Talk:Breakthrough Institute

Content in the head is not supported by sources and should be removed.

The statement in the head that "The institute advocates for an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. capital accumulation, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization" is not supported by the sources cited which do not deal directly with the Institute but individual members and ex-members( Michael Shellenberger). It and the associated citations should be removed. I have explained this several times and sought to remove the sources but they are continually reinstated without explanation. Please offer a suitable justification for maintaining the statement in the head. Quant analyst (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem that these quotes do not support the text was already mentioned below by William M. Connolley as indicating a problem with the agreed text. He also explained (as did I) that the Orion citation [5] is a 404 dead link. A corrected link was proposed. None of these issues/suggestions were taken up. Here I am having to make the same point again. This problem needs to be fixed or the offending text and citations removed (as I have tried to do several times and been reverted on each occasion). This is just a waste of everybody's time. Quant analyst (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There are similar problem with the Ted Nordhaus page and potentially other pages from which this "interpretation" of Breakthrough's advocacy has clearly been lifted without due care. Quant analyst (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Your removal of said sources has been reverted by two editors and it’s been discussed in a second thread below (not sure why you started a new section).

This is going nowhere because multiple editors disagree. I linked to dispute resolution below. Here it is again (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution). If you continue to have issue with this, follow dispute resolution protocols there and move for an RFC.

However, if you’re not going to do that, please stop removing sourced information from the page esp. while discussion is ongoing, and please stop offering your opinion on sources on the page.—Hobomok (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please engage in talk about the reasons why edits have been introduced. Please stop pretending that discussion is ongoing when you are not discussing, only engaging in reversion of opinions different from your own. Please stop pretending there is consensus around your opinion when there are at least three commentators who have criticised your content, which you have largely ignored, and no evidence of wider support. Please also stop engaging in massive reverts of changes I have spent a lot of time crafting. And if you want dispute resolution please initiate it and make your case. Quant analyst (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok: You have been told repeatedly now that what the institute "advocates for" needs to be backed up by evidence of statements from the institute (not dissenting journalistic opinion). The Orion article cited does not mention "urbanization" or "economic growth". These terms should be backed up by proper sources or else removed. A more comprehensible and comprehensive statement of what the institute advocates for should be provided. I and others have already made complaints to this effect above and below and you repeatedly ignore them, based on the spurious contention that they are "contested." But they are not even contested by you, only reverted. You should either do the job properly or else allow others to do it for you. Quant analyst (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The first citation used for the sentence "Since its inception, environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions" is an embarrassment. First of all, it's a reference to a page that no longer exists, and thus a secondary link has been provided that is to a 'web archive' of the original page. It's a rambling opinion piece that goes on about the unsuitability of John Muir, seems more interested in racial justice than climate change, and doesn't even mention Ecomodernism. This is the link in question - https://web.archive.org/web/20050711000747/http://grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/27/gelobter-soul/index1.html. It's an article titled "The Soul of Environmentalism", sub-titled "Rediscovering transformational politics in the 21st century". I have removed that citation. Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Balance of Commentary on Ecomodernist Manifesto?

The section in this article on the Ecomodernist Manifesto is very unbalanced. It goes straight from the first paragraph which only identifies the document's authors into two paragraphs containing dismissive criticism. No attempt is made by the Wikipedia author at explanation of what the Manifesto actually says. Whether one agrees with ecomodernism or not, the only thing one can learn with certainty from this section about it is that there are at least two groups of commentators who disagree strongly with it. Hyperbolic comments made from a degrowth perspective like "violates everything we know about ecosystems" do nothing to help the reader understand what the manifesto says or to make an informed judgement about whether they agree or not; they serve only to make the reader aware that advocates of degrowth disagree profoundly with ecomodernism, something ecomodernists would agree with, so not particularly insightful to the reader.

The claims of the second commentator Demos lack credibility, particularly as his suggestion that "there is no mention of social justice or democratic politics" is seen from a cursory examination of the manifesto to be patently false; the manifesto is replete with talk of social and political progress and democracy is cited three times in a favourable light.

