Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ☼ (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 1 January 2014 (yeah, attack the dynamic IP rather than coming up with a reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

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

The article is WP:OR, various editors have decided among themselves who ought to be in the list based on what these scientists have said. This is OR, as none of the BLP,s that I can see have actually stated that they oppose the consensus on AGW. As such this list is a BLP violation, as it is ascribing views to BLP,s that they themselves have not actually condoned. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are happy with a list article which violates BLP then? I can always gut the article if that would be easier. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a threat to do WP:BATTLE if you don't get your way here. That's not the best way to win consensus.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO, consensus does not override policy, specifically BLP policy. I have removed the BLP OR from the article, all that is left is the lede. Enjoy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and restrict any future AfD nominations Have you looked at the other AfD nomination. This is now the 6th time this has been nominated and each time it has been closed as kept or no consensus. Did you ever think that obviously by nominating again ITS NOT GOING TO BE DELETED. It's getting quite ridiculous going in this round about over and over again. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What went before is not a policy I know of? How does it override BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Darkness Shines is making the assertion that in previous deletion discussions, the content in this article has never been checked for BLP violation. If this is the case then this deserves consideration. On the prior history that this has been proposed for deletion many times and presumably would have been checked for BLP violations, I restored the content. This is highly contentious content which has been much discussed. The stable version of this article includes this content. It would be against consensus to delete it. Consider the possibility of BLP violation in this discussion to settle the rationale. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care what has gone before. I do know that unless sources are given for each BLP which says they "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" it is a BLP vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great rationale for deletion. It is not obvious to me that this is a BLP violation. If it is then it should be deleted. Instead of wanting everything deleted instantly then consider participating in this AfD discussion. You might be right and thanks for raising the issue in light of new recent discussions at similar articles which give support to what you are doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BLP vios have to be removed straight away, that is the policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not giving any rationale to why it is a BLP violation, tell me exactly where in WP:BLP that this article directly violates, otherwise I see no reason to delete. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those BLPs have said they "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", none. That is a BLP vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't given me an exact quote from WP:BLP where this article directly violates it. Just saying it violates the BLP policy doesn't mean it does unless you give me proof or some sort of factual evidence. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not getting this? You are ascribing views to BLPs, which they themselves have not stated. That is a BLP vio, similar to BLPCAT in fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm really not understanding your reasoning. If they have stated in some way and is proved by the reliable sources in this article that they don't believe in Global Warming is a BLP vio. It's not like we are shoving words into their mouths. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There my friend is the point. Who decides that what "they have stated in some way" is also their rejecting the consensus? There is the OR, and the BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement." That's how, if you have a problem with that maybe you should have brought it up on the talk page. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the OR, buncha eds figure, these guys fit what we say. Sorry but no, Editors do not get to decide this, sources do. We need the BLPs to actually state "we do not agree with this". Thens the rules. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think then this article is under a larger issue brought upon and should be resolved before we even get close to discussing its deletion don't you think? JayJayWhat did I do? 20:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restrict any future AfD nominations Can't speak as to the entire list of scientists that was just removed from the page, but the Wiki article on the very first one (Dyson) clearly states he's on record as being unconvinced about global warming and those claims are sourced. As an editor who thinks the mainstream scientific consensus is clearly correct, it's unfortunate that scientists hold AGW positions, but slashing and burning an accurate list just because you think it should be deleted is grounds for ANI action, in my opinion. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The three scientists listed under the "GW will have few negative consequences" are all correct. The latter two have sources directly quoted in their Wiki articles and those quotes are accurate, while a cursory examination of three recent articles on the website run by the former (available as an external link in the former's Wiki article) clearly shows he fits the category. That's 4 for 4 on scientists whose positions are not misrepresented in the article in question. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prohibit any future AfD nominations - Good God - 6 nominations?! The list is sourced, notable and extremely valuable for an encyclopedia of all human knowledge.- MrX 19:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me that's kind of a meaningless comment without a suggested alternative.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that makes this AfD misleading as the article is now pointless without any scientists listed in the article. Perhaps this should have been brought up to WP:BLP/N first!JayJayWhat did I do? 