Talk:Climate crisis

todo

add article 2 of the UNFCCC (1991) and 2015 Paris Agreement "Recognizing the need for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change..." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC) And 2011 UNFCCC statement at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page=2 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC) social science lit search for framing papers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Add Climate emergency declaration section NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you, the editors, consider adding a section somewhere under environment and or democracy for climate democracy? There are a number of initiatives for global democratic solutions to the climate crisis and these may be relevant to the Wikipedia community. One example is the work of the Center for United Nations Constitutional Research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.195.35 (talk • contribs)

If you find missing info you can edit yourself, but first please read "how to edit" at Help:Contents, and the links cited there. And before you get started, please see Climate change mitigation, Politics of climate change, UNFCCC... we have lots of articles that might already cover what you have in mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoice and "climate crisis"

QUESTION - Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• No When we have sufficient RSs to use this phrasing in the text at scientific consensus on climate change then sure, we can do that. Until then, in my view, we must restrict ourselves to reporting on the language used by others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. An absolutely (pretentiously) objective voice would continue to use "climate change" and "global warming"; a realist would use "climate crisis", which is the conclusion all sources point to. However, we're not allowed to draw conclusions, so we must follow others':

• Carrington, Damian (2019-05-17). "Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.
• Redlener, Caleb; Jenkins, Charlotte; Redlener, Irwin (2019-07-31). "Our planet is in crisis. But until we call it a crisis, no one will listen | Caleb Redlener, Charlotte Jenkins and Irwin Redlener". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.

And so, in the very least, we should allow regular use of "climate crisis" by editors. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Re the conclusion all sources point to.... I rarely characterize fact assertions as seriously ridiculous but that is nonsense. The sources, so far, abundantly show disagreement on this framing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "framing", I said "conclusion", and the IPCC's latest lists some pretty catastrophic ones. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• No as per OP. We can be guided by how other crises are handled in Wikipedia's voice. For example, in the article Opioid epidemic in the United States, "epidemic" rather than "crisis" is used in Wikipedia's voice, but the first sentence of the lead does say that it's also often referred to as a "crisis", and the article Opioid epidemic quotes the U.S. Surgeon General calling it a "crisis". Similarly, editors are free to quote RS calling climate change a "crisis" as much as we want, but until a consensus of scientists adopts "crisis" as a standard term it's best for us in our role as editors to choose neutral-sounding terminology. NightHeron (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I lean towards saying no. We need to be wary of neologisms and media hype. For wikivoice we should stick to the terminology used by the majority climatologists in academic writing. It is fine to mention other terms, but they should be attributed. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• (Supplemental) The IPCC's most recent "special report" contains three instances of the phrase "climate crisis" and each one is in the title of a bibliographic reference. The forward to the report, signed by head of the WMO and acting head of UNEP, comes the closest when they write Without increased and urgent mitigation ambition in the coming years, leading to a sharp decline in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, global warming will surpass 1.5°C in the following decades, leading to irreversible loss of the most fragile ecosystems, and crisis after crisis for the most vulnerable people and societies." (bold added) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also 20,500 Google Scholar search results for "climate crisis".[1] François Robere (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The language here is still kind of developing, so I can see a case for waiting here. That said, I'm not sure that this is necessarily a question for climatologists. Ultimately, the meaning of a "crisis" is more of a public policy question than a scientific one. @NightHeron: We do have articles on the European debt crisis, the Sunda Straits Crisis, and the Venezuelan refugee crisis, (all Good Articles) which all use the term "crisis" in text, so it's not necessarily prohibited, at least. Nblund ^talk 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Nblund: Yes, you're right, and I didn't mean to suggest that "climate crisis" in the text is prohibited. Note that your three examples of crises are political or economic ones and not issues where we would turn to scientists for a consensus on the language to be used. In those political/economic cases I believe there was consensus on calling them crises, and the disagreement was about who was to blame and what should be done. In the case of climate change, it's appropriate to look to scientists for consensus on the language. If we view it as a policy issue rather than a scientific one and wait for all mainstream media and policy think tanks (including conservative media and think tanks) to agree on calling climate change a crisis, we'll have to wait a lot longer. NightHeron (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• There's also an issue of norms here: "hard" scientists are trained to make narrow, well-defined observations, and are often wary of (and ill-equipped for) the media aspects of their work. It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word "crisis" among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of "scaring off the public" (I suggest listening to this interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth). You're more likely to see this use by social scientists, who deal with the human aspects of this crisis; indeed, a cursory look at the leading results of the relevant GS query shows just that: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science, psychology, and human geography. François Robere (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why many hard scientists are hesitant to use the word "crisis" is the same as the reason why we should not rush to use the word in Wikipedia's voice: they see their job as to present facts, and they fear that the use of a loaded term that has not (yet) become standard will diminish their credibility as scientists, especially among the readers who need to be convinced of the urgency of the issue. They believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public. The same goes for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No-no, that is certainly not the case,[2][3][4] and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that. To quote Marcus Du Sautoy, Prof. of Mathematics and Simonyi Prof. for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:

We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate.[5]

François Robere (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Your response to me contradicts what you wrote just before. I wrote that "many hard scientists...believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public," and you responded "No-no, that is certainly not the case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that." But just before you wrote "It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word `crisis' among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of `scaring off the public.'" What we are debating here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but rather whether or not the term "climate crisis" is at this point in time a standard, NPOV-compliant term.

I don't see a contradiction there, but agree about the latter. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, could we agree to keep this discussion either to this page or to the WP:NPOV page, so as not to have to repeat everything twice? Probably WP:NPOV is a better place, since more editors are watching that. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This is funny. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

On process, I agree and have asked an uninvolved admin to close one or the other, I don't care which. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund and François Robere, thanks for your very thoughtful comments! I too agree that the balance of the RSs may tip the scales, because there's nothing in policy to vaporize "climate crisis" just out of hand. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - although I think its a strange question. NAEG asked: "Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality?"

The question is strange because the terms climate change, global warming and climate crisis are not interchangeable (as if they all meant the same thing). In simple terms, climate change (the release of greenhouse gases) leads to global warming which leads to rising sea levels (and more climate change) and the perception that we have a climate crisis. All three terms are valid, each with its own meaning and context.

I also think its strange because I don't see that Wikipedia has "a voice". If wiki does have a voice, that voice needs to be neutral - which requires all relevant voices to be presented. WP is an encyclopedia with thousands of editors who rely on RS to add material from a variety of different sources. If editors find RS which refer to a climate crisis (of which there are plenty), the need for balance and neutrality requires the addition of those references in order to counter balance other sources which only refer to climate change or global warming.

Using the term climate crisis does not mean that wiki is stating as a fact, that we are facing a climate crisis. I agree with Nblund and Francois Robere that whether or not we are facing a crisis is largely a matter of language and perception, suggesting the need for urgent action. Isn't that exactly what the IPCC is saying - that we need to take urgent action? How urgent it needs to be is perhaps a matter of opinion. But opinions are valid contributions on WP when backed by RS. Notagainst (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll need an RS for the premise that climate change means release of GHG. But don't bother looking because you won't find one. The technical distinction between climate change and global warming is abundantly annually discussed on the talk page archives for those articles. As is their synonymous lay (common language) use. "climate crisis" is a sufficiently recent contributio9n to the lexicon that I don't believe the RSs have really zeroed in on a definition, unless its another synonym for the common language label for the issue. But then again, I didn't cite any RSs either, so there's no real reason for a discussion closure to put much weight on either comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm truly puzzled that you answered "yes" given that the pieces of your rationale appears to be that these are not the same terms. This isn't my synthesis of your argument, you specifically stated that "the terms climate change, global warming and climate crisis are not interchangeable". Why would you then say yes to the question?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You make a valid point. What I believe NAEG was actually saying is "There is no scientific consensus that there is a climate crisis". What I therefore think he was actually asking is "Can we use the term climate crisis on WP at all?" Perhaps I misunderstood his intention - but I don't think so.Notagainst (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong on Part1 What I actually said is that we lack sufficient RSs to assert that there is a scientific consensus there is a crisis. This subtle difference (Truth vs Verification... or if you prefer PERSONAL OPINION vs SOURCES) lies at the heart of Wikipedia.