The article needs significant modification here to achieve any semblance of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quant analyst (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If you dislike the sources about the manifesto, then go find positive treatment from reputable secondary sources and add them. Note that these should be reputable secondary sources. They should not be primary sources from BTI that call it “a work of historical significance” like you’ve added regarding Break Through.

Regarding Demos, he’s a reputable scholar writing in a major university press (MIT). His critique holds weight and should be represented here, whether you agree with it or not.—Hobomok (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Quant analyst, please sign in when you edit, and stop adding parenthetical critique to the page. If you want to add a synopsis of the Manifesto, be BOLD and add it. Do not add that it needs to be there in parentheses on the page.-Hobomok (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not express personal dislike of the sources. I pointed to limitations in the perspective offered in your article through your choice of sources and failure to explain to the reader what the manifesto actually says in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone. You have suggested secondary sources are needed for this purpose. Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance is that secondary sources serve to "describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" if primary sources fail to manifest a consensus. In not seeking the balance I pointed out is missing you have not conformed to policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and should look to do so either by improving the article or interacting collaboratively with someone who is willing to help. I have offered extensive help and your response has been to insult me in Talk (in violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and to revert every change I make (in violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary).

What the manifesto says is not a matter of opinion or a controversial topic which requires secondary sources to elucidate but something which can be readily divined by reading the primary source, namely the manifesto. Whether what it says is true is a matter of opinion in relation to which secondary sources may be relevant. But according to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance, there must be balance here. You appear to acknowledge the lack of balance since you invite the inclusion of "positive secondary sources." I have provided you with a secondary source in the form of Symons, yet you repeatedly revert my changes every time I try to include him, in violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

What you say does not address either the fact that some of the claims Demos makes are manifestly untrue meaning that they are likely to mislead readers in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality, which states that material should be removed "where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Further although he may be a reputable scholar in the area of art history and cultural criticism, that does not qualify him to dismiss views expressed publicly by qualified environmental scientists as containing "factual weaknesses and ecological falsehoods". Your maintaining him as a source after the veracity of his claims has been disputed is in violation of policy. Note also that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Quant analyst (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, going to keep this short because it's run its course:

1. I've not insulted you. If you want to make that claim, please provide a diff.

2. Re: collaborative editing: If you want to be collaborative, you need to propose something. At no point have you proposed any language on this talk page. Instead, you've railed against sources or made complaints, and then gone and made changes to the page itself, arguing in the edit summaries. I'm not sure how to be collaborative when you act that way.

3. Re: what the manifesto says/"balance": If you want to add a summary, add the summary with proper attribution ("according to the authors, the Manifesto seeks to..."). If you want to present coverage of it (i.e. what you presume to be a balanced view) then find and present reception of it from reliable secondary sources. There's a difference between summary and reception. Find them and add them if you want to. This, again, is me trying to explain to you how this works, just like with Symons. I'm not going to spend my time finding sources for this page and then adding them all over the place because someone came in and decided this page is "biased". I added the relevant scholarly secondary sources when I first edited this page over a year ago to do away with COI issues.

4. Re: Symons: Symons is on the page. I helped you add the source correctly. Symons is now in the body and the lead rather than just the lead. When I just deleted your most recent edits (where you added your own take on the Demos source in parentheses) I added Symons back. I had to revert all of your edits and re-add Symons because your addition of Symons was sandwiched between your parenthetical opinion and blanking sources.

