this efficiently but I think somehow, some folks will think "Oh, only 2 degrees? When the "average" is maybe 25, thats not so bad." The article should help (or should direct to an article that helps) improve this understanding. I am also thinking of tipping points. In superconductors, bathed in LN or LH, you can get a localized hot spot that will raise the local resistance. This is unstable and can spread through the whole mass, sometimes with interesting results. But the localized hot spot might only be a few degrees different from the rest. I see it as analogous. Anyway, I do not think this added education of the casual reader is necessary for it to be FA, but I think there can be other improvements.--Blue Tie 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Restructuring

In addition to issues with regard to POV on this page, one of the criticisms of wikipedia articles is that they are created and edited "piecemeal" and as a result they lose a sense of consistency and cohesiveness. In addition, the overall structure is sometimes a bit hodge-podge. I think this article suffers less than most but I also think that the POV in the authors caused structure issues and the whole article could be improved by re-organizing the current content and then filling in holes or (in a few cases) deleting extraneous material or moving it to a better page. I have noticed in other articles that go through a restructuring process that starts with an outline, that some huge holes emerge that were previously overlooked.

I am currently working on a re-organization along the lines of:

• Introduction (Summary)
• What Global Warming is (and how it comes about)
  • Factors that may produce Global Warming (The science of how it works)
    • Greenhouse gases
    • Solar Radiation
    • etc?
  • Factors that may mitigate Global Warming (The science of how it is reduced)
    • Aerosols
    • Volcanism & Disasters
    • Clouds and Albedo
    • etc?
• How Global Warming is Studied (and the history of its studies)
  • Historical Global Temperature Studies
  • The (alleged) role of civilization on Global Temperature Variation
  • Projections of Global Temperatures
• Possible effects of higher temperatures on other Climate and Environment factors
• Debates over Global Warming, forecasts and actions
  • An explanation of the difficulty in developing and interpreting evidence
  • Debates over the existance of the phenomenon
  • Debates over the role of man in the phenomenon
  • Debates over climate forecasts
  • Debates over efforts to mitigate anticipated warming

Where there are separate articles that cover these sections, they should be summarized reasonably and linked. The introduction should summarize these sections and should be written both first and then scrapped and re-written over again after everything is consolidated. This would produce a better article that would not face as much resistance if the old article were not FA. --Blue Tie 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article excellent as is. There is no reason to do a rewrite. And your rewrite is a POV whitewash of massive proportions. Case and point - where does your rewrite mention a no-so-tiny detail like how much temperatures have gone up as a result of global warming? The 16th paragraph. Raul654 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider it a re-write. I consider it a restructuring. I used the outline described above. I have not changed any wording from the version that I brought over from the article page. I just changed the order of things along the lines of the outline above because the current article is sometimes a bit convoluted and jumps around a bit. I created the outline without any particular agenda in mind except to present the subject in a logical order. I would expect all aspects of the various elements, including temperature increases to be described in the lead (or lede as some say it), which I have not written because I have not finished anything yet. First restructuring. Then wordsmithing. I am not finished restructuring.

I am trying to improve the article. I think it needs improvement enough that it should not presently be FA. I know you disagree -- even to the point of removing valid but negative comments from this page -- but in my opinion the current article still needs more work. --Blue Tie 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the specifics of global warming should be in the lede, I fail to see any POV in that format. However, I believe that a re-write is exactly what this article doesn't need; it needs to reach a stable solution, and there is little wrong with the current version. -RunningOnBrains 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you recognize that I am not really calling for a re-write. I was suggesting that, after the bit here and piece here editing of the article a comprehensive re-structuring, to follow a logical presentation of the subject matter should be done. THEN, if it becomes clear that some parts need to be smoothed or that some information is missing would writing take place. I believe that the restructuring is appropriate prior to FA. I think the article is not quite as well rounded as it should be if you look at it in the outline I describe above. Regardless of how that outline gets structured in terms of order, there are bits that seem to be missing. --Blue Tie 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. External links need pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. See also is a wreck; pls refer to WP:GTL; to the extent possible, important articles should be linked into the text in order to minimize See also. Further reading is all over the place as well, not alphabetical, with no particular order or formatting style. (In other words, all of these aspects combined show that some POV is probably in play here, with many different editors wantiing to get their two cents in.) Publishers (author and pub date where available) aren't mentioned on all sources, examples — Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. and Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Retrieved on December 19, 2005. Last access dates as well, example — ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12. Ref cleanup is needed after the article rewrite is completed. See WP:LAYOUT, see also templates go at the top of sections, not bottom. Of course cite needed tags need to be dealt with, as well as POV issues. This is out of place in the lead, which should summarize the article: (See: List of Kyoto Protocol signatories.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, SandyGeorgia, the further reading actually was ordered alphabetically. One or two of them had the authors first name in front of their last name, perhaps making appear as if they were not alphabetized. Only one was not in the correct order, and it was the most recent one added. I fixed those issues. I try to work on some of the others issues you pointed out. Should any of the links that appear in the article be removed from the "See also" section? ~ UBeR 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes; articles already linked in the article need not be included in See also. Yes; journal is publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Purged the see also of all duplicate links. Deleted the see also to Kyoto signatories. Further reading was cleaned-up quite a bit, but still requires more work. Will try to get all missing info from References added, to the extent possible, later. Cheers, ~ UBeR 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, most of the references are to scientific journals. In my experience, it is very unusual to give the publisher of these. Of the 96 journal articles in my private BibTeX file, exactly one has a publisher (and yes, this file is used to generate references for scientific publications). --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Citing the journal without a publisher is fine - I mean, {{cite journal}} will not accept a publisher parameter. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Because the journal is the publisher. :-) ~ UBeR 08:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. If the reference is missing the journal parameter, though, then that's a different story... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An anon added what I think is nothing but noise here. If you want to re-insert it... I wish you wouldn't William M. Connolley 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose FA ststus This article fails the comprehensive criterion in as much as its omission of information that is vital to the global warming debate.

1. For starters, the article treats the issue as purely scientific. There is no information on the part played by the media is the portrayal of global warming (for example, how the media may or may not have exaggerated the issue)
2. Secondly, it fails to summarize the argument surrounding the Kyoto protocol. Why have some countries failed to ratify it?
3. This is obviously a pro-global warming article. Any opposing opinion is not adequately addressed, but simply linked to at the bottom of the article. That is unacceptable. We need a section devoted to this. As it currently stands, I'm surprised that this article passed FAC at all. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject matter is scientific. Other side aspects have their own articles, such as Global warming controversy. Kyoto Protocol has its own article as well. As this article is based on the scientific evidence, that which is contrary to the prevailing view is in a tiny minority. --Skyemoor 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Just want to let everyone know, this article is currently the subject of a mediation case. You can view it at the following page. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming. I will also place this information on this review's talk page. thanks. --Sm8900 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unstable

The article is apparently unstable without protection. Protected twice in two weeks because of so many edits and reverts. FA Articles should be better constructed so as not to result in such disputes.--Blue Tie 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is largely stable; the main ideas, structure, and text has remained essentially the same for weeks or months. The text has been superficially cleaned a bit, and there were some edits before it was protected the second time which will take some further review, but for the most part the article is fairly constant. In fact, in a previous section you yourself said it was stable, and thought this stability was (in a sense) a problem with the article:[2] . It would seem the actual problem you're driving at is that edits by a handful of editors are not being accepted by most of the editors of the article. This does not seem to speak to the article's instability, it speaks to its stability in the face of controversy. --TeaDrinker 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit warring and OWN issues on that article really need to be killed before it can even be considered a GA. I continue to recommend removal of FA status. Kyaa the Catlord 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. If there is a chance of a controversial article being featured, the Global warming article is it. Global warming fits FA criteria as well as an article on a poltically controversial topic can. It accurately presents the science, has established scientists edit the article, and retains an accurate view of the science in the face of political pressure. I certainly support restention of FA status. --TeaDrinker 06:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Blue Tie, hence the single colon. GW fails criteria 1(b) in that it currently minimizes or simply dismisses large sections of GW, the political, social and economic aspects of the phenomena. Until it overcomes this and the editors who stubbornly stand in the way of anyone seeking to expand the coverage of such aspects in the name of "science", it should not be a FA. It also has historically had problems with 1(e), it is a hotbed of edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