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I posted here. I will make a note at the top of the AfD as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -per nom. Massive BLP problems, article kept in past due to the actions of POV editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course it should be kept - useful page cwmacdougall 20:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is surely a useful list, to the extent that it can be sourced properly. Kicking up some dust about "BLP violations" is fine, though it will take more than one or two editors' views on that topic to carry the argument. Doing an AfD as a way of kicking up some dust is rather pointy, though -- and it doesn't amount to a convincing argument for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WASTEOFTIME as so often before William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every entry in this list has been discussed and checked by numerous editors over a long period. It is kept under continuous review. If anyone wants to challenge any entry, then please tell us which one it is, so that we can all have a look at it again, along with any new evidence, cites or quotes. BTW, how many parallel attacks on this article are being made at the present time? --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator has BLP problems with this page, and so gutted the article (after nominating it for deletion). Other editors reinstated the sourced material as the product of extended discussion -- an equilibrium version of the page. Nominator disregarded consensus and engaged in an edit war, all the while refusing to engage in any kind of discussion other than to spam "WP:BLP". No new arguments are being produced here beyond what there was in past AfD discussions (far worse rationale for deletion, even, in my opinion) and on the talk page(s). --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not liking the name of the article is not a good reason for deletion. I think it's probably a good idea to re-explore other naming ideas, too, but that can be done separately. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, what extended discussion? Do you think people cannot read diffs? I and one other had commented on the talk page before it was protected, that was it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What extended discussion indeed. The talk page has thirty archive pages for starters. But even if I was talking here (as I did elsewhere) about your lack of discussion and consensus building in this one particular instance, to call what you wrote on the talk page productive discussion wouldn't be very accurate. --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rationale here is BLP violation. A detailing of the specific violation is required not just blanket assertions. Keep in accordance with previous arguments and no new grounds given. The OR question has been dealt with before and as far as I can see the specifics of the policy of list inclusion have been satisfied. Dmcq (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first scientist in the list (before it was blanked) was Freeman Dyson, and the provided reference was "Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson", published in The Independent. It doesn't seem like a BLP violation to include Dr. Dyson in a list of climate skeptics when there is a reliable source describing him as such. There may be a valid WP:OR concern in the categorization of scientists into different classes of skeptics, but the topic seems sound. Pburka (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. After further consideration, I don't see how this list can be kept in its current form. The inclusion criteria are insufficiently objective. I would be willing to keep only if the inclusion criteria were simplified to only include scientists who have been described by reliable sources as opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, such as Dr. Dyson. Pburka (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorization of people in the encyclopedia must be based on simple, precise and unambiguous criteria that is free of all controversy and requires no consensus whatsoever. This is not a list, it's a coatrack and a biased shame vehicle with nebulous and vague requirements for membership. If a scientist has valid reasons to disagree with some criteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should they be included there as well, to punish them for having a slightly different opinion? It's bad enough that as a community we can't get our shit together regarding our systemic biases and complete lack of neutrality when dealing with certain topics and people we dislike, now we have to actually showcase them in a list? A list that has a complex inclusion criteria and disclaimer at the top (because what else can one call that), and that's been at AFD six times, no less. Delete, as a BLP vio, for failing WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or anything else. This article should not exist. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with most of what you wrote. If the criteria were simplified to "scientists who describe themselves, or are described by reliable sources, as climate change skeptics", would it be acceptable? Pburka (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because all real scientists are skeptics, and all scientific findings are subject to change, provided there is persuasive evidence. You have to be forever skeptical in order to look for, or notice, paradigm-busing evidence, and doing that is what wins you scientific immortality. It's the holy grail for the eggheads. So no, identification as a "skeptic" would not work. Interestingly, the outright denialists like to call themselves "skeptics" to try to whitewash themselves with this integrity. So that's another reason "skeptic" doesn't work here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) For clarification what are your referring to as a disclaimer?
Incidentally the idea that the list is intended to 'punish' anyone is a bit of a myth. If you've checked out the previous 5 AFDs or the talk page history, you'd know there are plenty of people who want the list because it shows how there are so many scientists opposed to the mainstream consensus which they believe is clearly wrong. In fact, they tend to be the most euthusatic about adding people to the list. (Although there are some who similarly believe the list does punish those on it and therefore argue for removal. And note with my earlier comment I was an am only talking about intentions, not the actual effect of the list.)