5. Finally, regarding Demos: You disagree with Demos's research. Demos is an expert. Other experts agree with Demos. This is the general view of the Manifesto by experts in secondary literature, so it is treated on the page. It does not matter that you do not agree with it. It is a reputable secondary source from a scholar, in a scholarly press. Wikipedia represents what the reputable secondary sources say about a given subject. Sadads explained this to you below. I've explained it to you multiple times. You continue to push up against it. Do you understand that you're beating the same drum and expect a different result? You cannot bend policy to remove sources you do not like, no matter how much you write it here. Please stop.--Hobomok (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not "bending" policy: I am quoting it verbatim and pointing out inconsistency of your behaviour with it. You are accusing me of unethical behaviour here which as I see it is inconsistent with the policy in Wikipedia:Etiquette that "If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively." Where does it say in the Policy or Guidelines that "Wikipedia represents what the reputable secondary sources say about a given subject." Please find me a quote. I have made a great effort to quote from sources when I refer to policy and guidelines in Talk. I would appreciate if this were reciprocated before you lay down the law and start reverting content. Quant analyst (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not accusing you of unethical behavior. I’m explaining policy to you over and over again, as another editor tried to do originally.

I’ve already linked to policy on secondary sources multiple times in our discussion. Sadads has explained this to you as well. You’ve linked to it as well. The issue is that you continue to offer your interpretation of what those policies mean, despite editors explaining them to you. Then you complain about those editors “biting” you when they’ve explained policy to you ad nauseam. You admit that you’re new, yet you argue with veteran editors over how you interpret policy, and then you accuse those veteran editors of “insulting” you after they’ve been patient and tried to explain things to you. Do you see the issues here?

Yet again, during this discussion, you’ve gone and removed sourced information (Thacker, Demos, etc.) and editorialized Demos’s critique again with commentary on the capitalocene, which uh… does not belong on this page, is not Demos’s term, and is pretty robustly discussed by many scholars (ex: https://read.dukeupress.edu/environmental-humanities/article/6/1/159/8110/Anthropocene-Capitalocene-Plantationocene and ex: https://books.google.com/books/about/Anthropocene_Or_Capitalocene.html?id=IrZHEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false). In short, please stop removing sourced information and please stop adding your own opinion about sourced quotes to the article.

If you want to add summary of the manifesto then add it. If you want to add other reviews of the manifesto then find them and add them. You did it with Symons and that’s now in the article, because that’s how Wikipedia works. However, don’t remove sourced information from reliable secondary sources or add your own critiques of that sourced information.—Hobomok (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Breakthrough Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hlpronline.com/Shellenberger_HLPR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breakthrough Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090110172149/http://www.wired.com:80/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/mf_burning?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Promotional Page

This page, much like the ones created for its founders, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, is rife with promotional problems. It seems they were originally created and refined by multiple single-purpose accounts (See: Here, here, here, here, and here). I just attempted to clean up Shellenberger and Nordhaus's pages, but I don't have time to go through this one right now. It does, however, need to be done, I think. --Hobomok (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to see the modified page as conforming to the neutral point of view reqired by policy, when the statements by the institute itself of its research interests are removed in favour of criticisms of its general philosophy. Balance requires under policy that the reader be given access to both sides of a discussion. "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Quant analyst (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The policy is not "both sides of a discussion" but rather proportional summaries of reliable, outside expert opinions per WP:NPOV, Sadads (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I just quoted the policy. It says both sides should be explained. Quant analyst (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Quant analyst, Please gain consensus here or stop reverting, as you’re in violation of the 3 Revert Rule at this point. Sadads has made policy clear. You’re refusing to discuss said policy in relation to your changes to make the page read as you prefer, based on your interpretation of these rules. Engage here, gain some sort of consensus, or stop reverting.—Hobomok (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Quant analyst, I'm through reverting your changes in observance of the WP:3 Revert Rule. However, you continue to add primary sources from the page's subject (diff), or, at best, sources from those affiliated with the page's subject (diff and affiliation) after Sadads has explained use of outside expert opinions on Wikipedia above. You are refusing to engage in discussion and consensus building, in a section where consensus was already gained for the page's changes. You need to engage at talk, per WP: Dispute Resolution. If you continue to refuse to engage at talk, this will be elevated to the relevant noticeboard.--Hobomok (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed links which were stale and/or did not make reference to Breakthrough Institute but to articles to which persons associated with the Institute contributed. It is simply wrong, indeed not legally justifiable, to attribute views to the Institute in this way. This is not about "building a consensus" around a view but a simple matter of whether the sources support the view being expressed, which they do not. Please either defend the sources against my criticism or let them stand. Quant analyst (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your proposed change? And yes, you do need to find consensus for these changes, per BRD, which I've tried to explain to you multiple times. I've got no issue with the Symons source as it was added. It's from what appears to be a reliable secondary source. HOWEVER, it needs to be added to the article's body BEFORE it goes in the lead. You'll note that all of the other cited critiques are in the article's body. The lead summarizes the article's body. New information cannot go in the lead without being in the article's body. In terms of your issue with the description of BTI's philosophy, though, as Sadads has already explained to you above, Wikipedia works on summaries from reliable, outside expert opinions. The BTI's page itself is a primary source. That's not how this works.