GW is inherently a scientific topic. Other topics are generated as a result of its attention, such as Global warming controversy, Effects of global warming, and so forth, though these have their own article niches and should not pollute the explanation of the science. Other FA articles receive high levels of attention and editting, even to the point of protection, though they remain FA as well. --Skyemoor 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Other FAs do not undergo tens of edits containing the comment rv without being followed by vandalism in two weeks. Nick Mks 10:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Near the end of the last protection, an editor explicitly expression the intent to continue inserting what most editors thought was pov pushing, even in the knowledge that it would be reverted. Is that vandalism? It is not simple vandalism er WP:VAND, although I would call it disruptive. It warrants a revert, but calling it vandalism may be inappropriate according to a strict definition, and in any event, would only would serve to inflame. I don't think is it reasonable that reverts of edits made in questionable faith, even if not marked vandalism, should be taken as evidence of instability. --TeaDrinker 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my remark was meant to be funny, but obviously it made my sentence too complicated to understand. I meant to say that many rvs were made to this article in terms of edit warring and content disputes, while normal FAs only undergo rvs as a result of vandalism. Nick Mks 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

On a second read, it seems to me that you did understand my intentions, but disagree. However, if you do not consider a surge of (pure) vandalism-unrelated, dispute inspired reverts a sign of unstability, then what is? Nick Mks 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is only unstable because some editors constantly attempt to push their POV into the article (in fact, these are in part the same editors who wish to demote the article from FA status). I do not mean to comment on the contributors rather than the contributions, but it is the most rational way to explain the stability issues, in this case. Before this edit war started, the article was much more stable. Besides, the nature of many of the edits are without a doubt disruptive, as TeaDrinker already suggested. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? WP:FA says [s]table means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reversions and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. (emphasis mine). It does not provide an exception in the case that the majority thinks that the edit war is caused by a minority of POV-pushers. That leaves two options:

• either have that minority blocked as vandals or (since they are a minority that should be easy) by having them violate WP:3RR, or;
• acknowledge that the above option would be POV-pushing from the other side and admit that, whoever is right, this article in its current state is unfit to be termed stable and neutral. Nick Mks 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and concerning the people who are trying to demote the article being the edit warrers, I'm the nominator, I have made exactly 0 edits to the article and 3 to its talk page (all pertaining to the FAR). Nick Mks 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not a doubt in my mind that the article is neutral, and I would hesitate to call the edit war "ongoing," as it is a rather recent phenomenon. Either way, I do not agree with such strict interpretation of the stability criterion; the article's virtues easily outweigh that one single vice. I suppose then, if you truly believe that it is unstable, that I must invoke WP:IAR, because the article is an excellent example of what a Wikipedia article should strive to become, despite the edit wars. Otherwise, we are straying too far from the main purpose of the featured article program, which is to mark Wikipedia's best articles for all to see. The stability criterion is there to ensure that articles which constantly change and could soon fail the other criteria are not marked as featured. This article is not at risk of failing the other criteria, though, as it has remained in pristine condition, and has actually changed little as a result of the edit wars. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"as it is a rather recent phenomenon". Recent you say? I encourage you to look again at the full history of discussions on this article. Nothing is recent about the disputes, edit wars and lockdown of this page. I must emphasize that there would only be no dispute if nothing was seen as lacking with this article. But, complaints on this have been brought up by literally hundreds of comtributors, members and admins, in the past and very little has been resolved by the act of compromise. WP:OWN is clearly a very major issue here and the idea of an evolving and open article simply does not exist. Wikipedia is still a very young system and in my opinion this is one of its greatest faults. The machine512 11:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually did look at the full history, and while there have been POV edits for ages, the edit wars have not been as escalated as they are right now. The fact remains that the only people who destabilize the article are skeptics who wish to do so. In my opinion, many of these edits are akin to vandalism, or at least should be treated as such for the purpose of the stability criterion. WP:OWN is definitely not a major issue here; if you look at those who revert the changes, a good deal of them are not major contributors to the article (I have reverted several POV edits, for instance, but I have not actually written anything in the article). Also, I find it odd that you call for both a constantly evolving article and a stable one. The two do not go hand in hand, unfortunately. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. An article that is almost constantly protected to contain edit wars and has page long hostile discussions on its talk page is not something I want a visitor to find labeled as one of Wikipedia's best... Nick Mks 10:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have been involved in a number of astronomical FA articles, including Binary Star, which are subjects near and dear to my heart, though they do not have the level of attention and political controversy that this subject attracts (even Brown Dwarf :-). Yes, other FA articles are highly editted, even with some edit warring and protection, such as Barack Obama for example. So that in itself is not a reason to remove it from FA status. --Skyemoor 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I don't know what to say to this. I've already given the example of George W. Bush, which is also an extremely high profile article but is not featured either due to edit wars. Maybe the comparison with real political topics such as those is not appropriate though. I guess it's more natural for a political topic to be so actively debated than (what should be) a purely scientific one. Nick Mks 13:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am struggling with, suppose FA stsus is not retained. How do we improve te article? We can't change reality to reflect the views of the GW skeptics (in fact, if we did, we would rightfully get a bunch more critics). I feel like you're arguing that some articles can not be FA in principle, no matter how well written, well cited, etc.. I don't edit the Bush article, and don't really know what the issues are there, but it seems downright bizzare that we would deny FA status in principle because it is politically contentious. --TeaDrinker 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Like TeaDrinker said, there are other controversial featured articles. I still hold to my belief that this article's virtues outweigh its stability issues. It does seem a little unreasonable to exclude certain articles from FA status simply because they are controversial. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Support FA status I think that this is an excellent, well written article. Apart from a few citation issues there are no real problems. The stability issue raised above is not a problem. The article's content has remained stable despite attempts to bring in the view of the skeptics that are not part of the scientific literature.

Stability of content won't become an issue in the future, precisely because there is a strong scientific consensus about the issues discussed in the article and the article focusses on the science of global warming. This means that the critics can only "back up" their flawed arguments by referring to unreliable sources (right wing blogs, unpublished papers, flawed preprints rejected by journals etc.).

This is completely different from other politically charged subjects that are not scientific in nature. In such cases there are often two or more equally valid perspectives and you can find reliable sources where all these points of views can be backed up. This can lead to edit wars that cannot be settled easily. The case of this article can perhaps best be compared to the article on evolution. There are probably creationists who e.g. want to write that "evolution is just a theory" and make many such edits every day that are then reverted within 20 seconds. This in itself is not a stability issue. Count Iblis 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the scientific/political difference is concerned, that is exactly what I mean. Therefore, edit wars and POV allegations are slightly more acceptable and expectable in a political article, and should be totally out of the question here. Lately, I do not at all agree that this is the case. I'm not gonna sum up my arguments here again, but I'll reformulate them soon enough. Nick Mks 08:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC Request

Today, April 9, 2007, at 17:49 UTC to be exact, this FAR listing will have been up for two weeks. I hereby quote from WP:FAR:

The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. (...) If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list.

As far as the first sentence is concerned, I am convinced that it is not useful (in fact, totally useless) to continue the process. As a matter of fact, the topics/arguments/edits in this FARC, the article's talk page and the article itself, have barely changed over the course of this fortnight. We are even back to sqaure one with a new protection. In my opinion, this could go on until the next ice age without yielding anything productive, let alone consensus. This brings us to the second sentence above. Unless somebody is convinced that we have a consensus in the discussion above that this article is now NPOV and stable, I must suggest that we move on to the next logical step in the process, i.e. FARC.

As the nominator, I shall also give my personal view, which will be my declaration if and when FARC is initiated:

Remove FA status: while I sympathize with the arguments of the article's writers defenders of FA status, I must disagree with them. Since the problems with this article only began recently, it can be hoped that they will end someday soon. Currently however, with nearly one thousand edits to the article talk page since the FAR initiation, most of them under headers containing words as POV or neutrality, and hundreds of edits in the article (tens of them in edit warring - I believe some people's "r" and "v" keyboard buttons must have worn out), in my interpretation this article fails FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e) more than ever. As a matter of fact, this article is currently in all the following categories at the same time: Protected, Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007, Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 and Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. The culmination of all this misery is the most recent protection and the resulting subdiscussion. On a side note, I'm currently struggling to get the article Moon featured. There it comes down to discussions on what kind of dash should be used in what situation per WP:DASH. If being featured requires having the right number of pixels in your dash (which I do not dispute), then I consider the current problems with this one of another level. Nick Mks 09:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I point out again that I labeled the above as my personal view, which will be my declaration if and when FARC is initiated. It was therefore not my intention to initiate FARC right away (I am unaware who is authorized to do so), and regret that it has been interpreted as such. Nick Mks 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that characterising the above commentators as "the article's authors" looks rather wide of the mark.--BozMo talk 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I did so (without thinking about it) because I assumed the correlation to be high. I have never looked up any names, and I presumed that mainly the people who worked hard to get the article featured would defend it. I changed my wording to avoid any confusion. My apologies if this has caused any discomfort. Nick Mks 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The second biggest contributer in terms of edits seems to be UBeR who is unhappy with the status quo. By contrast as a defender, although I've have been on talk pages a bit I didn't really write any of the current text. --BozMo talk 17:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Continued FA Status: The article is at a fairly high level of refinement, and WP is fortunate to have scientists in the field participating in the updating of new findings in the field. The source of much of the edit warring comes primarily from those who exhort 3RR edit warring, engage in wikilawyering, want to change the article for completely political reasons, and have been so disruptive that Jimbo "would be happy for them to be shown the door". Indeed, the only reason the article remains an FA is because of the persistence by neutral WP editors to maintain NPOV in spite of the efforts of those who would prefer to make ideological points instead. --Skyemoor 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is refined. I believe to some extent it is disjointed and could be better written regardless of the POV or NPOV problems. But also, the article's name and content are being reconsidered in a very basic way. It is not stable. I particularly object to your uncharitable characterization of the editors who bring objections. Some of the people you brought up are not even editing on that page. Its a strawman. --Blue Tie 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Each of the persons discussed in the links I provided above have been active in editing the GW page. Simply because their comments also bleed over onto user talk pages and the like is no reason to pretend they are not involved in editing GW. And notice I said "much of the edit warring comes primarily from" which is in no way an indictment of everyone on the side who wants to politicize the GW page. --Skyemoor 14:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If Skyemoor could ever make a non-fallacious argument, he might be listened to. ~ UBeR 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have combined trolling and a personal attack in one short sentence. --Skyemoor 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove FA status The naive belief that global warming science can or should be seen independently of politics is what drives some good faithed people to require that this article be edited or discussed independently of politics. It is easily forgotten that global warming science mostly emanates from the United Nations and that every scientist in the world, just like every other human being, is subject to his personal interests' imperatives which can only be served by politics. While unfortunate, the political debate surrounding the global warming issue cannot be parted from the scientific debate since the science herein is primarily used to push public policies rather than for science itself. Both debates are intertwined and inherent to each other. This article is thus inherently political and should not retain FA status until the science has escaped the political sphere (and the UN's grasp foremost). --Childhood's End 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you all please stop entering Keep/Remove opinions in the review phase? Remove/Keep "votes" are entered once the article moves to FARC; the two weeks has never been hard and fast, so please relax. It will get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are assuming this article will move to FARC? Why the assumption? --BozMo talk 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be read two ways. I perceived it as meaning that remove/keep votes are only entered at FARCs. That is, that's the only place such voting occurs, not necessarily meaning this article would be nominated to that. ~ UBeR 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was a genuine question, not a protest. I don't think a "consensus" is likely here (and FARC seems the right place for settling this to me personal), so I thought perhaps it was WP:SNOW ... perhaps I misread the "there" in "it will get there". --BozMo talk 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on the process: when there is no clear consensus to retain status without FARC, Marskell usually moves articles to FARC, where editors may opine "Keep" or "Remove". But yes, my note was only to please refrain from entering "votes" at the review stage, which is for "review". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are neutrality (1d) and stability (1e). Marskell 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume we can start now? As announced, here goes:

• Remove FA status: while I sympathize with the arguments of the defenders of FA status, I must disagree with them. Since the problems with this article only began recently, it can be hoped that they will end someday soon. Currently however, with over one thousand edits to the article talk page since the FAR initiation, most of them under headers containing words as POV or neutrality, and hundreds of edits in the article (tens of them in edit warring - I believe some people's "r" and "v" keyboard buttons must have worn out), in my interpretation this article fails FA criteria 1(d) and 1(e) more than ever. As a matter of fact, this article is currently in all the following categories at the same time: Protected, Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007, Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 and Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. The culmination of all this misery is the most recent protection (which will enter its second week tonight) and the resulting subdiscussion. On a side note, I recently struggled to get the article Moon featured. There it came down to discussions on what kind of dash should be used in what situation per WP:DASH. If being featured requires having the right number of pixels in your dash (which I do not dispute), then I consider the current problems with this one of another level. Nick Mks 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep - all of the problems are due to insurgency by the skeptics. Featured article status should not depend on the type of dash; nor should it be removable because of tendentious editing by skeptics. The article was (deservedly) of featured status before; it is now. The article is neutral and also stable - as pointed out before, the edit history demonstrates its stability, not otherwise. As to neutrality - the complaints are froth not substance William M. Connolley 16:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Well its not stable at the moment; nor am I convinced the current version is better than the old one. Perhaps a huge revert is in order William M. Connolley 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Its back to stability (following some harsh but necessary admin intervention) and back to being good, so restoring keep vote William M. Connolley 14:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How is requesting a source for an unreferenced and contentious statement skeptical? There is a problem with this false categorizations as people as "conspiracy theorists" or "non-scientists" and are used to discredit suggestions made by the editors, when in fact an overwhelming amount of what is being said has nothing to do with science at all. ~ UBeR 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It is not "neutral." When people point out why, and how to remedy it, you say that you are "bored" with the discussion, and that's the end of it. This is not how I define "neutral." It is also far from "stable." It is indeed under control, but this, again, is not how I define "stable." --64.222.222.25 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove FA status -- very interesting article and some good work in there. But neutrality is indirectly compromised by overly narrow interpretation of what sources are acceptable and what items should be covered under this general topic. Stability issues are huge and relate to the neutrality problem just described. UPDATE: The stability issue is not actually a recent one. Excluding November and December of 2006, the article has pretty consistently experienced an average of over 500 edits a month since October 2005.--Blue Tie 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ANOTHER UPDATE: It really is not ready for FA. The article will continue to have POV problems and will be the subject of edit wars until two conditions are change: 1). Ownership of the article by people who have very strong biases, needs to be reduced. This ownership is preventing the article from being improved because the owner/authors do not consider the current work to be substantially improvable. 2). The structure of the article is not good. It is a structure that comes from a particular pov and then perpetuates that pov. These two things have combined to produce an article that is not stable and furthermore, invites disruption. Until these issues are fixed, it is not FA material. --Blue Tie 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove FA status -- There are valid issues being discussed and contended here. They have been points of valid but great contention.I agree completely with Nick Mks, above. William, do you really mean to characterize the other side of this edit discussion as an "insurgency"? That seems an odd way to characterize a valid set of views and actions done by numerous good-faith editors. --Sm8900 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep FA status per William. Those who oppose global warming can create an article that presents the opposing view points. No more challenge on neutrality. OhanaUnited 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. 1c, 1d, 1e, and 2. What a very strange situation for a featured article. I just had a look so I could fix the sorts of MOS things I usually fix at this stage, and guess what? I can't; the article is fully protected. So, there are WP:MOSNUM, WP:GTL, WP:DASH problems and incompletely formatted footnotes (at least, missing nbsps, incorrect use of dashes, See also templates in the wrong place, and blue-link only footnotes as well as other formatting errors in footnotes). So, right now, the article fails 2, and can't be edited because it's unstable (1e). I also can't add cite tags, and there are cite needed tags in place (1c). (oh. That means only admins can edit the article. Interesting.) Some of the comments above are quite illuminating ("insurgency by the skeptics" and "create an article that presents the opposing view points" - uh, that would be a POV split); do editors not understand what NPOV means (1d)? Apparently there is complete intransigency with respect to neutralizing the article, and mediation doesn't appear to have helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind a lot of the style issues (criteria 2) can be solved when the article is unlocked. Could you perhaps point to some specific places, as I would very much like to fix any problems in violation of the MoS. ~ UBeR 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I can, but it's going to take me *so* much longer to type them up than it would to just fix them myself :-) I'll add a list to the talk page here (at the FAR) as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Article was unprotected, so I did a bit. UBeR moved the templates; I've fixed all the other issues I could find. The references still need a lot of work; they appeared to have been added piecemeal by many different editors, with no consistent style, a failure to use named refs on repeats, and there's a lot of missing info there. I'll keep working on those later if the article stays unprotected long enough. More to do still. There's a new issue at WP:ANI about not using px sizes on thumb images (Greek to me, but I removed them). Also, have a look at the use of nowrap to keep the temperature ranges together—easier than using lots of nbsps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll try to work some more on fixing refs and also making them consistent as possible. From what I could tell, it doesn't look any refs that don't have names are being duplicated, but I'll check more thoroughly later. Thanks for your work. Still trying to decide if using just thumbs instead of consistent 280 is good or bad. Tried to chime in at the ANI. We'll see. ~ UBeR 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • That thumbnail business is Greek to me, but I thought I should go ahead and do it while I was in there. I thought I saw one ref many times; when I get back over there (maybe tonight), I'll doublecheck. I was more concerned about the missing information (publishers, etc.) and it struck me that there was an awful lot of uncited opinion, but I tend to focus on one thing at a time, and I was only in cleanup mode. More later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
            • This is the most unstable FA I've ever worked on, and I hesitate to continue cleaning up refs with all the reverts going on. If the article stabilizes to the point that I can work on the little stuff, someone ping me and I'll pitch in. In the meantime, 1c, 1d, and 1e are serious issues here; certainly not a fine example of Wiki's core policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • About one third of the article in printed form is footnotes and further reading. One third. And you don't even provide arguments as to why the article is to be considered unverifiable; you don't even try. As for complaints about stability, I hardly need to point out the absurdity of a FAR-regular voting to demote because of stability problems because the FAR itself has sparked another POV offensive by the Anti-Environmentalist League. Peter ^Isotalo 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Anti-Environmentalist League." That's a fallacy if I ever saw one, and an erroneous one at that, and probably a personal attack. I strongly urge you retract your statements and to use better judgment, especially when speaking about people of whom you haven't a clue. ~ UBeR 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's easy to get lost in the edit warring, the little details, and the sometimes vicious discussion on talk. But whenever I re-read the whole article, I'm positively suprised about the quality. I don't think there is a similar comprehensive, accessible, and well-sourced resource on this topic anywhere on the web. --Stephan Schulz 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I support removing FA status for this article. Not because of any viewpoint in particular, but because I don't think articles with any citations needed within their body should be FA. GA articles, let alone FA articles, are supposed to be completely referenced. It may also be unstable, depending upon your definition. Weasel words are also not supposed to lie within wikipedia articles at all. I support dropping it to either B or GA status until these problems are resolved. Thegreatdr 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep FA status. I can only buttress the comments of William M. Connolley. With specific regard to stability, if edits are proposed, discussed, and rejected by most editors on the talk page, and a handful of editors make the edits anyway (followed by an inevitable revert), this is not instability in the spirit of 1(e) any more than simple vandalism is. We have a curiosity that the page was locked specifically and explicitly to avoid having to block people engaged in this kind of bad-faith editing (violating 3RR in the process). While I am not saying it was a bad decision, I wonder if they had simply been blocked if this would even be an issue. With regard to 1c. issues, there are four fact tags in the article: 2 from April, one from March, and one from February. These do need to be taken care of, however it does not strike me as a substantial problem; there is no evidence for long-residence times for fact tags, the article is extremely well cited. With regard to neutrality, 1(d), I can not imagine better editing on a controversial topic with regard to neutral point of view. There is a clear scientific viewpoint on the idea of anthropogenic global warming, and the article presents it as such. NPOV does not require dissenting views be given equal weight in science; in fact, when there is a scientific consensus (as is clearly the case in the idea of anthropogenic global warming), including as science the views of the extreme minority of scientists who disagree would be undue weight. In fact, the only substantive criticism I have heard leveled is a violation of criteria 2; these, while important, are minor, few in number, and most importantly, are easily remedied when the page is unlocked. --TeaDrinker 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the "most editors" you describe as rejecting certain edits have all made their allegiance to WMC clear in their GW talk comments. This could be construed as undo influence by WMC -- they are taking their cues from him. This only further bolsters the idea the true anonymity would benefit Wikipedia. Usernames should be abolished, and even IPs should be hidden from public view (using them to ban should of course remain).