Most of those who support the mainstream consensus tend to call for balance and support keeping the list pared down although a number do support keeping the list for a variety of reasons (some may find the list a useful encyclopaedic entry, others may not find it that useful themselves but consider it a valid encyclopaedic topic and it's absence will lead to claims of bias in favour of the mainstream consensus). There may be those who support the mainstream consensus and believe we should keep the list because we need to properly document those who are opposed so people know about them, but it's definitely a rare opinion.
Notably, we tend to get people (obviously opposed to the mainstream consensus) who want to delete the list, not because they believe it punishes anyone on it but because they believe wikipedia is too biased and the list will never include all the people that should be on it or because they dispute the existance of the mainstream consensus (but still don't generally think being on the list punishes anyone, more that not being on the list punishes people).
Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Heartland Institute and others have produced lists of scientists like this. I understand they included a lot of people without their permission who actually did agree with the consensus, but it does establish that this sort of list is notable. List inclusion criteria govern what a list like this can include in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But these are highly unreliable sources, produced for political reasons. The existence of such things can hardly be expected to influence what we do in an encyclopaedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not change the title of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and prohibit any further AfDs until January 1st, 2015. Enough is enough. How many AfDs does it take to demonstrate a total lack of consensus for deleting this page? A hundred? A thousand? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other organizations have put together lists similar to this one, often with more entries. The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has a list of 650 skeptical scientists in 2008, adding to Senator James M. Inhofe's list of 400 from 2007. The book The Deniers is a list of skeptical scientists. The Wall Street Journal published a list of 16 skeptical scientists. Inhofe's list of 400 has been criticized by multiple media observers:[1][2][3][4][5][6]. In short, lists such as this one are part of the conversation about climate change. Wikipedia should have a list, too. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BLP arguments are lacking specific instances of BLP violations. They cite the policy without demonstrating that the policy is applicable. I see that the quotes are very well sourced, and the opinions very much representative of that person's stance. There are no BLP issues with this list. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Past AFD's are rather irrelvant. What matters is strength of argument in light of existing policies. Quotes to comply with WP:BLP are in the references section. It has been repeatedly stated in the past that anyone who finds some specific quote does not pass BLP muster, that ed should instantly delete that specific entry. So we have a correction mechanism (applying BLP on name by name basis with careful evaluation) and a process by which to do that WP:ARBCC. Wholesale protection of a battle-gutted version of the article is neither of those things. AIN'T BROKE, the proposing ed just didn't have the patience to follow established procedure and that's what this is about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of stress has been placed on the quotes, but actually they are problematic because one short quotation is unlikely to sum up the whole position that an individual takes. An independent source would be a much better rationale for inclusion. In some cases, the individual has written a book about their view on climate change, so it would be much better to include a quotation from (or a summary of) a review of that book. It is also essential for BLP purposes to be sure that the individual hasn't changed their opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those things would be even stronger/better, I agree. But nothing you said really negates what I wrote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A BLP nightmare. Gamaliel (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would further note that there are many global warming articles that we should be discussing deleting, or proposals which should be abandoned, including such beauties as "Climate Change in South Ossetia"; there is far too much duplication, and far too many articles for editors to monitor properly. This useful article is not one of them; it should be kept. cwmacdougall 2:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation. The extremely precise consensus in the lede (The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century ... the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100) is fictional. Many professional climate scientists disagree slightly with those numbers. Even the IPCC (in their last report) would be climate change sceptics according to this ridiculous WP:OR definition. -- 101.119.28.133 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it intriguing how a IP that has no edits knows so much about WP:OR and WP:BLP. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The really funny thing is that the science-section of the "last report" isn't out yet! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it intriguing that, not being able to answer valid comments, JayJay instead attacks the IP editor with the dynamically allocated IP address. -- 101.119.28.5 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As said before, a BLP nightmare. Also, even if it is not the reason for the article's creation nor was such ever considered in its progression, it strongly smacks of being a shame page for those that were listed. Aside from that, I cannot imagine an encyclopedic reason for such an article to exist, especially when it's counter-article List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming no longer exists (even if RfD'd for completely different reasons). — Huntster (t @ c) 08:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggested counter-list would of course contain "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field".