Per the above, your most recent addition is your own interpretation of the institute's website. Wikipedia summarizes what secondary sources say. The lead summarizes what the article's body says. This is a primary source, and it does not summarize the article's body. If the page is comprised of mainly primary sources then the page shouldn't even exist, because it is not notable. The page summarizes what reputable secondary sources say about the BTI, per Wikipedia policy, per encyclopedic form.

I'm not going to rehash everything I just explained to you on my own talk page, so please go there for further explanation, but please do not go down the legal threats route.----Hobomok (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page:

I have explained to you clearly the reason why I introduced the changes I did. You say I am only now engaging in talk. No, I engaged on talk on 25th July and set out my position which you did not respond to. The reply from Sadads I did reply to in turn in talk, reinstating my change which he had reverted with an explanation in talk and in the change log, after which Sadads let the matter rest. Please check your facts before throwing around accusations.

You on the other hand have reverted all my changes without any reference to the comments I made in the change log. You have not discussed anything I have said but resorted to obfuscatory procedural complications, accusing me falsely of avoiding discussion and making repeated reversions, in contradiction to BRD policy (see below). You have also falsely suggested there is a "consensus" without any evidence of any such thing <en>in relation to the changes I have made. It is you and you alone who are persistently refusing my changes. I have made multiple separate changes, individually justified. You have made a point of reverting each one, so it is you who are making repeated reversions. Please note as per policy that "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." (my emphasis)

You claim there is a Wikipedia policy against the use of primary sources. There is not. Secondary sources are to be preferred if there are multiple views to be taken into consideration and only if they attempt to represent the multiple views. Read what the policy says and cite it properly as I have done rather than attempting to pressurise those you disagree with on the basis of what you would like it to say. Few of the sources you cite could be said to achieve what policy says they should but seem in the main to be journalistic opinion pieces.

In any event the only sensible answer to the question of what the philosophy of a research institute is what they state publicly it is. How can it be otherwise? You declare inappropriate and remove my citation of its About page, yet you leave standing a previous citation of the same page. Also you deleted the one balancing statement I made about a more positive assessment of the Institute's work which has been made by a credible source against the six negative opinions which you have cited. What about some discussion in relation to that as per BRD policy? Is it really your suggestion that your claim you could have added more scathing criticisms means that your having cited no positive assessments, even deleting my inclusion of one such positive assessment, should be seen by others as a balanced portrayal?

Also, the fact you have agreement about changes and edits in the past is irrelevant to new changes which I am proposing independently which need to be addressed separately by discussion as per policy. Also as per policy, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."

You have also rather unpleasantly implied that I have been uncivil and implied that I was subjecting you to "legal threats". Such ad hominem comments are also against policy. Please refrain from future such unpleasantness. It is entirely unnecessary.

Re the Michael Mann quote, I acknowledge that I deleted that prematurely and I have made no attempt to reinstate my deletion after your reversion. But my error there does not excuse your reversion of my other changes which has been done without adequate or even any justification. In particular, while there may be evidence that Michael Shellenberger "advocates for an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. capital accumulation, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization" (as per the relevant Wikipedia page), there is no evidence cited on the Breakthrough Institute page to justify this characterisation of its advocacy. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, Shellenberger is no longer even associated with the Institute. The matter is therefore simple. If there is no support for the attribution of this view to the institute, the claim should be dropped as I have proposed: as per policy "A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source." Quant analyst (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I just explained the issue with introducing Symons above. I also replied to you above, twice, on July 25th above and tried to have discussion with you here while you continued to edit well into that day and afterwards.