• Even though the page was not "locked specifically and explicitly to avoid having to block people", TeaDrinker raises an interesting point. If wikipedia could just block all of the people who have problems with the pov in this article and retained only those who do not have such problems, the article would be extremely stable. And there are probably other articles where editors disagree, causing stability problems. If only wikipedia would just choose the one correct side and ban the other editors as vandals there would "clearly" be less contention and more stable articles. That this has not been consider before gives one pause to go hmmmmm...--Blue Tie 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the point, I should have been more specific; I was of course refering to the editing habits of editors, not their pov, being blockable. Not wanting to get into a large discussion here, I'll just add that I was refering to this comment by the protecting admin, in which he notes that the page was protected to avoid blocking people (for 3RR violations, not their views). --TeaDrinker 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep FA Status - The stability issues are a result of nothing more than efforts by the skeptics to include their POV in the article, which is perfectly neutral and reflects scientific opinion on the subject quite well (last time I checked, there are not any notable climatologists who deny AGW, or any peer reviewed papers which even question it). Now many would point to the stability again, but I think this is an excellent example of a time to invoke WP:IAR. Besides for the stability issues, the article is excellent. It really is one of the best articles on Wikipedia; it's well-written, informative and comprehensive, well-referenced, etc.. The article's virtues easily outweigh its one vice, and it would be a mistake to deny the article FA status simply because its subject is controversial among Wikipedia editors. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

*Remove. While I, probably more than anyone, would hate to see the article be demoted, the article simply isn't living up to the FA criteria. People here often use the fallacious argument of "it's unbalanced because they're skeptical." This is bollocks. Overwhelmingly, this article is unstable because there those who wish to insert unsupported information to support their views. Rarely, if ever, is the science behind the global warming in the article ever being disputed or changed or disrupted. Additionally, the article is not comprehensive. All links, even if it's just five words, pointing to any other article outside of the science of global warming are deleted. This wouldn't be a problem if the article was named global warming science, or some other. Various admins have voiced their opinions that the article should be comprehensive in scope, and at the very least devote little more than four sentences to other topics. Now there a few who wish to have absolutely no word on it, so as to make sure the readers never find any such articles with topics outside of the science. In order for this article to be comprehensive, it must deal with the topic of global warming, not just one specific and narrow point. I've made various suggestions to do this, but yet there remain the few who wish to keep the article limited and incomprehensive, often using unsupported allegations to support this. I do believe one day it could reach the requirements for FA, but at it's current state, it's simple a mess. ~ UBeR 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm striking my original vote, because it was placed before I went over the edit history of the article today. It appears it has changed quite drastically, and I simply cannot keep up. But it's a clear indication with such changes that the article is not stable for FA. ~ UBeR 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be only fair to note that uBeR has been one of the most active editors on the article in recent days, and a key factor in changing it "quite drastically". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A quick note of what I've personally experienced is that the stability has been getting better markedly. ~ UBeR 18:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. IMV the article, as I found it this evening, is neutral and covers the topic well. I've also done a few diffs to different points back in time and, while it has undergone substantial changes, I would not characterise it as 'unstable': the article has been improved and expanded, and there have obviously been a lot of revisions and reversions on smallish areas of the article, but I don't think that is a problem. (FWIW it's a substantially similar article to the one I remember reading a few weeks back). I think the separation of global warming as a scientific phenomenon from other aspects using summary style is entirely appropriate. I would be happier if the 'effects' section had less coverage of the extreme weather possibilities and more details of the ecological and human impact, but I don't regard that as a reason to delist the article. Regards, The Land 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per SandyGeorgia Article has serious stability and neutrality issues. Kyaa the Catlord 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep FA Status: The article is at a fairly high level of refinement, and WP is fortunate to have scientists in the field participating in the updating of new findings in the field. Claims of instability are from those pushing a tiny minority POV who realize that their edit warring might remove the article from FA status. The source of much of the edit warring comes primarily from those who exhort 3RR edit warring, engage in wikilawyering, want to change the article for completely political reasons, and have been so disruptive that Jimbo "would be happy for them to be shown the door". Indeed, the only reason the article remains an FA is because of the persistence by neutral WP editors to maintain NPOV in spite of the efforts of those who would prefer to make ideological points instead. --Skyemoor 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, excluding the effects of various missions to impose a specific POV on the article, it is satisfactorily stable. The article is well-balanced and accessible. Sandy's objections to it are not compelling. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep FA status. The citations-needed tags have been fixed (by me). Instability, per my above comment, is not an issue. The article is good, informative, 'etc - everything we expect a featured article to be, despite the transparent attempts of a certain cadre of editors to damage this article. Raul654 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This, the irony of the person who was blocked for edit warring on the article he calls stable. ~ UBeR 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This, the irony of the person who claims instability but adds in revert-bait just to keep the edit warring hopping during the FARC, for obvious reasons. Of course, these are all good faith edits [3] [4] [5] ... --Skyemoor 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No Irony at all. It is just plain wrong for editors to be attacking each other this way. --Blue Tie 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, Skyemoor, you were the one to revert them. You're just the one deleting good faithed edits. Shame. ~ UBeR 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
          • To anyone who actually believes that any of Uber's edits to this article are in good faith, I have a bridge to sell you. Raul654 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove from FA list (pretty much all of criterion 1). 1c, 1d, 1e per SandyGeorgia, and I've commented on the article's talk page why it fails 1b. Currently, the article talks about the science of global warming adequately, but it is not called Science of global warming or any other similar title; it is Global warming, and as such, needs to have some sort of discussion about political and societal effects of GW. Unfortunately, the lack of stability in the article makes 1a debatable as well. It is sad, as it is otherwise a good article, but it does lack those details. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from FA list for now - currently fails stability criteria and is undergoing significant changes to bring into line with summary style guidelines. Once the changes currently being rigorously discussed on the talk page are made it should be re-nominated. QmunkE 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from FA status. There is too much edit-warring between those with very strong views on both sides which leads to a bad, disjointed, unstable article that does not read well. Furthermore the article contains false statements and breaks WP:POV and WP:OR Paul Matthews 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per edit warring, stability, and POV issues that seem unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