Also wrong on Part 2 Since you stated above you don't believe that WP:WIKIVOICE exists you aren't really able to understand the question or the concept of inline attribution. I'm not sure you're going to because I've already laid out the example to show this but I will do so again. Maybe you just didn't read it last time. There is a whopping difference between

• NAEG is a jerk and
• NAEG's wife sometimes says he is a jerk

In the first one, WIKIVOICE is used to declare this as fact, without the slightest reservation or doubt, as a condition that exists everywhere all the time under all circumstances. In the second one, inline attribution is used to convey to the reader who thinks this, and how often, and - thank god - also imples that every once in a while she also thinks he's sort of a decent fellow. As you can see these are very different meanings. The question I have posed is can we use WIKIVOICE to describe anthropogenic global warming and its effects as the "climate crisis" without violating our WP:Neutrality policy? The question can only be answered by diving into the sources and assessing their content and quality and due WP:WEIGHT. I believe climate crisis must be covered. But I think our policies (so far) require us to use inline attribution instead of WIKIVOICE to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added a few new users of the term to the lists in the article. They currently number about 235 media outlets and institutions, several political bodies and senior climate researchers. François Robere (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do not use climate crisis - I came here from the NPOV noticeboard, but I'm not sure it's really an NPOV issue at heart. "Climate crisis" is a fairly new term that is not yet widely adopted by academic sources. Perhaps it will be in 2020, but at this time, no. That's my primary reason for saying that we should continue to use climate change as the term. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you ok with reporting on the efforts to reframe the issue, using inline attribution, similar to an earlier version of this article? For example, I had built up a stub to this point before others took it in the WIKIVOICE direction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a totally different issue entirely and it's potentially acceptable as long as there are reliable sources that provide significant independent coverage of the naming shift. The naming shift may not be wide-spread enough as of September 2019 to merit using it in Wikipedia's voice, but if the controversy is notable enough, then it could deserve it's own article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, Quoting myself from the NPOV discussion, Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change. Springee (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Great turn of phrase! But per WP:WEIGHT we should be in the line of cars about 2/3 the way back from the locomotive, not the very very very last stubborn relic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes A vast panoply of sources make reference to the current situation with regard to anthropogenic climate change as the Climate Crisis - it would be non-neutral for us to not call it that just because some denialists still exist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"A vast panoply of sources" is not the same as a consensus. As soon as it becomes true that, as you seem to be saying, only the denialists are not using the term "climate crisis", I'll change my vote from no to yes. NightHeron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Excessive rushing and excessive lethargy are opposites of the same problematic extreme. I laughed aloud when @Springee: commented that Wikipedia is the caboose of the train but in reality per WP:WEIGHT we should be at about the 2/3 point in line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I think we should allow it, but not impose it. François Robere (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfect recipe for enouraging POVFORKING, in my view. Either there is sufficient weight to say it in Wikivoice, or there isn't. Policy hawks are swearming this phrase. Scientists are not (yet). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, "hard" scientists are not trained to do that, regardless of the subject. Those concerned with the human condition and science communication, however, are doing so, as evident by the GS results and some of the names listed on the Climate crisis#Other users. François Robere (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• No Never seen "climate crisis" used in any scientific literature. Zortwort (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zortwort: [6] François Robere (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: I would suggest you actually read through these sources you've linked: just because Google Scholar turns up results for the search "climate crisis" does not mean that any of these papers are relevant. Having looked at a substantial number of these, I have yet to find a single paper that is related to hard science or has been produced by any actual climate scientist, physicist, or applied mathematician. These are predominantly social science articles related to the psychology of the term "climate crisis", or are completely speculative pieces also produced by social scientists. Another large element of them were made before the term "climate crisis" was widespread and before global warming was widely studied, and are in fact not claiming that there is an ongoing climate crisis, but are talking about how reliably a climate crisis may be detected or modeled. So my claim, that I've never seen the term, as it's defined for this article, used in actual scientific literature, still stands. Zortwort (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Not just psychology: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science and human geography, all of which are sciences which are relevant to the framing of the issue as a "crisis". Climatologists shouldn't be expected to use that term in a paper, because that's not what their write papers about. Who does? Crisis researchers, economists, political scientists, geographers etc. That being said, in less official settings some senior climatologists do use that term.[7][8] François Robere (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't sciences actually. They're valid areas of research, but are not by definition "sciences." They are humanities. The predominant reliable sources on "climate science" are bona fide science articles, none of which use the term "crisis". Zortwort (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually they're social sciences, with geography bracing the line between that and geoscience. These are who you'd expect to write about a "crisis", which is a human notion. The Earth itself doesn't care either way, right? François Robere (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. As per previous comments, climate change and the potential climate crisis are differring concepts; that's why we have different pages for them. This page refers to the literal language being used by mass media and activists like the aforementioned Greta Thunberg. In addition, guys, we're literally seeing the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists referring to Climate Change as a reason for the Doomsday Clock being 2 minutes to midnight. Pretty sure that qualifies this as a crisis, in any event. india.OHC (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but whether or not the term "crisis" should be used in Wikipedia's voice. By comparison, look at how Wikipedia handles the Opioid epidemic and, in particular, the Opioid epidemic in the United States. The word "crisis" is not used in Wikipedia's voice, although the latter article starts out: "The opioid epidemic or opioid crisis is a term that generally refers to the rapid increase in the use of..." Note that a Google Scholar search for "opioid crisis" leads to articles from the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal with the word "crisis" in the title. So the case for claiming scientific use of the term "crisis" seems to be stronger than in the case of the climate crisis. Nevertheless, Wikipedia proceeds cautiously and avoids using the term in its editorial voice. The same should apply here. NightHeron (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It is a neutral statement to refer to the climate as a crisis. There is no scientific data to support the idea that things will be okay. Or even merely inconvenient. The climate is becoming worse, there is already mass extinction going on around the globe and so on. Vision Insider (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References for this thread

References

Opening sentence

I would like to propose this as a more accurate opening sentence:

"Climate crisis" is a phrase used by many (reliable sources) to describe the impact of global warming and the need for greater action to avert the multiple threats to the environment, to animals and to human life on planet earth posed by record high levels of greenhouse gases.Notagainst (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't say that because "Reliable sources" only means something in the wiki universe. It basically means used by many sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable.... See WP:Self-references to avoid. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If thats your only objection, the problem is easily solved. "Climate crisis" is a phrase used by many commentators... Notagainst (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please bring any discussions about the opening sentence to this section. Notagainst (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Also please see The dictionary definition trap which states: An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. This means the article needs to report the "facts" about climate crisis (as documented by RS), rather than use of the lens with which those commentators view it. Notagainst (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does this topic exist?

It seems this topic was created* recently as some sort of POV fork. Is a topic about "climate crisis" the phrase even notable? Prior to late July this was just a redirect to the Global Warming article. Why change now? Why not just say this term is one of many to describe Climate Change or which ever article it redirects to? Springee (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm the editor who converted the redir to article. The original "gist" I was going for was to report on the climate hawk movement's effort to reframe the language. Some editors are (obviously) embracing that language in wikivoice. For now at least, I'd rather see us report on their effort rather than joining it outselves. But to answer your question, there are plenty of RSs that report on the battle over language and this expression specifically. I have to run right now, but if there is still serious claims that we lack notability RSs we can address them in due course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. So long as there is enough RS material about it. I can believe there is material about "framing the language". Based on the above discussion I was worried the article would go in a different direction. Springee (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy understanding and in my view it is now an advocacy piece rather than neutral coverage of the reframing effort NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the two of you are even talking about. There are a ton of RS describing what is happening to the world as a climate crisis. Creating an article about climate crisis and linking to RS which cite it as a climate crisis is how WP operates. Thats how ALL articles on WP are built. It is NOT about reframing global warming as a climate crisis. Nor does it have anything to do with wikivoice. The article doesn't claim there is a climate crisis. It links to RS which say there is one. See new section: The severity of the crisis. Therefore wikivoice doesn't come into it. Notagainst (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is redundant if you change it from an article about the term, a perfectly valid article if RS'ed, to an article about climate change with just another title. Might as well merger it into one of the other existing articles if that is the scope. Springee (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Springee here. We can say why Mr/Ms X or Organization Y prefer the term, but we must not create a WP:POVFORK with any of the articles in the Global warming tree of sub articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is titled Climate crisis. If you want an article about the origins of the term climate crisis, you need a new article - one with a name such as Use of the term climate crisis or Reframing global warming as a climate crisis. But an article titled Climate Crisis has to be about an actual climate crisis as reported by multiple RS. Notagainst (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also I see on the Global warming article, there is already a fork to this Climate crisis page, which is totally appropriate. WP:Contentforking says "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Notagainst (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually this article was about the term until you changed the scope with a few large edits. You did that as a BOLD change but that means others are free to revert it back to it's previous scope. The claim that "an article titled Climate Crisis has to be about an actual climate crisis" is not true (can you cite policy or guidelines that say that is the case)? You noted the link from the GW article to this one. It's under terminology and per the summary talks about the use of the term, not the scope you are creating. Springee (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality vs POVFORK

The label at the top of the article suggests there are issues of neutrality. Recents edits have raised concerns about POVFORK. Which is it? I don't see any issues with either. Notagainst (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You really should try to get consensus before changing the scope of the article. Springee (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is titled Climate crisis. Consensus is not required to add material with RS documenting a climate crisis.

You wrote "This article is about the term/phrase, not changes in the climate itself." In that case you need to create a new article with a new title - one called Use of the term climate crisis. Please see: WP:Title "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles..."