[7] Regarding 'shame', for many it is a 'pride page' - people who disagree with the mainstream assessment are proud that there are so many scientists listed. Actually, like all lists, along with categories and navigation templates, it is primarily there to organize information and to aid navigation: it helps readers find WP biographies on people in whom they are interested. --Nigelj (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A BLP nightmare with the names in, the current version is almost speediable as no content. Prohibiting future nominations is also against this policy. Dark Sun (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either a list of shame (which would almost fall under WP:G10, but is a blatant BLP violation) or a violation of WP:UNDUE. Dark Sun (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Contrary to assertion of the lists' title, climate research publishes changing conclusions regarding scope, impact, cause, etc. There are ranges of opinions and without an authoritative source of which opinion conflicts with the mainstream scientific assessment or exactly what the mainstream scientific assessment is, inclusion on "The List" is a pure fabrication by WP. Seriously, should every climate scientist that's had a paper rejected by the journal Nature be on this list? This reeks of a Nixonian "enemies list" where inclusion is based on only the opinion of WP editors. It's a blatant [WP:BLP]] violation as the topic is so broad, it would include virtually every scientist including the "It's worse than we thought" scientists, which are strangely absent. --DHeyward (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a restriction of scientists on the other end of the consensus spectrum. If you can find scientists in the "It's worse than we thought" category who are in opposition to one or more of the three main list criteria, then that (or those) scientists should be added to the list. But so far no such scientist has been found. (although Hansen has been close a couple of times). All of the persons on the list are (or should be) well known scientists in opposition to the consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 14:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did WP get the criteria [citation needed]? How do we define consensus when there are dozens of AGW model with varying ranges? If a scientists' model ranges beyond then "consensus" model, how much of a range needs overlap? Is it a 1 sigma overlap, 2 sigma overlap, etc, etc. If the mean is 3 sigma below the consensus but it ranges past the consensus, is it okay? This is a non-scientific list that has no value except either for re-education camp enrollment or shame list or hero list, depending only on politics. It certainly has no scientific value and since we are discussing scientists, I find it disturbing that such a list exists. It's only political. We don't have lists like "scientists who oppose mainstream Higgs Boson theories" and then makeup an unsourceable, original and synthesized criteria for what constitutes a mainstream view. --DHeyward (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria was selected according to the process described at WP:LSC. Lists and categories are basically navigational helps to subsets of information of encyclopedic interest (see WP:LISTPURP#navigation). Scientists sceptical of the consensus, is such information of encyclopedic interest (ie. notable), as attested by the rather large volume of news/sociological papers as well as other lists created on the topic, which isn't the case for for instance Higgs Boson opposition. As for the criteria themselves, they are spelled out in the IPCC WGI summary for policymakers, which is generally (see Scientific opinion on climate change) considered as the scientfic consensus on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was involved at that page at a time and was concerned when I saw that the dominant figures at the page aggressively argued that the criteria for inclusion was their own interpretation of what the scientists had written , and not how reliable sources have described the scientists in question. As long as they insist on relying on their own interpretation on what the scientists have written, I see the list as having original research problems, which in this case also means BLP problems. Likewise, I find classifying the scientists in sub-sections to have original research problems. Theoretically, this is a bug that could be corrected – let the inclusion be based on what reliable sources have written about the scientist instead of how Wikipedians interprete their writings – but I don’t think it will in practice. Besides, I think many of the other Delete votes have pointed to other valid problems, about science and a scientist’s thinking not being static, and many scientists’s position being too nuanced to be easily categorized. Iselilja (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unenlightening WP:VAGUEWAVE comments Instead of burping "BLP" (with or without chunks), how about adding a little substantive reasoning with specific examples drawn from the pre-gutted version of the article, people? Add your contender to the article talk page, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and thanks for pointing to VAGUEWAVE which is precisely what I think of what's been said. The policy has a file size of 162 KB and generates half a megabyte to download. Something more specific is required. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vague argument that there are WP:BLP violations is not backed by facts (in fact it is contradicted). The way that WP:BLP has (and is) vetted by this list, is by validating that a direct quote (from the scientist him/her-self) is directly in opposition to one of the three consensus criteria, this by itself meets BLP.... but the editors of the list has always gone further ... we've verified that no statements could be found that contradicted the quote, or that the quote, seen in a larger context, may have been out of character for the scientist. The scientists are all required to be notable (by wikistandards), so that a larger context can be verified against (per WP:LSC). Finally it has always been policy to remove people from the list, iff there was any doubts on their inclusion, until such time as a discussion showed consensus on the addition. The main problem that people have with this list, seems to be one of "i don't like it".. but there is a significant encyclopedic navigation purpose served by the existance of it. --Kim D. Petersen 13:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Kim does not speak for me in his assessment of the "main problem people have with this list". Although I voted "keep", I think the categorization is untenable, and a better and more objective sorting would split the list into alpha listed names for those who have expressed their opposition in the professional peer-reviewed science literature, versus those who have jumped on a soapbox via blogs, popmedia, & verbal commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all internal list/article issues to be resolved on the talk-page. In reality though, the split you talk about is uninteresting, since the opposition really isn't coming from PR-lit., the opposition is mainly something that manifests in the political and public arena. --Kim D. Petersen 14:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure its an item for talk, but you brought up the subject of everyone's "main problem" with the page. The never-explained nesting structure of the categories and failure to identify soapbox from professional literature statements are mine. So let's follow your own advice and save the rest for talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agreed. If colleagues would like to pick one or more entries in the list and provide sources that say that the people in question have altered their stance, never said what it was reported they said, have been characterised in a different way by reliable secondary sources, or any other similar point, then 'normal service' would have been resumed: we could review the sources, review the entry or entries and make a consensus decision. If this process continued until we were left with a list with only one or two entries, then I would nominate it for deletion myself. You cannot plead BLP about everybody-at-once without coming up with a single specific case. --Nigelj (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article. The article certainly needs to be policed (not blanked). Black Kite is usually on-the-money, and his comment that some of the scientists need to be removed from the list should be heeded. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can't even be ignored until it is explained with detailed reasoning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the burden of proof is on those who want to include material, especially when we're talking about BLPs. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is satisfied by citing reliable sources.- MrX 15:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just to be clear, I didn't say that some need to be removed, only that we need to be completely sure that they should all be included. I am always very dubious about lists of living people in controversial areas where the subjects may be included on the basis of one or two quotes. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I assume you're working through them, and will soon be able to tell us which ones you're not completely sure about. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about Freeman Dyson or John Christy. In the case of Tim Patterson there is actually more that could be said, assuming that we can use a report in the Guardian. The problem is trying to reduce anyone's views to list format. It's dumbing down. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf seems pretty clear. Also see http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/ --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources. As I said before, there's an academic literature on the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having protected the page, I don't think I should be opining on one side or the other of the argument. It is, of course, incumbent on those wishing to include the material to prove that it passes all tenets on BLP policy. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please just eff off until a decision has been made rather than venturing any opinion on a page you've protected. It is bad enough always having m:the wrong version protected without having them taking sides. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: - By protecting the page in a way that overrides consensus (regardless of whether that consensus needs to be challenged) you have opined. WP:BURDEN says "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Where does it say "if there are sources that were determined to support the material but you don't like the list or something looks amiss, go ahead and skip the whole 'talking about it' thing, blank the content, and lock the article while it's up for deletion?" --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see is. Editors commenting here are clearly commenting on the version of the article linked at the top of the page. I locked the page due to the edit-warring over possible BLP issues but I don't get to choose which version gets locked; if the "full" version had been current at the time that one would have been locked instead. Black Kite (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem???????????????? The problem is that there was a single edit warrior, and you protected that person and their gutting of the article. A better solution would have been to block Darkness Shines for 24 hrs, protect the pre-edit war version, and refer the rest to AE, since this falls under ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Agree