FWIW, the article is currently unprotected and 2 fact tags are gone. Whether this is still true when you read this is another matter... William M. Connolley 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Its been protected AGAIN. Kyaa the Catlord 08:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment... rv self. I'm going to leave this to someone else. --Kim Bruning 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Kim, regarding your recent edits; the FAR moved to FARC on April 13, so it will be closed by Marskell or Joelr31 on or after April 27. GimmeBot will add the tags and update the article talk page then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is now semi-blocked and that is why I do not yet vote remove. Although, otherwise I would. There are many problems in this article, such as:

• The lead: 5 paragraphs for not a very long article?
• "Causes": IMO the first paragraphs need better citing.
• Stylistic: the inline citations sometimes are before the pm; sometimes they are after it, but with a gap before ...
• "Controversy" section: Besides the fact that it is tagged, the prose there is too choppy.
• "History" section: "The scientific consensus is that these greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the present warming trend. That consensus is not unanimous." I think I read exactly the same think in the lead, where it was cited as a matter of fact!
• "Related issues" section: The sub-sections there are too stubby. IMO you should merge or expand. But a one-sentence sub-section?!
• "See also" section: I think it is huge! Nothing of these is already cited in the text?--Yannismarou 11:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments: the article is permanently semi-prot. I don't quite understand why this affects your review. The article is 60k - since when is that "not long"? Causes: the cites are in the sub-articles. Controv: not tagged any more. History: I've just rm'd the first para since it doesn't really bleong there. See-also: agreed William M. Connolley 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your comment "cites are in the sub-articles", Wikipedia:Citing sources clearly states that Note: Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. Therefore, if the citations from the subarticle are also used in this article, they need to be in this article as well. Thegreatdr 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Data for the record, as there seems to be some confusion here on size. The article (currently, whatever that means in this case) is short on prose in relation to many FAs. Prose size is 23KB, and refs are 9KB, according to Dr pda's page size script (which, btw, doesn't count the text in the image captions, which is too long, IMO). Perhaps a lot of the edit warring has been focused on the lead and a lot of content has been shuffled out, explaining the relative size of the lead compared to the article. There are several stubby sections. Comprehensiveness continues to be a concern (see further comments above by Titoxd), and comments on WP:AN seem to confirm that this article has been a long-standing problem.[6] And, it has been consensus on FAC for as long as I've been there that summary style doesn't necessarily allow for the main article not to be cited. I understand Yannis' reluctance to review or comment on the article because of the instability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As for using WP:SUMMARY as an excuse to not to cite information, I don't see it as a very compelling one. There's no real reason not to have sources. Also, Mr. Petersen has proposed that we begin to actually review the summarized articles to see if our summaries are at all accurate. I agreed but also suggested to use citations anyway, regardless of how accurate our summaries are. One reason is because the summarized articles are mostly poor articles and usually very poorly sourced themselves. ~ UBeR 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the reasoning behind not excusing the main article from citatations which rely on a daughter article; FAC and FAR reviewers shouldn't have to review every daughter article. The article content needs to be verifiable on its own. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither should writers of very difficult FA articles need to jump through gratuitously defined hoops of demands set up by the FAR mafia. I know a lot of users here are extremely excited about forcing the "wherever the hell I tell you to cite"-rule of footnote density on everyone they disagree with, but as long as no community consensus exists to support it, both summary style and good faith are pretty darned important rules to abide by, as is the onus of actually providing good counter-arguments and valid counter-sources instead of just smearing generalized doubt based on personal opinion all over everything. If anything, this whole thing is a good example of when FARs should be avoided.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove because of the stability issues, it's a shame though. Aaron Bowen 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep FA status (I'm repeating the reasons I already gave above, I'm assuming that this is the "official vote"). I think that this is an excellent, well written article. Apart from a few citation issues there are no real problems. The stability issue raised above is not a problem. The article's content has remained stable despite attempts to bring in the view of the skeptics that are not part of the scientific literature.

Stability of content won't become an issue in the future, precisely because there is a strong scientific consensus about the issues discussed in the article and the article focusses on the science of global warming. This means that the critics can only "back up" their flawed arguments by referring to unreliable sources (right wing blogs, unpublished papers, flawed preprints rejected by journals etc.).

This is completely different from other politically charged subjects that are not scientific in nature. In such cases there are often two or more equally valid perspectives and you can find reliable sources where all these points of views can be backed up. This can lead to edit wars that cannot be settled easily. The case of this article can perhaps best be compared to the article on evolution. There are probably creationists who e.g. want to write that "evolution is just a theory" and make many such edits every day that are then reverted within 20 seconds. This in itself is not a stability issue. Count Iblis 00:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This review contains little or no discussion which isn't pure meta-debate, ruleslawyering of vague guidelines, personal opinions about formatting and facts, or just subtle insults and POV-pushing. What's worse, though, is that the FAR itself appears to be destabilizing the article further and encouraging destructive editors. Instead of demanding that these rather obvious trouble makers be dealt with, editors are seriously suggesting we demote the article, which to me is just ludicrous and damaging to the project. William made some very good pointers which more or less amount to a lot of editors simply can't see the forest because of too many trees. Peter ^Isotalo 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove— the very fact that members of the community are so torn about the article's status as a featured article evidences that it should be demoted. In other words, a Featured Article, by Wikipedia's standard, is one that the community as a whole agrees is the best. Obviously, there is no community consensus here. If this article's status is kept, then the definition of a featured article should be altered to, "an article that some members of the community proclaimed was the best because their votes outnumbered those who opposed." Orane (talk • cont.) 06:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that those voting to remove have provided little or no justification as to exactly what is wrong with the article; it's mostly been a debate over piffling inconsistencies in formatting and ridiculously small details of facts on global warmning. There's a very sizable proportion of editors that are voting to remove because they're annoyed about an unspecified POV-problem, and most others seem to be voting to remove because others are voting to remove. That doesn't make any sense and shouldn't bring down an article. This FAR should have been restarted or simply thrown out weeks ago. It has damaged the article, not helped it, and it's seems totally absurd to demote an FA just because the review process itself has gone astray. Peter ^Isotalo 11:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be much more inclined to see your point of view if you'd been involved on the article talk page - I've checked the history back to February (long before I got involved) and I don't see a single contribution, which doesn't instil me with confidence that you are in a position to judge the reasoning of the people involved in that discussion. Assume good faith doesn't just apply to article edits - it applies to discussions too. QmunkE 12:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I heartily and entirely disagree that people are annoyed with unspecified POV problems. I have, from time to time, provided specific comments on this issue. For example, I have proposed very specific changes to the first sentence of the article in great detail showing cites and sources and the basis for my concept. My comments have been rejected but not on the basis of any argument on the points I raised but simply dismissed out of hand by the owners of the article. I could provide a very long discourse on how my process and proposed changes are entirely in compliance and supportive of and supported by the NPOV guidelines, but it does not matter if the cluster of owners do not want it to follow those guidelines. And, more or less, they have said that that they want special rules for this page.--Blue Tie 17:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

      You either have a different memory or use different semantics for English than I do. Your proposal was rejected as chatty, imprecise, somewhat wrong, and violating WP:COMMONNAME, as references to global warming do indeed nearly exclusively refer to the current instance of global warming. You may not agree with these reasons, but claiming that none were given is wrong.--Stephan Schulz 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

      • Your command of English is superb. It is probably a different memory. In short, I believe you are wrong on what you are claiming but I do not believe this is the page to discuss this. I suggest, if you are interested, I would discuss it either on the article page or on my talk page (which I think is probably more appropriate in this one instance). But I think, rather than discuss it, you would prefer to arm wave the rejection without looking at it critically. Once again: I have not said that there were no reasons given but the reasons were arm waving. They were a failure to deliberate. This is a hallmark of pov, a problem with the article that has been repeatedly described by many editors. Simply waving your arms does not make the flood of pov objections go away. You need to actually deal with them. --Blue Tie 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