People will look for information about the climate crisis (or whether there is one) on WP. If they find the page called Climate crisis, but then all they get is a bunch of waffle about when the term Climate crisis has been used in the media, but no information from RS on whether the world is actually facing a crisis, then the page is seriously misleading - and unhelpful. I'm sure we can do better than that. Notagainst (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Bit of a catch 22 your in. See if there article is about the phrase, the current consensus scope, then it lives but you edits go away. If you make the article about climate change that had been described as "crisis" then it's a POV fork and the article is up for deletion or more likely once again is a redirect. Springee (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing the title

There seems to be a discussion going on about whether this article is about the phrase climate crisisor whether it's a POV-fork. Doesn't MOS:WAW imply that in the former the title should be italicized? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly about the reality of the climate crisis as documented by multiple RS - not about use of the phrase climate crisis. As such it is also clearly not a POV-fork. It may by a fork - not one that is POV. Notagainst (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Establishing scope article

The fundamental disagreement about the scope of this article needs to be solved. A lot of work is now being done on the article, before we even agree what this article is supposed to be about. I propose we stick to the initial scope (article about the term). The recent edits with as scope 'why climate change is considered a crisis' seem to me as a POV-fork, a concern that was aired before by others. Much of the article here now seems to expand on global warming in one particular direction.

Do we want the article to be about the phrase or the crisis

Survey

• Phrase per above. Also open to the idea of renaming this article to something like Reframing global warming as a climate crisis Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Because the article is called Climate crisis, there is no choice. It has to be about the climate crisis - as currently documented by numerous RS. If you want to replace this article with one called "Reframing...", you will be turning the article into one which effectively denies there is a crisis. Since there are so many RS describing the situation as a crisis or as an emergency, a Reframing... page will, in effect, be a censoring of WP and as such will never achieve objectivity or neutrality.

I would argue that the page is capable of representing both perspectives. There is the reality of the crisis and then there is the slow reframing of it as a crisis by the media - in a process which non-scientists such as Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and the Guardian newspaper have made a significant impact. Notagainst (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Phrase Also per previous discussions. The current direction is more like "climate change at crises level". That might be true but it makes this article a POV fork of other articles. Making this article about both wouldn't work as it would be a POV fork in sheep's clothing. Springee (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Malformed POV survey

(A)It's redundant. The earlier thread about Wikivoice attempts to ask the same question. See WP:MULTI.

(B) It's a leading question (not neutral). The question presumes that we can describe global warming as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE even though that thread is still open and there is no consensus. This is why our guideline on polls (WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) includes

6. * * * every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll. (bold added)

and

8. * * * If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.

See the earlier thread, Talk:Climate_crisis#Wikivoice_and_"climate_crisis"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Phrase and agree that the article should be renamed, perhaps "Use of the term 'Climate Crisis'" and should be narrowly focused. That is, assuming debate on the specific issue of the term is a 'thing' (many RS can be found on both sides), the article should report on the RS that argue 'it's time to call it a crisis' and the RS that argue 'the term crisis is alarmist and counter-productive'. Climate change denialism is fringe, but the latter opinion is not. Just citing sources that use the term to show that the term is in increasing use comes perilously close to OR. NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of 6, and I'm sorry if my attempt to resolve this matter have actually made it worse. (I'll keep that one in mind for future discussion in which a big decision needs to be made). In terms of (B), I was trying to not lead the question to my way of thinking, but have inadvertently directed the question in the opposite direction. I'm aware of the previous discussion, hence my attempt to have a survey (much of the discussion has already taken place). I like the suggested title 'Use of the term "Climate crisis", which is more neutral then the 'reframing as climate crisis' title NotAgainst proposed (for possible a different article) and I copied. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Except there are plenty of RSs that talk about the intentional effort to use language to drive results, i.e., an intentional effort to reframe this issue. That's the problem here, as I see it. Where the RSs say language reforming efforts are trying to reframe a thing, that's what we have to report, until a massive amount of RSs has unquestioanbly tipped the scales of WP:WEIGHT. But we have to be bystanders, not activists, in this reframing effort. This is why we have guidelines about how to write articles about words and phrases. WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Under that guideline we do not need to change the article title. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The way I read WP:WORDISSUBJECT it's perfectly okay to change the title as several of us have suggested. An example it gives is the title "Macedonia (terminology)" that makes it clear that the article is not about Macedonia. Retitling to "Use of the term 'climate crisis'" or simply "Climate crisis (terminology)" would comply with WP:WORDISSUBJECT. NightHeron (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the Macedonia (terminology) example. There is an article Macedonia, so the "(terminology)" part of the other one's title was added per WP:Disambiguation and is not really about WP:MOS standards for naming articles that are about words and phrases. Also, see Global warming#terminology. Whatever we do, the different parts of different articles should be kept in sync so they work well together. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It does seem that the examples either have terminology explicit or are made italicized. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not in the second paragraph. "Climate crisis" is a "lens" through which many are now viewing the issue. The "lens" approach may provide guidance NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue of not confusing readers. As another editor already pointed out, a reader is likely to come to an article titled "Climate crisis" expecting the subject to be the climate crisis, not the use of the term. Readers can't be expected to know that Wikipedia editors have not (yet) decided to view "Climate crisis" as a standard consensus term, and so they should look at Climate change rather than Climate crisis for an article on the climate crisis. We should adhere to the spirit of WP:Disambiguation by making it easy for readers to go to the right article. NightHeron (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron: actually readers have to look at global warming instead of climate change to find info about current climate change. Which is evidence that your point is valid, because this arbitrary distinction we made on Wikipedia causes a lot of confusion there.

@ NEAG: I find the lens approach quite difficult here (not saying I'm against it per se), as this opens the door to POV if not properly done. I think the guidelines are lacking, as they do not give any guidance when something can be considered a 'lens' and when a 'POV-fork'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NEAG that this is a malformed survey and that under WP:WORDISSUBJECT "we do not need to change the article title".Notagainst (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in fact WP:WORDISSUBJECT does not say we need to change the title; nor does it say that we need to keep the title as it is. That WP reference doesn't say one way or the other what the title should be. That's why I'm suggesting that we think about our readers. A reader who searches for "climate crisis" should be redirected to Global warming (thanks, Femke Nijsse, for the correction; it seems that a reader who searches for "climate change" should also be redirected to Global warming). Right now the reader who is seeking information about the climate crisis will end up on the page that discusses the term "climate crisis". We should not make our readers jump through hoops to get to the article they want. NightHeron (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron that we should not make our readers jump through hoops to get to the article they want. If the article is all about the facts of climate change (which is what the title implies), then no redirect is necessary. Global warming is not the same thing as a climate crisis, so a redirect would be totally inappropriate. Notagainst (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This may be a good case for looking at a new name per WP:NATURALDIS. In that case I would suggest that this article name is returned to being a pointer to the primary topic. While an article on recasting "climate change to climate crisis" as a way to motivate people does seem notable in and of itself, there is no reason to separate the discussion of human caused climate change from instances that were arbitrarily labeled climate crisis. Springee (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In what sense is there a primary topic? I presume you are referring to global warming. If readers are searching for info about the climate crisis, redirecting them to the global warming page is not helpful. Climate change is a notable topic. So is global warming. And so is climate crisis. Each has a different lens. I don't see any of these three articles taking primacy over the other two. Notagainst (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No consensus of editors has been reached about using the word "crisis" in Wikipedia's voice; nor has a consensus been reached about changing the scope of the article from the phrase to the crisis. Nevertheless, extensive recent editing of this article has led to the use of that word in Wikipedia's voice and a change in scope to where the article could plausibly be proposed for deletion as a POV fork. That would be a shame, since a balanced treatment of use of the term "crisis" could be a useful article to have on Wikipedia. Many people, especially among scientists, although they believe that climate change is a huge problem that urgently needs changes in policy, nevertheless also believe (as stated in the very short section of "criticism") that it's probably counter-productive to use alarmist-sounding language. To see the problem with such language, look at the statement from Paramount that's approvingly quoted in the section on Al Gore. It says that "we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction." Well, that was in 2007, and more than ten years have passed. So should the reader conclude that it's pretty hopeless (let's "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we all die")? NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Since he made that statement, the IPCC which is the most authoritative voice on the subject, now says we have only 12 years to avoid climate change catastrophe. So while waiting to die, at the very least, we could help produce an informative article on WP about the crisis the world is facing. Notagainst (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The full sentence that's approvingly quoted in the section on Al Gore is: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction" (emphasis added). That's from 2007. Eleven years later the IPCC statement you're referring to says "the 2020s could be one of humanity’s last chances to avert devastating impacts." (In other words, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" in 2007 were wrong??) To many the juxtaposition of these two statements in the article will sound like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. As I wrote earlier, most scientists seem to prefer to use strong facts rather than strong language to educate the public, in part because that way they don't lose credibility. The same goes for an encyclopedia. There should be only one article (currently Global warming) on anthropogenic climate change. Not two articles -- one saying "this is what it is" and another saying "and it's really really bad". NightHeron (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