with FreeRangeFrog (22:14, 30 December 2013), Huntster (08:30, 31 December 2013), DHeyward (11:18, 31 December 2013). Violates WP:POVFORK/WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE/WP:NOT and WP:BLP/WP:SYN. The inclusion criteria is pure SYN (that gives undue weight to the editor-chosen subject matter), criteria created by editors rather than criteria that is clearly worth noting and including in an encyclopedia. The article was created when there was no indication that the subject deserved the special attention of creating such a list article, and even today the related articles still do not demonstrate that the attention is deserved (let alone references demonstrating it is deserved). (If responding, please review WP:CONLEVEL and WP:FOC). --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I reviewed those two. You really think so few people have looked at this question that it may violate WP:CONLEVEL? And what has WP:FOC 'focus on content not on editor conduct' got to do with this AfD? I'll not enquire about all the rest of the abbreviations but I would point out that scattergunning links like that is not enlightening. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this discussion focused on the article deletion concerns. The editing behavior is another matter. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article aids navigation and enumerates participants in a notable phenomenon; it deserves encyclopedic treatment. For all the vague complaints that it violates blp, I haven't seen a single solid example. Only two names have been discussed on the article talk page, and both have made explicit statements about themselves to place them in this category, in addition to secondary, independent coverage. I've been waiting and hoping to see a real problem that can be solved, but as much as I've asked for one, none have been forthcoming. If the article needs improvement, it comes from discussion, not deletion, and consensus has strongly supported the current content on the talk page, before it was blanked and protected.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dmcq. No objection to revising the title to remove "mainstream" in favor of less value-laden description of the thing they oppose. The BLP argument was not substantiated. The article should not have been gutted and protected while it was at AFD. Science has always included some apparently well qualified authorities who denied what were or what became accepted mainstream views of such things as the germ theory of disease, that meteorites were rocks which fell from the sky, the theory of relativity, the Big Bang, vaccination, the existence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans, the extreme age of the Earth and the universe, and evolution. Similarly, even Nobel laureates have endorsed pseudoscience. If these disagree with the mainstream on global warming, then it is the process of normal science for them to publish their reasoned objections, and it is not a BLP violation to list them as opponents of some part of some theory. It is not our place to cover up their published views so as to preserve their image. Edison (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream" comes straight from WP:FRINGE, with which this article must comply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the subcategorization of the type of disagreement may be, in some cases, a BLP violation. However, all those entries for which there is not a specific allegation of a BLP violation should be restored, as should those entries where the alleged BLP violation has been disproved. As the blanking editor, Black Kite (talk · contribs) has the duty to follow up on those. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the lead we have the following statement. Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement. Based off this statement alone one can only conclude that the entire article is original research. The only purpose of the article appears to be a way to blacklist those that disagree with the IPCC. From a scientific point of view articles like this are very dangerous as well as they are designed to stifle any thought which does not comply with the current orthodoxy. Arzel (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard all (except those explicitly copied from other sources) lists and categories on wikipedia are WP:OR. Please see WP:LSC which is the guide for what and how lists and the criteria for such lists are created. --Kim D. Petersen 01:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting context for the use of the term POV. The idea that AIDS is caused by HIV infection is a POV?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. A mainstream POV backed with good scientific evidence. Note that it is also falsifiable. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone familiar with some history - this list is more politicaly motivated than scientifically motivated. There are two POV camps (and probably more). One camp wants the list to have a long list of peer reviewed climate scientists to show "consensus" is an illusion. Another camp likes the list so the viewpoints of persons on the list can be viewed as "fringe." Neither camp has made a compelling argument for the list itself and the various viewpoints of respected scientists should stand on their own. A list of politicians would be more useful, but a list of scientists that are actively researching and publishing peer-reviewed results should not by on any list that contradicts the fundamental aspect of peer review - it met the requirement for acceptance and is by definition within the mainstream regardless of the opinion of individuals. In 2006, please tell me what/who the mainstream view for SC24 sunspots were: the answer is two diametrically opposed camps that rooted their theories on mainstream views. One side was clearly wrong in hindsight but it would be extremely unfair to label them outside the mainstream at any time or to dismiss them as "fringe". WP is doing a great disservice to readers by creating a conflict is not scientifically based. When Nature or GPU creates a list, we