      • You know, not all of us have time to read 1000+ talkpage edits just to get to the gist of whatever is wrong about the article. You're supposed to present and summarize it here, for everyone to see. As for assuming good faith, I think Raul's previous comment summed a lot of it up. And I don't accuse everyone seeking to remove of bad faith, just occasionally bad judgment. And this isn't the first FAR that has degraded into a pure slug fest, so I'm not really confident about this being the appropriate forum for the article right now. But, please, try to actually convince me about what's missing in the article instead of telling me I have to sift through overwhelming amounts of heated debate. You might even convince me to change my mind. Peter ^Isotalo 12:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is neither you nor Raul654 have any "evidence to the contrary" because neither has a clue of what's going on in the article. ~ UBeR 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Well said. What I've also noticed is that many of the people here who want the article's status upheld use the defense that the dissenters are either trouble makers, or they are fanatics of the theory that there is no global warming. Or both. This is a gross oversimplification of the issue. I do not want the article to read, "global warming is a myth." What I want to see is that global warming is no more only a scientific issue; it has now gone into the realm of politics, the media, the economy etc. It has become an enterprise, a bureaucracy all on its own. An article that fails to mention theses things isn't worthy enough to be featured, because it is extremely narrow in scope. And the talk about creating "our own article" is nonsense. This is the 'mother article'— all the main points of the daughter articles should be incorporated. As the policy states, Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth. We summarize existing, attributable knowledge. The 'scientists' here should learn to deal with it. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
            • "Wikipedia isn't concerned with the truth." That is simply not true. According to Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ, "Wikipedians do care about the truth, but we are mindful of our own limitations. We want to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and by insisting on the use of reliable sources, we depend on the published research and opinions of informed commentators. Editors should ensure that all majority and significant-minority opinions are included in articles, in rough proportion to the representation of those views in reliable published sources." The key here is "reliable, published sources," none of which question anthropogenic global warming. "...we can follow the consensus of experts." I'm beating a dead horse here... -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I think that there are some assumptions in your statement. One assumption is that your list of reliable sources matches everyone else's list. That may not be so. I suspect, that even your list would include some papers that would express doubts about the nature of the anthropogenic warming, even if it were just a very few... its probably more than none. --Blue Tie 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
                • In reply to Cielomobile, Wikipedia is not so much concerned with truth as it is facts. We are here to present what it is being said in the world, in an encyclopedic manner. That is why Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia isn't here to find the truth. And I don't think what Orane was speaking about was fringe theories on Wikipedia. What I think he was speaking about was discussing the broad range of global warming. That is, not just scientific ideas. Albeit a large part of global warming, there is, in fact, more to it than science. A lot more. So that's what I think Orane was talking about when he says "it has now gone into the realm of politics, the media, the economy etc. It has become an enterprise, a bureaucracy all on its own. An article that fails to mention theses things isn't worthy enough to be featured . . . The 'scientists' here should learn to deal with it." In all, your attempt to misconstrue his point into something that he isn't arguing at all is pretty embarrassing. ~ UBeR 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • In response to Blue Tie, find me a reliable, published, peer-reviewed (this is also part of WP:A) source that expresses skepticism of AGW, and then we can talk. As for you, UBeR, I admit, that was a bit of a straw man I set up there. However, my point is still valid, about using reliable, published, peer-reviewed sources. Anyway, you could've done without that last remark; attacking me is certainly no better than making a straw man argument. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Do you mean like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs)
                      • I do not know if that source is even reliable, though. Speech is heavily controlled by the government in China, if that means anything. I would make more conjectures, but there are scientists editing this article who could better gauge the source's reliability. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • OK. but you are the one who asked for a reliable, peer reviewed source and then "We could talk". So I complied. If you are not able to judge such things then why issue the challenge in the first place? The source is published in the US and is indexed in ASCA, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, Current Contents, Inspec, and Science Citation Index, and it is peer reviewed. What more do you imagine it takes?--Blue Tie 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • Alright; the challenge I made was not reasonable in the first place. That was a definite error in my judgement. See my statement below. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Also, from WP:A, "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Cielomobile, again, you are exploring Gw in a narrow scientific scope. For the political, economic, and/or social side of Gw, we have exceptional and reliable sources like New York Times, LA Times, National Geographic etc. The reason that the literature opposing AGW is limited is because these scientists are not as organized as the supporters. But that doesn't mean that the article should ignore them. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject is scientific in nature. This has been argued countless other times, and the consensus reached has been that the subject should focus on the science. There is a short summary-style section linking to the politics of GW and the GW controversy; that is sufficient. I am not going to beat this dead horse any longer. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no consensus that THIS article should be scientific. That is a major debate in fact. There are a large number of editors who believe that Global Warming encompasses more than science. That alone is one reason the article should NOT be FA. There are more reasons than that. --Blue Tie 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest straw poll would indicate that 70% (18 to 8) want the subject of the article to be scientific. Obviously that is not the kind of consensus that there is in the scientific community about AGW, but it's enough to pass an RfA here at Wikipedia. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So apparently you've never heard of the statement, "Wikipedia isn't a democracy." Wow, 18 people? I guess that's definitely the majority of the community. After all, there's only about 30 accounts open here. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not mean that you can just shrug off a 70% majority and give the minority what they want. The current consensus is that the article's focus should be scientific, like it or not. If it was only a slim majority in favor of keeping the topic scientific, then consensus would be much harder to determine, but in cases like this, it is quite obvious where the consensus lies. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, its 'Orane' ('e' included). But I digress. Let me explain how this consensus thing works, especially in WP's case. A 70% consensus can't be reached and considered valid when only a minority of editors participated in this so-called straw poll. In other words, 70% of 20% of the people involved in this conundrum can't dictate what should or shouldn't be. Secondly, it's not necessarily the numbers that matter— it's the idea behind these numbers. So even if those people who wish to treat the issue purely scientific outnumber those who disagree, the fact still remains the the dissenters/minority still have valid points and ideas that shouldn't be overlooked. If Gw was purely scientific, we wouldn't need all these daughter/spin-off articles that discusses non-scientific aspects. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 70% is true. For example I agreed with the idea that the article should be just science -- but ONLY if it were renamed. Many other people who also agreed that it could be just science also agree that it cannot be titled "Global Warming". --Blue Tie 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for butchering your name in my edit summary, but understand my mistake; it is different than your user name and difficult to read in diff form (how I generally read new comments) because of your elaborate signature. Anyway, we can never get the opinion of the entire community, so we have to make due with what we do have. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another testament to the fact that Cielomobile hasn't been paying attention to anything going on with the article. The (flawed) poll results came out 17:8:5. The 5, of course, being other options not included in William's "policitcs [sic], finance, whatever," most of which were broadly in concord with option 2, which was an article broader than science. (E.g. "my ideal world is a lot closer to Option 2 than Option 1.") The 5, of course, are just the amount of different options; many more people voted for these (around nine, making it somewhere near 17:8:14). Additionally, many comments left in the pure science article vote suggested even perhaps more options. For example, BozMo's "unless we move the science out to 'Global Warming Science'?" So to say there's any consensus at all is pure rubbish. ~ UBeR 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again to refrain from personally attacking me, or I will have to leave a notice on the administrators' noticeboard. As for the consensus, some of the third options proposed a summary-style section linking to controversy and politics; this has been done. There has already been compromise; how can you really ask for more weight to be given to you? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The WP community has managed reasonably well to keep this article balanced and NPOV. There are scars which are getting sorted out. If we cannot even manage to get this article to showcase standard what hope for Wikipedia's quality improvement going forward. --BozMo talk 06:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here, but it came up on the GW talk page. It is only in the U.S. that there is even remotely significant skepticism among the public. Pretty much all Europeans have accepted the reality of AGW, the French conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy going so far as to propose taxing some behavior which causes emissions (I can't remember what exactly, but I read it in this New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/23/070423fa_fact_kramer?currentPage=1 ). Anyway, the point is that even if the article were to not focus on the science, in order for it to maintain a global perspective, it should give little weight, if any, to skepticism, or else risk U.S.-centricism. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on comment. Shouldn't this be on the article talk page instead? Incidentally, the link does not look like it supports your point (I glanced and did not see what you are talking about) and anyway, to declare that all of europe agrees would be OR. --Blue Tie 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Go to the print view for the whole article. I suspect Cielomobile refers to this Sarkozy quote: "I want to put an import tax on carbon emissions for countries not respecting the Kyoto treaty." But I agree that gosing from that to "pretty much all Europeans have accepted the reality of AGW" is a stretch. However, pretty much all Western European governments have accepted AGW as a reality (I simply don't know about the others). Finding sources, if necessary, should be possible. --Stephan Schulz 12:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seeing as neutrality has been one of the reasons for demoting the article from FA status, I believe that this is a perfectly legitimate place for my comment. I believe that Mr. Schulz has answered the second part of your question. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - despite large discussions and occasional edit-wars (which is unsurprising on a subject that has large scale political implications) the article is surprisingly stable - and in general is improving beyond the earlier FA status. --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per SandyGeorgia's reasoning. And for God sake, can the clowns edit warring over this article grow up? Or is this too much to ask maybe? LuciferMorgan 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep! The article represents the basic science in an excellent manner. Removing the FA status because of some skeptics who find that their views are not dominating the article would be a very bad idea. In my view, "alternative" explanations do already fill up too much space, at the cost of more important parts that could otherwise be included. For such a topic, it is no surprise that it experiences a lot of vandalism. Especially not on the internet, where the vast majority of skeptic nonsense is being discussed. The Politics of global warming are being dealt with in a separate article, and a poll on global warming's website just recently made clear that the Kyoto Protocol is not to be included lengthy. Overall, the article really deserves FA status. Hardern 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove: The article is controlled by a select group of editors, led by William M. Connolley. This can be confirmed by the edit history, as well as the talk pages which show the same group of core editors attempting to rationalize their revisionism. All this points to a conflict of neutrality. I am also concerned that by placing a "gold star" on an article, we give it undue weight. Readers might believe such articles to be infallible, which of course no Wikipedia article can ever be. I have no problem with giving articles a temporary honored place on the front page; my concern is that they are then forever labelled as "special." --64.222.222.25 07:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Your second criticism seems more like a criticism of the FA system in general. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Here, it is a criticism of placing a misleading "gold star" on the GW article. Were we discussing any other article, it would be a criticism of having such a star on that article. The FA system is the root of the problem (actually not the entire system, just the stars), but at the moment I am only concerned with its effect on the GW article. --64.222.222.25 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove: Agree with reasons stated here, especially re one small group overly blocking others' good-faith edits. --Sm8900 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You already "voted" (or bolded remove, to be specific) under the FARC section (about four comments down). No need to do so again; it only confuses the admin closing it when it comes to actual numbers in favor of keeping/removing FA status. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Cielomobile. ~ UBeR 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove from FA status. Although the article is more neutral than it used to be, it still doesn't present all sides very well. Until it does, it will remain extremely unstable. By the way, from my count on this FAR so far, there are 17 votes to keep, and 18 votes to remove. Cla68 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Marskell 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure its a vote. Its just not a Majority Rules vote. On the other hand, its hard to call it a consensus for FA either. --Blue Tie 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Over all, I like it and I think it meets the FA criteria. This is not to say the current version is perfect or that nothing needs to be changed, and this should be made explicit should the FA remain. ~ UBeR 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving toward closure