What it is depends entirely on the lens through which you view it. The WP article on global warming contains the same constraints as reports by the IPCC - the language is so conservative, it doesn't even mention the possibility that mankind faces a crisis (other than as an issue of terminology). If the Global Warming page acknowledged that we face a crisis, then this page could become a fork - similar to The effects of Global Warming - which also does not mention the possibility that mankind faces a crisis. If we ignore the multiple sources that say we are facing a crisis, the article is incomplete. Notagainst (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Notagainst, I agree with you that the article Global warming is not very effective in conveying the urgency of the problem. It comes off as being rather technical and far removed from everyday experience. The solution is not to write a new article, but to edit Global warming. There are clearly editors (not me) who have expertise and/or experience looking for RS in this area and so can improve Global warming. What I mean by "strong facts rather than strong language" is the following. Give specific examples of impact on ordinary people's daily lives that has already occurred or, according to scientific consensus, will occur in the very near future. For example, there are effects on availability of drinking water for millions of people (in India, the Andes, etc.). Mention polar bears, maybe with a picture of one. Just facts. I'm sure there are RS that discuss the fact that the most immediate impact is on people, generally poor people, living in the tropics or in the far north, whereas the causes of anthropogenic climate change are disproportionately in the wealthy countries. But there are also serious impacts in other latitudes that can be documented with RS. The Global warming article doesn't even mention that the U.S. under Trump withdrew from the Paris accords. There's no need for alarmist language about an impending "tail-spin of epic destruction", no need to turn the Climate crisis article into a POV fok, and no need to use the term "crisis" in Wikipedia's voice. NightHeron (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron As the main contributor to GW as of late (it didn't even mention the Paris agreement half a year ago, and was also completely out of date in terms of research), thanks for your input! One of the considerations to not add Trump's (& Bolsonaro's) intention to withdraw from Paris is that it's not happened yet and there is already another quote of a U.S. president. My understanding is that, if Trump loses the next election, the US will only have been out of the agreement for a couple of months. I'm always wary of recentisms, but this might indeed stay important, now that other countries seem to follow :(. I'm trying to get a better figure for how big our challenge is to stop this dangerous interference, but so far copyright holders are not that keen on replying (will send another email or letter next week). If we're done with making all the citation look nice, I will put the article up for review and really keen on input from different people who've not contributed much lately. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene, I don't mean to criticize the content of Global warming. It has a huge amount of high-quality information. There's even a picture of a polar bear! (But it's not until subsection 5.2.) The trouble is that most readers read only the lead, and they are especially unlikely to reader farther if the lead sounds academic and technical, as in this case. Even when impact on animals and humans is discussed in detail -- far down in the article -- for the most part the effects are listed in a dry, scientific fashion. I would suggest moving the technical-looking visual material out of the lead to a place far later in the article and frontloading into the lead a few examples of the effects of global warming, accompanied with striking pictures -- the polar bear and California fire are fine. Maybe also a picture of parched land and ruined crops in a drought, a picture of people clamoring for bottles of drinking water, a picture of the Andes with no snow, a picture of the recent destruction of part of the Bahamas. Here I'm assuming that you can find RS that link all of these effects to climate change. The pictures and examples that don't fit in the lead could go into the first sections. The examples early in the article should not be listed, but rather could each have a couple of sentences and, if possible, a picture. The scientific explanations and any dry listings could be postponed to the latter sections of the article, which the general non-scientific reader can choose to ignore. Much could be accomplished by rearranging the sections so that the more technical material comes after the more broadly accessible material. The challenge to editors is to convey the facts in a dramatic and unforgettable way without violating NPOV or using alarmist language. NightHeron (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In general your comments about the lead at GW are Right On. However, there is a move afoot to push for a rename of the main articles "climate change" and "global warming". Its probably premature to put in tons of effort until that dust settles. Some of us are draftin a presentation of these issues in userspace. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely these problems with the Global Warming article make it all the more important to have a separate article for Climate Crisis. If we meld these two topics into one article, the result is likely to be a confusing mess. The GW article can have a small section on climate crisis (with a fork to the main article on Climate Crisis), but people looking for information about the climate crisis need a specific page to go to. Why would anyone object to that? Notagainst (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Because several editors on this talk page have raised the question of whether or not

• using the term "climate crisis" in Wikipedia's voice, and
• turning the Climate crisis article into an advocacy piece with the purpose of convincing readers to use crisis language rather than the "conservative language" of the IPCC and many others

are in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. If there were a consensus of editors that the answer is "no", then there'd be no objection to what you want to do. However, even a cursory glance at this talk page shows that there's no such consensus. NightHeron (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@NotAgainst, that's not actually what IPCC said. To read the original source doc everyone is misrepresenting see, well, the full report.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Can this article be saved?

The opinions of the majority of editors commenting on this page have been that "climate crisis" should not be used in Wikipedia's voice and that the article should be a balanced article about terminology. Nevertheless, an editor (who I acknowledge is well-intentioned and editing in good faith) has put in multiple long edits that change the article essentially to an advocacy piece and POV fork of the global warming article. Perhaps a more experienced editor than I am can suggest what can be done now. AfD? That would be a shame. The discussion in RS about framing and choice of terminology is a "thing" and is important and interesting. Revert back to a much earlier form of the article, and ask for DS that include a prohibition against major editing without consensus first? Some form of dispute resolution? NightHeron (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been (tentatively) convinced by NEAG that the article should be about the lens climate crisis instead solely about the terminology. That notwithstanding, I do think we need some resolution mechanism. Gtg now! Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene and NewsAndEventsGuy, can you explain what you mean by the "lens approach," and how it is different from a summary and history of the debate over terminology and framing? Thanks. NightHeron (talk)

What I understand of this lens approach is that it's a (tiny?) bit broader than only discussing the term. One given example is the homosexual agenda, where not only the word is described, but the ideology behind the use. (This in contrast to our current article, which is actively using the lens in sentences like: Other authorities also describe the crisis., which could be rephrased as other authorities have described climate change as a crisis as well or smth.). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(A) TIMING Whatever happens here in the short term is just going to get rehashed when we propose some overhauls to Climate change and Global warming. If I controlled the timing of that I would wait until January (because I need to use the remaining weather to do other things) but Femke do you think you'll be ready sooner?

(B) CONSENSUS MECHANISM We could start drafting proposed question(s) for a Not-Voting poll and do a formal RFC to the broader community, then seek a semi-formal closing from an uninvolved editor. If I had time to work to implement the result I would in fact push for this, even if we haven't proposed the changes under (A) above. But I lack that time, so .... that's my thoughts at this time, which I now have less of! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion is easier once we have improved the climate change/global warming terminology (f.i. renamed global warming to climate change). I'm ready in terms of argumentation, but do want your input on two questions still (see your talk page). I'd like to have some uninvolved administrator to go over the proposed procedure as well, making sure it all follows our guidelines (we're proposing a rescoping and renaming at the same time, which complicates things).

I'm okay with parking the work on this article for a bit. @NotAgainst, do you recognize there is no consensus for having this be an article about the climate crisis, as people feel that that is a POV fork of climate change (now called global warming). If so, would you be willing to stop developing the article in that direction? It would be a waste of your time if no consensus can be found for the hard work you're putting into this article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: Not sure you've seen this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst:, you are turning this article into a serious POV fork and it's likely to get changed. It also is not good form to ignore talk page discussions. Per ONUS, it would be reasonable to roll back your changes since they aren't supported by consensus. Please engage with the talk page. I'm not heavily involved in the climate change topics but I would support this as either a topic about how people are recasting the topic to, in effect scare the public into action, or to redirect. Is it possible to simply demote the article to something pre-release/sandbox while the final disposition is decided? Springee (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I find it difficult to engage in a discussion about something, which as far as I can see, does not exist - wikivoice. Entering wikivoice in the search box brings the reader to section on neutrality. Neutrality is one of the key principles of articles on WP. Wikivoice is not a principle - it doesn't exist. Unless you conduct this discussion using terminology that I can understand, it is difficult to engage. Notagainst (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I will make the assumption that your concerns are in fact about neutrality. Femkemilene writes that "I've been (tentatively) convinced by NEAG that the article should be about the lens climate crisis." That's what the article is about, the climate crisis lens - so what's the problem? Notagainst (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nightheron wrote: "The solution is not to write a new article, but to edit Global warming." I tried to edit global warming by making Climate Crisis a heading on that page. NEAG (and others) reverted it - with no reason given. One assumes that this is because these editors are stuck on this undefined, mythical notion of wikivoice. Unless, editors can demonstrate that wikivoice is a real thing, I think we are at an impasse. Notagainst (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

In the above thread "Wikivoice and 'climate crisis'", NAEG clearly and carefully explained to you what "Wikivoice" means. It means the editorial voice of Wikipedia, which must be neutral. Of course we can quote RS who state strong opinions, but always with accurate inline citations. This distinction is fundamental in WP. Anyone who just reads the lead to the climate crisis article as you've rewritten it can see that the editorial tone is not neutral. Another core principle of WP is consensus, which you also seem to have ignored. NightHeron (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - he has not explained what wikivoice is. He has not provided a single link to a WP policy which explains wikivoice - other than the need for articles to be neutral. So can we all agree that what we are discussing is neutrality - not wikivoice. I'm relatively new to WP. Let's keep it simple so I can understand your concerns. Notagainst (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: "Anyone who just reads the lead to the climate crisis article as you've rewritten it can see that the editorial tone is not neutral." The sentence reads: "Climate crisis" or "climate emergency" is a description of climate change and global warming used by scientists, governments and other organisations to describe how the anthropogenic effects of humans on the climate are proceeding so quickly that the world is facing a global crisis." Please explain what you think is inaccurate, biased or not neutral about that sentence - without referring to wikivoice.