can report it. We shouldn't create it. WP need not lead on determining who is fringe or what consensus means. --DHeyward (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me partially quote from what i wrote in the previous AfD: [This] is a navigation list to tiny minority->fringe positions. It certainly cannot be merged into Scientific opinion on climate change, since the entire point is that they are outside the mainstream, and thus aren't described in the main articles. They are sociologically interesting, either seen from a Pathological science or a Paradigm change viewpoint (depending on your personal view). The concept that it is WP:SYN to check if a quote matches objective inclusion criteria is baffling, since it makes quotes all over Wikipedia suspect (every time you quote someone in an article, you make exactly the same kind of decision: Does this quote/article match the topic at hand). If your problem is that any of the quotes are incorrectly assessed then you should remove that scientist + quote, per WP:BLP - i find this relevant here as well, although the quotes have now moved to the references section, so are not the eyesore (for some) that it was earlier. --Kim D. Petersen 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with your conclusion, but I have to pick a nit with the notion that anything appearing in a peer-reviewed journal is intrinsically 'mainstream' and not 'fringe', simply by virtue of having been published. In our articles on medical topics, we've learned through long and painful experience that there are thousands of journals in the sciences, and you can almost always find one that will print just about anything if you shop around long enough. When we present medical claims in Wikipedia, we very seldom allow our articles to rely directly on the primary literature; in general medical claims in our articles must be supported by high-quality secondary sources (review articles in high-quality journals, meta-analyses that examine the results of multiple clinical trials, etc.), per WP:MEDRS. To be clear, I'm not saying that genuinely unresolved scientific (or medical) questions don't exist, with 'mainstream' authors on two or more 'sides', nor even that every minority position should be treated as 'fringe'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm - the criteria chosen for the list are the very base consensus items on climate change science, as described by what is considered the utmost review authority on climate change science (IPCC) - equivalent in MEDRS would be a cochrane review but even that doesn't rise to this level. (see Scientific opinion on climate change for indepth on this). Things such as sunspots didn't (not even in 2006) contradict these. There is a difference between base knowledge and detailed knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen 03:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern I have is with "fringe." A lot of names publish in very respected journals. The authoritative journals certainly aren't publishing "fringe" viewpoints. My particular example is Judith Curry. While there are disagreements about her conclusions, there is no doubt about her credentials and her science. Not liking what she publishes, or even being critical of what she publishes, is not the same as calling her science "fringe" and I believe it is a BLP violation to include her (and she is just an example). I'd suggest that Hansen's view is more "fringe" on the warming end than Curry's is on the natural variation. Lumping Curry as having a fringe viewpoint is not consistent with the body of work that she has published or her position in a major research institution. She is consistently asked to participate and review climate research. I am not a climate scientist but I recognize when politics are playing a larger role than science in determining a list such as this. Her papers and publications are in respected journals, not the "pay for play" journals. It's unfortunate that what should be science has devolved into which scientists publish research that fits a summary for policy makers (i.e. policy agenda). It absolutely violates WP:SLC as membership is likely to be disputed since a summary for policymakers is vague on science on purpose as they are not scientists. There certainly are "fringe" viewpoints but they are nowhere near scientists that are contributing meaningful research. A criteria that includes them as "fringe" is necessarily flawed and most definitely a BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The people who like this page have had years to produce a list that is useful for anything other than propaganda, meets BLP concerns, and has some modern relevance. They have failed to do so. Despite the careful wording of the rules for inclusion to justify the laziness of the enterprise, most people stumbling into this page will assume that the people listed hold views that are similar to the quotations presented, but in fact most of the quotations are quite old (as much as 12 years) and many come from venues like brief interviews in which few scientists would be able to properly express a nuanced opinion. In how many cases was it checked that these people never made a statement which expresses a different opinion from the one cherry-picked here? Is it of no BLP concern that some of these people might have changed their views in the past 6–12 years? Actually most scientists would consider it an insult to assume that they believe the same thing now as they did years ago; it is contrary to the scientific ethic. Zerotalk 07:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(A) All eds can freshen this list at any time, and (B) as for "quite old" quotes, past consensus has been to include people on the basis of remarks made since the prior IPCC assessment report, which technically is AR3 (2000). In a few days the science portion of AR5 (2014) will be released, which means if my understanding of past consensus holds, we will be undertaking a "purge" of comments from before 2007 (and maybe the associated name too). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming_(6th_nomination)&oldid=588644515"