Comment. Lost in the big debate are some small concerns over structure. What's sticking out to me is the stub sections from economics on down. Can we fill those out a touch? Marskell 08:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm seeing in a lot of the "keep" comments that users feel that global warming sceptics are trying to get this de-featured because it doesn't contain enough on their POV. I don't think that is the case - it certainly isn't why I object to the article being at featured status. I am quite satisfied that minority views on the science be given brief mention in the appropriate paragraphs and not overplayed. The real debate is over things like the inclusion of political controversy and economic impacts, and the stability issues - I'd just like to point out that stability shouldn't have to mean stagnation, which has at times been the case on this article. QmunkE 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Although now that I look at it, many of my concerns have been resolved. Hmm, maybe I need to reconsider my !vote...QmunkE 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's improved. I believe most of the MOS issues have been resolved. The ref formatting doesn't seem entirely consistent, but the principal attribution information is there. I've just made some headway in removing stub sections at the end (hope it sticks). I did add two cite tags, the first of which seems critical to me. There's also a bit of a link farm at the end, which should be pruned.

As for 1d concerns, I honestly don't see it (at least in the current version—I haven't watched this page). Skeptical viewpoints and alternatives to anthropogenic change are presented; because they are a small minority view at this point, they should be treated as a small minority view. In fact, mentioning the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in the intro arguably gives them too much credit.

Which leaves 1e. I can't very well close this when it's receiving a dozen plus edits a day, so it's a bit of a pickle. Marskell 12:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add here, this weekend, specific examples of areas where I believe it still falls short. --Blue Tie 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference section is nonuniform...the same referencing scheme needs to be used for the whole article, whether it is ref, cite web, whatever. If you cite author names in one source, it should be in all your sources. I've had a couple articles that have failed GA because they didn't meet this basic criteria. Thegreatdr 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. --BozMo talk 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was guessing from previous comments that it had at least been improved. Hopefully Sandy can work her magic over the weekend. Marskell 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Sandy can work her magic over the weekend. I'm trying to catch up from my forced wikibreak, and can try to work on the refs this weekend ... but ... I have SO much to catch up on now, and it's discouraging to invest my limited time in an unstable article. I'll have a look in the morning (Sat), and hope that things have improved. (I did some work on Humpback Whale too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um. I agree that all references should use <ref></ref>. If they also use the <nowiki>{{cite}} templates, that is great. But what is important is the rendered output, not how it was achieved. Finally, not all references have listed authors. The Climate Change Policy of the AAPG, lists no authors, but has an end note ascribing it to "certain scientific members of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Division of Professional Affairs". --Stephan Schulz 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then AAPG can be listed as the author. The author of the Hurricane Katrina service assessment was NOAA. There's no harm in listing an organization as an author, if a primary author is not available. =) Thegreatdr 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, rendered output. As one example, ref 10 has a bracketed date first in the ref. Is that a format used anywhere? I was actually going to point to the AAPG as another example. I would think it better listed as the publisher and no author provided. But I suppose that's debatable. Marskell 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will work on making all references uniform tonight or tomorrow. Thanks. ~ UBeR 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment One thing that I did not notice missing until just now is the lack of history on the scientific debate. When did scientists first realize that global warming might be a problem? How has that understanding evolved over the years? Not crucial to the article, but would be a boost to it. -RunningOnBrains 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi RunningOnBrains. Wow, that would create a lot of problems. First of all, that would detract from the article's focus on the pure science. Second of all we already have a pretty big number of sub-articles, and it's better to put new topics into those, so that we create a larger number of sub-articles, and eventually make users have to visit other articles for all such information.

Also, I'm not personally sure that would add to the value of the article, so it wouldn't be good for you to add it, because it doesn't fit into my picture of what I want to see in the article. --Sm8900 17:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

the preceding was sarcasm. --Sm8900 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does not and should not focus on pure science. It is an article on Global Warming. That is a topic that is larger than just the science of global warming. --Blue Tie 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an article primarily on the physical phenomenon of global warming, described and explained in scientific terms. It mentions the surrounding polictical and economical debate only briefly and points to the relevant articles. That's how it should be, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to beat the dead horse, Blue Tie. This has already been discussed extensively both here and on the talk page. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussed != resolved. --64.222.222.25 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know how anybody can have the patience to edit and maintain an article like this. I feel strongly that the current treatment, i.e. Raul et al's position is NPOV and I commend the efforts of those defending that position. Aaron Bowen 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then, it appears, you only commend a minute few. ~ UBeR 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh. The references are still sporadic; if the article stabilizes, the work should be done. First, PDFs aren't identified, so my old laptop bombed on the first link I clicked on while I was trying to watch the Sox destroy the Yankees - please identify PDFs by using the Format option in the cite templates. Last access dates are not given on websources; please see WP:CITE/ES. Date formatting isn't consistent. There are quite a few blue-link sources with no publisher, last access date, and author or date when available. Examples:
  • ^ Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa.
  • ^ 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers
    • Identify publishers, and give last acess date. And is there an author/date of publication on these blue links?
  • Further reading and See also are still out of control — probably symptomatic of POV issues. Are ALL of those article really seminal and necessary, or is that just a result of battling POVs trying to prove something ?
  • Work is needed on the souces; if the article stabilizes, I'd be willing to help do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'll work on that today. However, don't PDFs that are linked to have a little PDF icon next to them? That should identity them as being PDFs without the format identifier. Also, {{citation}} seems to allow for more properties than {{cite journal}}, but it doesn't have a format property. What do you think? ~ UBeR 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The little icon isn't viewable on older computers, browsers, or versions of PDF — not sure which — but I get had by PDFs when I'm on my old laptop. I believe the format parameter works on all the templates. When it doesn't work, I just add (PDF) to the article title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reference formatting looks very clean now. Not sure what the hyphen inconsistency is about here:
  • the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide), with a mean of US$43 per tonne of carbon (US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide).
• I did a couple of examples of the nowrap template — it might be better to use it rather than nbsp on the complex temperature ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I believe they are meant to represent negative signs. I.e. US$-10 = negative 10 dollars. Not sure 100% though and it doesn't make a lot of sense. That whole section is a mess, and not very helpful to the reader, in my opinion. The person who wrote the section is now banished from the article for three months. Political and controversy still probably needs some work. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the nowraps. Previously, just the space between the number and the degree symbol were kept together, now the entire range is (e.g. 10-15 °C). If other people are fine with that, I am too. ~ UBeR 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hello - just to answer that question, yes, the US$-10 is a negative, i.e. some of the studies include in their ranges a negative cost, or positive value, per tonne of carbon. Hal peridol 20:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • What's the correct orthography on that? Marskell 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Not entirely sure. Not too often are dollars expressed negatively. Perhaps it's best to spell it out with words. ~ UBeR 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)*Remove from FA status. Although the article is more neutral than it used to be, it still doesn't present all sides very well. Until it does, it will remain extremely unstable. By the way, from my count on this FAR so far, there are 17 votes to keep, and 18 votes to remove. Cla68 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Marskell 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure its a vote. Its just not a Majority Rules vote. On the other hand, its hard to call it a consensus for FA either. --Blue Tie 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Problems that remain.