It omits "some" and "they think". I tried to fix it but you reverted with the explict wikivoice edit summary in which you declare, with the force of God Almighty himself, what the current situation is. This is not (yet) a SKYISBLUE fact, and so you have stubbornly insisted on your viewpoint. See your revert and edit sum here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If that's all you're worried about, why didn't you say so? You have not suggested this before. What you did suggest was to change the sentence entirely. Your version described the crisis as a disparity. Notagainst (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I have already tried to get editors to engage on the opening sentence here, but got no significant objections. Notagainst (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's because its a hugely unfun and an energy sucking drain to deal with WP:Tendentious editing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should stop encouraging me to discuss everything on the TalkPage? I'm trying to be co-operative but you keep taking cheap shots at me. Notagainst (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Notagainst, the lead is now written so as to give the impression that virtually everyone except for denialists use "crisis" and equivalent expressions. Not a word about alternative opinions. The rest of the article is largely a long listing of people and organizations that have adopted that terminology. Readers are being bombarded with a barrage of citations aimed at convincing them that they should speak about climate change in that way. The only exceptions are one lonely "social scientist" in the small "criticism" section -- and the IPCC. But the IPCC is cited in order to disparage their choice of language; the article says that a study confirmed (this word is not in quotes, and so is presented as Wikipedia's editorial viewpoint) that the IPCC was being "remarkably conservative".

We all understand that you feel passionately that climate change should be framed using "crisis" language, and you apparently believe that this should be the official position of Wikipedia. However, vast numbers of climatologists and others don't see the framing issue this way. For example, some people don't think that it was helpful for the promoters of Al Gore's book to announce in 2007 that if major actions weren't taken within 10 years (that is, by 2017) we'd have "a tail-spin of epic destruction". The framing question is interesting, complicated, and controversial. Your rewriting of the article turned it into an advocacy piece for one particular viewpoint on this question. The majority of editors who've discussed this on the talk page have disagreed with you, and have explained that your tendentious editing violates WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If you think the article is supposed to present global warming through the climate crisis lens (NEAG and Femkemilene seem to agree on that), then the bulk of the article will be a presentation of RS stating that we are facing a crisis. That's what the article currently does. That does not mean that Wikipedia has a stance on the issue.

If you think that the "criticism" section should be expanded, in order to provide balance to the article, then editors should say exactly that. The need for balance is a WP policy that I can read and understand. But if you describe the article as an advocacy piece, but don't say why (other than by making obscure references to wiki voice), then it is hard for me to understand what you're getting at.

In fact I have been intending to add more to the "criticism" section but have not yet got around to it. I can only do one thing at once - and just getting RS saying there is a crisis is hard enough without frequent reverts by editors who seem to object to RS saying anything about this. You seem to have completely misinterpreted my editing if you think that I'm trying to make the term climate crisis the official position of Wikipedia. It's all about the climate crisis lens, not about whether or not there actually is a crisis. Notagainst (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

In regard to your concern that "a study 'confirmed'..." what say we change that to a study 'agreed'. Would that satisfy you on this point? I'm trying to hear what you're saying. Notagainst (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No, "agreed" also implies Wikipedia's approval of the criticism of IPCC. The rewritten article is unbalanced and biased throughout on the question of framing, except for a short quote in the "criticism" section. This cannot be fixed by a few word changes. NightHeron (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

So we could say the study "found that the tone of the IPCC's probabilistic language is remarkably conservative". That's what the study actually says - so this particular point can be fixed by changing one word that you don't seem to be happy with. The article (Climate Crisis) does not say or imply that wikipedia found the tone of the language conservative. No offence, but your imagination seems to be running away with you if that's how you interpret what it actually says.Notagainst (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Some concrete examples

Notagainst has been asking for a few concrete examples of problems with this article, and it's true we've been using policies to describe them, that are sometimes difficult to understand for newer users.

• Other authorities also describe the crisis. -> Here we use the word crisis in WikiVoice. Could be written as: other authorities have described climate change as a crisis as well.
• to reflect the growing urgency of the problem -> Here we say there is growing urgency in WikiVoice, instead of attributing this to the source
• There is an entire section about The severity of global warming. The first subsection does not discuss the terminology at all, and it feels like there is undue weight on this therefore. I think there might be Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material here.
• Furthermore, there are some problematic words to link different sources, such as Even in 2014, which probably breaks our rules about WP:EDITORIAL.
• Further in this section, the words points out are used, which is one of the 'forbidden' synonyms for said WP:SAID.

It would help tremendously if you read these policies in detail before making any further contributions to this article. Please don't add new material before vetting and improving previously added material with these policies in mind. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is helpful. I will take a look at your suggestions in the next day or two.Notagainst (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now amended four of the minor language issues you have identified above. I am still thinking about the undue weight issue you have raised. Notagainst (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

In regard to your concerns about Synth and OR. The essence of this guideline is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. "

SYNTH: In this article, "A" is a description of the Language used by the IPCC. "B" is Criticism of language used by the IPCC - specifically that it is 'quite conservative' - as stated by various RS in that section. There is no deduction "C" made by combining A and B together. As far as I can see, this does not meet the definition of Synth or OR. Notagainst (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right about it not meeting the requirement for SYNTH. The reason I thought it might be is that B is tangential to the framing of climate crisis (one scientific assessment does NOT describe CC as a crisis), and that the only reason A is in the article, is because B was added. My mistake was to assume that including off-topic paragraphs based on sources that do mention the topic at hand, would be a form of synthesis. Instead it is probably more to do with WP:Neutral point of view#Article structure and WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

refs for the survey section

References

Scrap this Page

It's my opinion that due to NotAgainst's zealous editing of this page which has not only completely altered the scope of the article, but which has also been unequivocally non-neutral, that it is unfixable and should be deleted. I'd be curious to see what others think: I've been watching from the sidelines here for some time, and it seems that long after a majority of editors seem to have agreed that "Climate Crisis" may be unsuitable language for Wikipedia, the situation with this page has only become dramatically worse. Zortwort (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The term Climate Crisis cannot possibly be unsuitable for wikipedia when there are so many RS which use it. That's akin to pretending the elephant in the room is just a mouse - or doesn't even exist. That's very unbalanced. Notagainst (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Opposed @Zortwor: no article is "unfixable". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I agree to some extent with that, but I also think the situation is out of hand. I started on some basic fixes to sourcing last night, but I don't think that the problematic wording can be fixed at a pace which is faster than it is being added. Currently I think the page is a bit of an embarrassment of non-neutrality and should at least be moved to draft until it is fixed, or reverted back to a much earlier revision as someone suggested before. Zortwort (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-opposed I think this article is notable. I wouldn't be against putting a lot of the material in draft-space and leaving only a stub behind. When NotAgainst has learned about policies around writing contentious articles, they can then request the draft to be published. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also support this idea Femke Nijsse. I agree to some extent with NewsAndEventsGuy saying that no article is unfixable, but I have also seen articles deleted for that very reason and currently I think that fixing this article would require such a complete overhaul that it may as well be restarted from scratch. I understand that some editors here developed the article when it was mostly neutral, but I also think that the nature of this article, specifically as it's named and constructed, makes it inevitable that it will be developed into a POV-fork. Perhaps some of the original content from this article (when it was still in a decent state) could be moved to a new page with a clearer scope if we don't go the way of draft-space. Certainly I think that the current page with the current scope and content is not sufficiently neutral for inclusion. Zortwort (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the present article does not belong in article namespace per OP, but not opposed to Femke Nijsse's suggestion. An article about framing/terminology/lens through which anthropogenic climate change is viewed would be good to have, but the present article is almost entirely devoted to the nature of climate change rather than to the debate over framing. An appropriate article would explain why the term "climate change" has replaced "global warming" in most (not all) RS and why some RS (not all) think that the term "climate crisis" can lead to public misunderstanding (presumably because most people think of words like "warming" and "crisis" as short- or medium-term events, not as something that will affect their grandchildren much much more than themselves). Another issue is that "crisis" to many people has the connotation that one should basically drop everything else, that is, that climate activism is the only form of activism that really matters now (whereas Naomi Klein, a leading writer on climate change, argues that climate change must not be divorced from other issues that people organize around, such as growing economic inequality, racism, and the excesses of capitalism -- none of which is typically described with the word "crisis" -- but I don't know what her view is on the actual use of the term "climate crisis"). Of course, the opposing view that terms like "crisis" and "tail-spin of epic destruction" are necessary in order to mobilize people for action should also be covered in proper balance. Putting together a good article on framing requires a lot of work, and in the meantime it's probably best not to have a tendentious POV fork in article namespace. NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Support but open to options. If there is a way to take the current article out of article space and into a sandbox while it develops I would support that. I think it makes sense to take the live article back to a redirect for the time being while the original article scope/intent is worked out/created. The current POV fork article really should go. Springee (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• No Just because denialists like to pretend the climate crisis is all just ticketyboo doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be mute on the crisis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is proposing to delete this article because of any denialist reasoning. Climate deniers and their 'viewpoints' have largely disappeared from Wikipedia. There is widespread concern the article doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for neutrality and because climate change is an important topic, we can't have an article like this being non-neutral. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This page does not meet the criteria for WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are no specific criteria for WP:TNT except consensus that an article is irreparable. If you think it's fixable, go ahead and fix it. In my opinion taking it back to a far earlier revision is acceptable as well, but that's about tantamount to scrapping the current article as it is, and NotAgainst will undoubtedly be unhappy about that. Zortwort (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• supplemental Above I stated opposition to "scrapping" this article. I'd like to add a note why I don't think we should userfy this and start over (per WP:BLOWITUP). If this were userfied, next week someone else would fire it up again making the same sorts of arguments. I think we have to deal with it head on and directly. Plus there are useful edits in the archive, when the article used to be mainly about the framing or lens. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pursuant to this idea, what specific revision would you suggest we revert to, if there is one, or would you be willing to make a draft that includes only the useful material that we can then replace this article with? Zortwort (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

At a minimum, back when the article was a mere redirect, it was I who started the article about the efforts to reframe the issue in this manner. There is probably good material and sources added since then, but given the passions over this and real life demands on my time I haven't followed the play by play closely NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked through the article history, I believe the last neutral revision was 13 August 2019. I would support reverting to this version of the page, though I'm unsure how to prevent the scope from being co-opted again. @NewsAndEventsGuy: You mentioned "If this were userfied, next week someone else would fire it up again making the same sorts of arguments." That may be true, but if the article was deleted then a new article with a new scope would be a much clearer POV-fork, with the current situation the fact that it's been built up and skewed from a legitimate article is obscuring that fact. Zortwort (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of the comments above are critical but very vague and so fundamentally unhelpful. Can I suggest that if you have concerns, you copy Femke Nijsse's approach in the preceeding section and provide Some concrete examples of your concerns. She posted four or five issues which have now all been addressed. In my opinion, editors need to be much more specific in expressing their concerns rather than making generalised complaints which are so vague, no one knows what to do about them. Since Femke Nijsse posted specific concerns, according to NEAG the article is now Heading in the right direction. Notagainst (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: Other editors do not need to be more specific with their concerns, you need to ensure that your edits are quality and make use of accurate and impartial wording before you put them up. We're not here to clean up after you on every sentence, that's why we're discussing reverting to before you added a lot of this content. If you disagree on the scope of the article or have a different opinion on content and direction you need to engage with the talk page rather than just adding in a bunch of stuff which is ultimately against consensus. Zortwort (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I would support a roll back to Aug 13th but I think we would run the risk that Notagainst would simply undo the revert or make similar edits. Absent some editing restriction I'm not sure how to prevent what could be come a slow edit war. So if we have a clear and strong consensus I would do it but it's probably best to take a wait and see since currently we just have a few involved/semi-involved editors. Springee (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we all feel like we've been repeating ourselves, and Notagainst is refusing to see the basic flaw in what he/she/they has been doing. What's the best way to bring this to a conclusion, that is, how do we get more editors to comment? An RfC? Bringing it to a noticeboard? Something else? NightHeron (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking now at the increasingly aggressive edit-warring by Notagainst in response to Zortwort's well-justified edits, I wonder if it's time for a formal warning? It's good that everyone is assiduously observing WP:BITE, but at some point this has got to stop. NightHeron (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Yes I agree, at this point he's completely ignoring everything the talk page discusses and edit-warring his own view into the article. Zortwort (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose scrapping, but support a very narrow focus. I've looked at recent edit skirmishes, and I think that a narrow focus should be our goal. Substantive facts and reliably sourced arguments of whether there is a crisis belongs belong in the GW article; but this "Climate crisis" article should have a narrow focus on the meaning, history, use, and influence of the term "Climate crisis" itself. If that goal is pursued, we will avoid multiple articles that argue in divergent directions. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As suggested in this thread today I restored the lead from August 13. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The right direction

Hooray for this edit NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve - but we could have got there a lot quicker if you had picked out specific examples as Femke Nijsse has done. Or you could have made this amendment yourself instead of expressing vague, global concerns about wikivoice for weeks on end. I am happy to co-operate - but I am not a mind reader. Notagainst (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If you completely change the entire article, subvert the original scope, and the whole time inject bias into the wording on every sentence it becomes very difficult to address specifically. Perhaps consult the talk page next time and read that since there are ongoing discussions about problems with the article, you should hold off making significant changes to it until those discussions are resolved. Zortwort (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, most of the complaints are far too vague to address. Editors need to get down to specifics. Notagainst (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing title of heading

How does anyone feel about changing the section currently titled The severity of global warming to Differing descriptions. Would that be a step in the right direction? Notagainst (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Scope of article

@Zortwort has expressed concerns that the article has changed in scope. I don't want to open Pandora's box but I wonder if this will help.

Can anyone say in two or three sentences what they think this article should be saying (and why).

What they think it should not say (and why). Notagainst (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Notagainst, here's my view. The article should not be about the nature of climate change and its impacts, because that's covered in another article. Rather, it should treat the topic of debates on how best to frame the issue of climate change for the public, because that is interesting, important, and controversial, and it is not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Specifically, as I said above, an appropriate article would explain why the term "climate change" has replaced "global warming" in most (not all) RS and why some RS (not all) think that the term "climate crisis" can lead to public misunderstanding (presumably because most people think of words like "warming" and "crisis" as short- or medium-term events, not as something that will affect their grandchildren much much more than themselves). Another issue is that "crisis" to many people has the connotation that one should basically drop everything else, that is, that climate activism is the only form of activism that really matters now. Of course, the opposing view that terms like "crisis" and "tail-spin of epic destruction" are necessary in order to mobilize people for action should also be covered in proper balance. NightHeron (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: Other editors (I believe Springee and NewsAndEventsGuy) already told you in earlier threads what the original scope was and how you were changing it without consensus. Maybe review earlier iterations (ex 13 August 2019) to recall what the original scope of the article was, or read the many threads that have gone on discussing what is appropriate for inclusion in this article. Zortwort (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I had a look. Prior to 13 August, there was no scope - there was only a stub. Notagainst (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that this article has gotten to be far longer than it needs to be. There must be a balance of only providing relevant content, and the scope must be kept sufficiently specific for it not to intrude on other articles. Nearly all of your edits have been on content which is better suited to more general Global Warming articles, this is what people are meaning when they call it a POV-fork. Zortwort (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

NEAG says "the article used to be mainly about the framing or lens". As far as I can see, it still is - global warming through the lens of climate crisis. And he now says he is happy the article is moving in the right direction. Notagainst (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Just saying I think the text that Zortwort is removing should indeed be removed. Maybe some of it deserves a one-line summary. (No time for further explanation now, sorry). Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop speaking for me by trying to tell each other what I said. Instead, if its really necessary to refer to my comments, please just link to my comments. When I have something new to say, I will say it. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Can't recall I did, if you're talking to me. All I said was essentially that the matter has been discussed before. Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. Zortwort (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think that this "Climate crisis" article should have a narrow focus on the meaning, history, use, and influence of the term "Climate crisis" itself. Substantive facts and reliably sourced arguments of whether there is a crisis belong in the GW article. We should avoid having multiple articles that argue the same issues in parallel or divergent directions. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "severity of global warming" section

As consensus seems to be that the article is about reframing of global warming as a "crisis", the "severity of global warming section" that was in the article before I removed it is not relevant to the scope. Its inclusion implies that the severity of global warming warrants description as a crisis. Further, there are several errors within it which invalidate the section's content. It quoted a CNN article which described 64 percent of a polled population as saying that climate change was a "crisis/serious problem". If you look at the original CBS poll, there were in fact two separate answers, one where respondents could call climate change a "crisis", and another where they could call it a "serious problem". To lump these respondents together is dishonest reporting and invalidates the reliability of that source and claim. Further, the UN section was essentially trivia. Not *every* usage of the term "crisis" warrants inclusion at this point, only notable ones which have been reported on as being part of an effort of reframing. Zortwort (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Scope

This article is in breach of WP:Scope where it says "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view."