1c Problems: The article uses weasel words. For example, "many" scientists have been ordered to not discuss global warming while "few" disagree with the IPCC TAR. Note that both weasel words work in the favor of one pov. Edits that would remove these weasel words and leave an entirely neutral structure have been removed with the justification that neutrality gives too much creedence to one pov (!) but sources that would provide specific numbers have also been removed. So the weasel words remain.

1d Problems: The article is still not NPOV. Specifically, it does not give sufficient weight to the alternative points of view and this failure to give reasonable and sufficient weight to these alternative views. NPOV is frequently cited as a problem for this article and that is the main reason. In the economic section, the positive effects of global warming are not mentioned at all -- as though they do not exist. I am not sure that the doubts about the forecasted effects or future modeling of global warming is given any mention at all.

1e Problems: The article is only artificially stable due to demonstrable unusually aggressive actions taken by admins and by Ownership issues that have not been resolved yet. Stability is seemingly achieved when an article is locked and this article is permanently, partially locked -- not for vandalism, but for stability purposes. But when locking and aggressive admin actions are required to stabilize an article after having an average of 500 edits per month for more than a year, that should not be considered stable in the sense of the article having come to rest in a widely accepted, well decided answer where only minor edits are needed to clean it up.

2a Problems: The article discusses the history of global warming over thousands and millions of years. It also discusses economic effects of global warming. But the summary does not include these parts of the article.

I could give more but it is late where I am and I have to sleep. But I promised to make this list so here it is.--Blue Tie 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, the article isn't NPOV, because it gives excess weight to skeptic/alternative POV. This will always remain an area of disagreement. And of course BT is wrong: the semi-pro is prot against vandalism William M. Connolley 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I reckon it wasn't heavily vandalized during the period between removing full lock and putting back semi-lock. ~ UBeR 16:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There really is no problem with permanent semi-protection; many FAs have this in place, and I don't see it anywhere in the FA criteria. As for POV, like William says, this will always be an area of debate, but I believe that the article accurately reflects consensus right now, so it's best to leave it be. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cielomobile. This article always has been a topic of debate and probably will be for some time. As long as the article accurately reflects the state of the science, as it does now, those who prefer not to believe the science or who wish to promote small-minority scientific viewpoints will be unhappy. (I agree that the article already gives undue weight to the minority viewpoint, but the problem isn't serious.) Consensus would be nice, but we shouldn't consciously mislead the reader just to make peace with the skeptics. Raymond Arritt 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that the article is controversial. The problem is that it is non-neutral. "Making peace" is not the issue. It is a matter of NPOV. That it is a matter of "not making peace" in order to maintain a pov lies at the heart of the many reasons this article should not be FA. --Blue Tie 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are always going to be people who believe that any contraversial article is POV, and who perhaps never will believe it is NPOV. That doesn't mean that the article IS POV, nor that it cannot be featured. But saying the problem is that some people think it is POV is the same as saying it is contraversial. The question is partly finding a basis for determining where neutrality is (and scientists put NPOV in a different place from politicians) and partly also everyone swallowing that NPOV means there will be content they disagree with --BozMo talk 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One way to put it: is dissent over anthropogenic change a minority or a tiny minority? Let's split the difference and call it a small minority. So does it get small minority coverage? Yes, I think so: the last half of the first para of causes details alternatives and solar gets its own sub-section. Dissent is not ignored here. Marskell 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not a "split" nor, if it were a split would it be a fair split. Minority includes the full range from nearly zero percent to nearly 50%. Small Minority appears to restrict the general sense of Minority to less than some arbitrary but undefined amount, that to me is not very far from tiny. That is not a "fair" split. Now, it may indeed be tiny, but to know that requires original research. It also requires some original research to say it is a minority, but this is not highly contested. To know that it is "small" requires original research. WP guidelines and policies do not permit that. Removing the adjective from "Minority" is neutral and covers the full range. Adding information about the Oregon Petition and the poll that I provided that suggests (but does not fully confirm) a lower limit for the majority of 59% provides detailed insights so that readers may judge the matter for themselves, but these numerical contributions have been previously objected to. I note that the contradictory view is already denigrated by describing the scientists who disagree as "individual" scientists, though some of them work in groups or with each other (again removing the adjective would improve neutrality), and there is no balance to recognize that some of these are highly recognized and acclaimed scientists. So, if you are looking for fair splits that somehow includes adjectives that would also be an issue to address.

This is not the only problem with the article.

I am curious about something. How long is the FAR going to last? New contributions to this review are down to about one a week and the poll is about 50-50. Even the main contributor to the article conceeds the article is not NPOV but for reasons different from other editors. Is FAR, in this case, acting as a mediation process? I have not viewed it as such so far and have not treated it as such, but if it is, I would like to know. It seems to me it should not be a mediation method but rather a validation process.--Blue Tie 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) To paraphrase Raymond Arritt above, this article always has been a topic of debate and probably will be for some time. As long as the article accurately reflects the state of the science, as it does now, those who prefer to believe in a UN-sponsored politicized science or who wish to promote policy-bound scientific viewpoints will be happy. But we shouldn't consciously mislead the reader just to make peace with a liberal political agenda. In other words, the fact that there are fewer voices against the science than for it should not lead us into misleading the reader into believing that this necessarily means that the objections are of lesser quality, or that they have been answered by the mainstream science. Such a biaised presentation serves those who wish to eliminate doubt in order to push a political agenda, and this should be avoided. --Childhood's End 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I must protest the mischaracterization of this article's editors as those who prefer to believe in a UN-sponsored politicized science. A simple reading of the Scientific opinion on climate change should dispel that. --Skyemoor 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Skyemoor, as I said, I was merely paraphrasing RA. I could also protest the mischaracterization of this article's other editors as "those who prefer not to believe the science" by pointing you out the scientific opinions upon which these editors support their contributions. --Childhood's End 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An outside perspective

From a recent story in the Denver Post:[7]

On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.

Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors!" he said.

So I guess we could use some more basic science links. Raymond Arritt 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean better links to basic weather science. Anyone can feel free to take up the Denver Post's request. LuciferMorgan 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But given the prevailing scientific illiteracy among the public, it might also be useful to link some basic concepts like thermodynamics and Archimedes principle. Raymond Arritt 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Dr. Denning. ~ UBeR 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This supports our approach of keeping the science as the article focus and minimizing the mention of political debating points in the article. --Skyemoor 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Long closing note

A note on the process first: we have never properly decided at FAR what to do with no consensus. The "status quo" is a keep but, as Orane points out, community division argues it shouldn't be kept. What we have decided is that if an article lacks references it will be removed regardless of consensus. That isn't the case here, and I'm going to keep this. (Given a couple of double removes, there might be a one or two kp majority, but it obviously can't be decided by numbers.)

To go over 1c first, there's been debate over NPOV presentation of references but no one has challenged their reliability per se. For a short article (it's still only 23k of prose) the volume of refs is in keeping with other FAs. With thanks to Uber, formatting is clean and consistent. So fine on that score, and ditto on MoS issues (2), none of which appear to be outstanding.

People didn't raise 1b directly, but comprehensiveness issues were implied in quite a few comments, particularly a lack of political information. The last four sections on the non-science subjects have all been slightly expanded and I think it now gives a nod in the directions a reader would expect (short para on Kyoto, mention of emissions trading, rise of China, etc.). In brief, these points deserve a mention, and the edits seem to have stuck.

So POV (1d). I honestly don't see it. Dissent is raised briefly in the lead, at greater length in the first para of causes, and solar variation gets expanded coverage. Obviously some people disagree, but I don't find it convincing.

Which leaves stability (1e). Checking history back three months, I agree with the argument that there is a core article that has remained in place. There's been changes to presentation of minority views and compression of some sections, but the basic structure and info (History, Causes, Effects, Related) remains. Day-to-day edit flare ups?—I think they're inevitable. This is top of Google on one of the most talked about issues of the decade. If we remove on that basis, we're saying it cannot be an FA for the forseeable future, which isn't right to me. There's a group of editors watching closely for changes? I don't think that's entirely a bad thing (though some of the responses on Talk are needlessly abrupt and dismissive). So I don't buy 1e either, although we might need a fuller debate about how we should interpret that criterion; Raul raised it somewhere recently. Marskell 08:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That leaves me very confused. The very definition of FARC reads:

If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed.

I do not have the impression that the last sentence applies here. If you are of the opinion that the first one doen't either, then this review should stay open until one of them does. Another thing that I do not understand: in a FAC discussion, one objection among tens of supports is likely to halt the process. Here, a 50/50 division would be no problem? Come on... Nick Mks 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)