As a result of recent edits the article is now seriously in breach of WP:NPOV. It is no longer neutral because all references to the climate crisis have been deleted - despite hundreds of RS on the subject including the United Nations and the IPCC. Unfortunately the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers. Notagainst (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

As we've tried to explain before, we're not restricting the scope of this article Artificially or unnecessarily. We do it to prevent breaching our policy on WP:POVFORK. I can only attest for myself that I do see climate change as the (second?) biggest problem out there, and as such I think that labeling me, and others, as climate crisis deniers, feels like an ungrounded personal attack. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we can agree that without outside help, we won't make any progress. You could consider conflict resolution. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: please list the editors you perceive to be climate crisis deniers? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst:, you should be aware that making such accusations against other editors is in violation of several Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA. NightHeron (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: "Climate crisis" is a phrase, a term, a characterization. It does not cover the substance of climate change, its causes, and its effects—or any perceived denialism. Clearly, the other editors here are striving to maintain a NPOV about the phrase. Other Wikipedia articles, especially Global warming and maybe Climate change denial or Global warming controversy are the proper place for your content (if properly sourced, of course). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Femke Nijsse echos what other editors have said claiming the content of the article has been restricted to prevent breach of WP:POVFORK. You seem to be ignoring WP:CONTENTFORK which states: "As an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

That policy has led to multiple articles which could all be described as legitimate forks of the article on Climate Change , including Climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, climate change denial, global warming, global warming hiatus, global warming controversy. Why do these forks all get their own separate page while as article on Climate Crisis does not?

Bearing in mind that the page as it currently stands effectively denies there is a climate crisis. It says ""Climate crisis" is a phrase that some organizations are using as a descriptor for climate change and global warming." This suggests there is no crisis but that some organisations are simply choosing to call it a crisis in "an effort to reframe the issue to jump-start aggressive climate change mitigation". That is such a small part of the picture it amounts to a fundamental denial of reality.

There is no doubt in my mind that the scope of the article has been artificially and unnecessarily limited. As a result, it is now entirely in breach of WP:NPOV. Notagainst (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

As I and others have said repeatedly (but you seem not to be listening or not to be understanding), many climatologists and others who feel strongly about the need for aggressive mitigation of climate change prefer not to use "crisis" terminology because of the boy who cried wolf problem. The public usually interprets "crisis" to mean that the danger is short or medium term, and so when their lives are not much affected by climate change within a few years, those using alarmist language lose credibility. Many people, especially scientists, believe that strong facts are more convincing than strong language. It is illogical and insulting to accuse people who believe that of being climate change deniers. Both sides of the debate about terminology and framing need to be presented to comply with WP:NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"There seems to be an increasing impulse among many to make global warming more scary and thereby more salient.[33-Attempts to rename the problem as a “climate crisis” or “climate disruption” belong here as well.] Senior scientists and editors of flagship science journals deplore the inattention given to climate change, step outside familiar roles to pen editorials in mainstream magazines and newspapers, and on and off the record suggest that “a useful catastrophe or two” and other fear-provoking measures (such as terror alert systems for the state of the climate) are needed to motivate adequate policy response. Similarly, policy advisors and politicians compare the seriousness of climate change to that of currently more resonant fears, such as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and war. But can such appeals to fear generate a sustained and constructive engagement with the issue of climate change? The answer is usually not... Risk communication and psychological studies add weight to the cautious use of fear appeals. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: The second paragraph of your 19:51, 28 Sept post implies that others are arguing there should be no "Climate crisis" article; that perception is false since the argument is clearly about scope of content (and not about the existence of the article other than some discussion to start from scratch). Next, your third paragraph wrongly interprets the opening sentence of the article as "suggesting" there is no crisis; this interpretation is simply false since the sentence describes the phrase and is not about global warming itself. Please learn the distinctions. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that some people prefer NOT to use the term crisis does not alter the fact that just as many, if not more, do call it a crisis. The current page ignores all of the latter (which happens to include the United Nations).

The point about crying wolf is relevant and should be discussed in the article, but cannot be used as an excuse to remove the RS voices of those who say there is a crisis. Doing so has led to a total lack balance and neutrality. By arbitrary selecting one interpretation of events (limited by your POV that those describing it as a crisis are crying wolf), the article now only carries the voices of those who see the term climate crisis as just another descriptor for climate change. Notagainst (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notagainst, could you please stop grossly misinterpreting what I and others are saying? I did not say that people who use the term "crisis" are just crying wolf. Nor did I say that such an assertion should be made in Wikipedia's voice -- that would be pushing a POV. What I said was that some worry that the public might perceive the "crisis" terminology to be crying wolf if there's no short or medium term danger in their lives from climate change. For this reason some people prefer not to use the term "crisis". Others believe that strong language will help motivate the public to take action. Both views should be treated in this article. My own personal view, which is totally irrelevant, is that both sides have a valid point, and language depends on context. I have no problem with a speaker at a climate change protest rally using "crisis" and other dramatic language. I also have no problem with a scientist who, when describing new findings, prefers to avoid strong language and just give facts. You should learn to pay attention to what other editors say and not accuse other editors of holding views (such as climate change denial) that we don't have. NightHeron (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 As I have said before, an article which is about a phrase, but isn't about the reality it describes, is as non-nonsensical as an article about a forest, which doesn't mention the trees. Your distinctions are totally arbitrary and create the perception that there is no such thing as a climate crisis - just a manufactured phrase by people crying wolf. Notagainst (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: We already have other article(s) describing the trees with a considerably higher quality of content and for which much more thought has gone into the phrasing and diction to ensure NPOV. There is no shortage of coverage on this issue on wikipedia: this article is a narrow supplement covering a small aspect of the climate change policy debate. It does not need to contain every conceivable example of apocalypticism that can be cited just because the title has the word "crisis" in it. Personally, I don't see what you expect to get from arguing with everybody and making bad-faith accusations, the majority of editors who have rinsed through here, and what looks like everybody involved now, seem to disagree with you. If you think you have a solid case why not take the matter to conflict resolution? Zortwort (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: My distinctions are not "arbitrary" (relates to WP:TITLE) and, if the article is neutrally written, do not "create" a perception; you, personally, are the one generating that inference. Distinguishing a descriptor from the thing it describes is not "nonsensical" (see Honest Abe, a couple of paragraphs below).

Normally, a "new" phrase warrants a simple Redirect, in this case, to Global warming (GW). Up until a few weeks ago, I myself thought that the term "global warming" is (or should be) interpreted literally—namely, a rise in global average temperature—but that simply is not the case! As the GW article has evolved in Wikipedia, given WP's policy to follow common RS usage, its lead now states: "The term (GW) commonly refers to the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation." That is the reality—distinguished from various names by which one can characterize it.

Paradoxically, since you are trying to inflate the present article to bolster the credibility of this ~new name, it is you, if anyone, who raise the suggestion there is no crisis! Be careful what you wish for. A simple redirect would by-pass the very inference you are trying to avoid! (Example: the very act of making Honest Abe into a standalone article with supporting evidence that he was honest, "creates the perception" that Abraham Lincoln might not be honest! A simple redirect has the effect of implying Abe is honest.)

At this point I'm open to making this article a simple redirect to Global warming and adding a contextualized description of the phrase "Climate crisis" in the lead of that GW article, which already explains terminology. It would streamline things for editors and readers alike. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09:, are you sure that "global warming" is the most commonly used term in RS? I would have said that there's been a tendency to use "climate change" in preference to "global warming", and that an argument could be made for changing the title of the global warming article to "Climate change (anthropogenic)" or "Climate change (human-caused)". In communication with the public the problem with the term "global warming" is that, as you say, the term is not being used in the literal sense of its common usage but rather refers to something much more complex. This discrepancy between scientific meaning and popular meaning causes confusion and plays into the hands of denialists who say foolish things like, "Look at all the snow that's falling in Montana in September. There's no global warming." Since Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for specialists, it's best to use terms that do not cause confusion. NightHeron (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

RCraig09 and NightHeron, please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh ...... do not talk about other articles names in this thread which is about the scope of this article. If you want to go there, FIRST read the talk archives at Climate change and the talk archives at Global warming, where "Global warming" vs "Climate change" this has been endlessly and repeatedly debated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: All good points, but a better place to discuss how GW and CChange should be merged or (re)named is in the planned discussion presently being developed by Femke Nijsse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Femkemilene/sandbox —RCraig09 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy and RCraig09, sorry, I'll do as you say. NightHeron (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and its not what I say... its the TPG. Otherwise threads would talk about everything at once and closing editors would be hard pressed to focus on one of the issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your lack of logic is simply astounding. Notagainst (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite your 77 edits on this talk page, your apparent inability to convince even a single editor here is noteworthy, as is your patent incivility to those who have spent hours trying to educate you. As suggested by others, you may take your arguments to conflict resolution if you imagine you'll have more luck there. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Opposed to redir. This is a bitter logjam but we have tools to resolve it. Endlessly repeating ourselves here is not one of those tools. If we simply redir to GW, then soon there will either be another editor who tries to write an article here, or alternatively NA or another editor will want to rename GW to "climate crisis". The only constructive way forward is to use our existing tools of WP:DR, WP:ARBCC#Principles, and (if necessary) WP:AE. And besides, the campaign to change the language is a real thing, and is notable in its own right, worthy of an article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: A disciplined narrowing of scope of this CCrisis article is currently as acceptable to me as a Redirect. I agree that the growing use of the term CCrisis is a "real thing". In fact, some day, RS usage of "Climate crisis" may well may become more common than "Global warming", requiring that the major GW article be renamed as CCrisis. But for our descendants' sake, hopefully the reality of climate change never gets that bad! —RCraig09 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

Neutrality Dispute Tag

I've tried to remove a lot of the offending material that contributed to the neutrality-in-dispute tag being added to the page. Can anyone here identify any other material with contentious neutrality that should be evaluated/removed from this page or can we go ahead and remove the tag? Zortwort (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yours is a noble effort, Zortwort.However, as described in my 03:26, 29 Sept 2019 post, above, I'm coming around to the opinion that a return to a simple Redirect to Global warming is best since it would send readers to the centralized substantive discussion. In this Climate Crisis article, I think almost all of the textual narrative content goes beyond a discussion of the phrase Climate Crisis (meandering to "climate emergency" etc.) and should be removed; what would validly remain would in effect constitute a stand-alone list — hopefully with reliably sourced organizations or usages, and an extremely brief notation of who/where/when/why/how the phrase was used. That's a massive and unending project—probably with an ultimately trivial result—so I'm favoring a Redirect. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ^{Reducing size of some text to focus normal-size text on issue related to neutrality, per NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion immediately following. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)}

@RCraig09, please see WP:TPG#Layout and in particular the part about sections and WP:MULTI. We now have two threads hijacked with a redir proposal when neither thread is about redir. If you want to agitate for it, please start a thread for that purpose. But I have already stated my objections in the prior thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted with thanks, and corrected above by reducing size of my text that was relating to possible Redirect. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I also favour a redirect/ deletion as I suggested in an earlier thread, but since the jury's still out on that I'm working to correct the article in case we do end up keeping it. I'll have a look at some of what you call the "meandering" narrative content and see what still needs to be removed. Zortwort (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zortwort: Examples of what I'm talking about are: about 90%+ of the Al Gore section (which expounds at length on the crisis itself rather than the term "crisis"), and hopping from "crisis" to "declarations of emergency" and other terms. Along the same lines, the "Alternative terminology" section describes "catastrophic terms without necessarily using the phrase climate crisis"! These discussions are of the thing described, rather than the descriptor ("climate crisis") that is the narrow subject of this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I agree about the Al Gore bit upon re-reading it and have removed that section. I'm undecided but leaning towards the opinion that the alternative terminology subsection is acceptable as context if kept short, but I wouldn't mind seeing it go if others think that's best. Zortwort (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it make sense to expand the "Concerns" section by adding the interesting comment quoted above by NAEG (ref [1] just above this thread)? NightHeron (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Essentially done. ✔ Summarizing discussion concisely so as not to bloat article with verbiage. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Essentially, the raw lists of organizations that use the term Climate Crisis violate Wikipedia:No original research. They use WP to "make a case". It is acceptable, instead, to cite reliable sources or two that describe the growing number of organizations that use the term. Absent convincing counter-arguments, I plan to delete the lists. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Good observation. I don't anticipate anybody will argue against that, I certainly won't personally. Zortwort (talk)

Normalize usage on Wikipedia

See here. François Robere (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Good on you for trying. Unfortunately some of the editors you have been battling with seem to be climate crisis deniers. They simply do not understand that there is a crisis, and will not accept the reality described by 11,000 scientists, the IPCC and the United Nations that there is a crisis.

One of your antagonists even wrote: "We know that the 'crisis' terminology is still controversial in the mainstream". No its not. When it comes to climate science, the IPCC, the UN and all these other scientists are the mainstream. These editors you are arguing with are pushing their own agenda in breach of WP:NPOV and WP guidelines on reliable sources. Notagainst (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst:, please read WP:CIVIL. Suggesting editors who don't agree with you might be "deniers" is not WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that "Unless you can show that there is a clear consensus among scientist and researchers, then we should use terms with a neutral tone" ignores (ie denies) the overwhelming consensus that exists within the scientific and international community that the world is facing an existential crisis. As Donald Trump demonstrates, it is very difficult to have a civil conversation with those who deny reality. Notagainst (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, the scope of this article is about the usage of the term etc. It is not a list of who used it or what the newest paper with the term happens to be. And, yes, since Wikipedia is meant to be on the trailing edge of such linguistic changes the fact that we are debating this at all says it's too soon. Springee (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is truely remarkable that you think it is possible to separate the usage of the term from the meaning of the term. So you would discuss the usage of the term 'forest' without acknowledging that a forest is made up of trees. In order to make such an arbitrary distinction, you would have to ignore (ie deny) that the trees exist. Notagainst (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm clearly not the only one who feels that way nor the only one not convinced by your arguments. Springee (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - well birds of a feather flock together don't they. And editing decisions are not supposed to be based on feelings. They should be based on WP guidelines and rules - which you and your flock are ignoring. Notagainst (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• - Do you not understand how it's "possible to separate the usage of the term from the meaning of the term"? It's simple. Here's an example:

1. "Tricky Dick" is one name for Richard Nixon.
2. The subject matter of that subject is in the article titled "Richard Nixon".
3. One could, in principle, write a standalone article called "Tricky Dick", which would talk about the term, Tricky Dick.
4. The fact that the subject matter remains in the Richard Nixon article, does not imply Dick was not tricky.

- Here, the subject matter with which you are concerned, is presently in the Global warming article. Placing it there, does not imply Wikipedians are climate change deniers.

- The controversiality of the term climate crisis, is discussed in sourced content in "Climate_crisis#Concerns about crisis terminology.

- Other editors have bent over backwards trying to explain these simple concepts. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Paging Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), do you have any sage advice for participants here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 You say the subject matter with which I am concerned, "is presently in the Global warming article." No its not. The Global warming article contains one sentence which is marginally relevant to the climate crisis as follows: "People who regard climate change as catastrophic, irreversible, or rapid might label climate change as a climate crisis or a climate emergency." (Followed by a second sentence about the Guardian's use of the term). There is not one sentence on the entire Global warming page which actually describes the crisis we are facing. The GW article ignores hundreds of reliable scientific sources that say there is a crisis (ie editors are denying there is a crisis). It also fails to provide any of the content that defines or describes what makes it a crisis (still more denial). The GW page doesn't even acknowledge that GW contributes to the crisis. You are even in denial about your own denial. Notagainst (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Global warming article describes this subject matter extensively (see especially Global_warming#Effects and its various sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, and the entire linked article Effects of global warming). You @Notagainst fail to see that the word "crisis" is a subjective characterization that is discussed in Global warming's "Terminology" section; "crisis" is simply not an objective description like global warming or climate change.

+ As a suggestion: it may be permissible to add to this Climate crisis article, reliably sourced content of what "defines or describes what makes it a crisis" (your words)—provided it's written as such: that is, as a definition or description of the term and is not itself a polemic or an exhortation to action. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The objective reality of climate change and global warming have been hotly disputed for 30 years. As more and more evidence became available, more and more people began to accept it as a reality. There is now a consensus amongst 97% of the scientific community that global warming is real and caused by human beings. However, the reality is that global warming was happening whether there was a consensus or not. Right-wing media and climate deniers in particular were the slow to catch up with reality. Donald Trump has still not caught up. It was not until most people did catch up did that global warming was seen as an objective reality by the mainstream. But that's not what made it objective. Global warming was already happening whether anyone realised that or not. The same applies to climate crisis. It is already happening, and described as such by thousands of scientists, whether you and your fellow editors realise it.

By refusing to allow material to be posted on the Climate Crisis artilce linking to reliable sources, you and your fellow editors are in breach of one of Wikipedia five key pillars which says "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial .." Whether there is a crisis might be controversial. But there are reliable, authoritative sources which can be supplied. You and your fellow editors are breaching a key Wikipedia policy. You are censoring Wikipedia. Notagainst (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also your attempt to use Richard Nixon to explain your argument, has no merit.

1. The article on Richard Nixon does not even mention Tricky Dick. No one has attempted to create a separate article called Tricky Dick. Clearly the fact that he was called Tricky Dick does not reach the required level of notability.
2. Richard Nixon and Tricky Dick are one and the same person. Global warming and climate crisis are not one and the same thing. Global warming contributes to and even creates the climate crisis. But in and of itself global warming is not the same thing as the climate crisis. It just means the world is warmer.
3. Tricky Dick is a nickname designed to cast aspersions on Nixon's character. Climate crisis is not a nickname. It is phrase that describes an impending reality, endorsed by hundreds of reliable sources.

Your comparison with Richard Nixon has no relevance. Notagainst (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You @Notagainst completely missed the point: the Nixon description was an analogy to describe the difference between a subject matter and one of various terms used to describe the subject matter. This analogy was in response to your earlier statement: "It is truely remarkable that you think it is possible to separate the usage of the term from the meaning of the term." You're really not following things, which is why you're having a hard time here with all the imagined "denialists". —RCraig09 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)