Please either propose some change that we can discuss (BRD) here or stop. This is a response to my talk page. This is not a response to what I've outlined above re:Symons. I'm all for you adding the Symons book to the lead. Just add it to the body first in a bit more detail.

The rundown of Breakthrough's philosophy follows the cited secondary literature (Orion, Politico, etc.) and the cited literature from numerous academics (Sze, Norgaard, Adamson, etc.). Sadads explained to you above, as well, why your quote from BTI relative to philosophy doesn't work here.--Hobomok (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Quant analyst, please stop removing sourced information when there is ongoing discussion here. You cannot just declare a discussion “completed” because you’re unhappy with disagreements or arguments from another editor. You need to go through the proper dispute resolution channels (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution).

Also, if you disagree with Demos that’s fine, but he’s a reputable scholar and the book quoted on the page is from a major university press. You cannot just write your own parenthetical critique of his scholarship on the page because you disagree with his research. If you’ve got a problem with a source, open a new discussion at talk.

If you continue to fail to follow policy after it’s been explained to you time and again, I’m taking this to the relevant notice boards.—Hobomok (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Such thought advocates for increased use of natural resources

That (disputed) sentence has four refs. But the first is a 404, the next two aren't links, and the fourth doesn't appear to me to support it. Having four links is bad; usually a sign that none of them are really any good. Which (if any) actually support the disputed text? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The first, the 404, can be read as https://web.archive.org/web/20120107042604/http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6402. I don't see how it supports the text that keeps being reverted in as supposedly backed by reliable secondary sources William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

“ The solution to the unintended consequences of modernity is, and has always been, more modernity—just as the solution to the unintended consequences of our technologies has always been more technology. … The good news is that we already have many nascent, promising technologies to overcome ecological problems. Stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions will require a new generation of nuclear power plants to cheaply replace coal plants as well as, perhaps, to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and power desalination plants to irrigate and grow forests in today’s deserts. Pulling frontier agriculture back from forests will require massively increasing agricultural yields through genetic engineering. Replacing environmentally degrading cattle ranching may require growing meat in laboratories, which will gradually be viewed as less repulsive than today’s cruel and deadly methods of meat production. And the solution to the species extinction problem will involve creating new habitats and new organisms, perhaps from the DNA of previously extinct ones.”

Ecomodernism generally advocates for increased use of resources in the short term, because they believe that this will create technology that will use less resources in the long term. See the Caradonna/Norgaard discussion cited in the article’s body.

Also, four sources doesn’t necessarily mean “bad.” Four sources means these are four sources outlining ecomodernist thinking.

Finally, it is “disputed” by a user who is changing the page without engaging in any discussion about revisions, and keeps plugging along despite having been reverted by two separate editors on multiple occasions.—Hobomok (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I dispute it too. And the article text you like, "Such thought advocates for increased use of natural resources through an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. capital accumulation, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization." is not a good paraphrase of "Ecomodernism generally advocates for increased use of resources in the short term...". Nor is it clear that should be the definitive view.

Four sources means these are four sources outlining ecomodernist thinking. - but one of those four sources (the Orion one) is MS and TD themselves, and very definitely doesn't support the text you like. The text you like is broken, and needs fixing. As a bare minimum, it needs to be clear which refs support which statements William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources used there are ones leftover from the promotional/COI creation of this page (See: Here, here, here, here, and here). I left them on the page when I tried to revise it originally, because trying to edit this page, and the pages of its founders, are regularly met with contentious debate. I assume that you're aware of this, because you've been active at Michael Shellenberger's page, too. I thought leaving some of those original sources would avoid this very issue.

Since you're not offering any different ideas for changes, William, I'll suggest one: If you'd like to remove those sources left over from the page's creation (which I'm fine with) and replace them with outside sources from experts unaffiliated with the page's subject (Ex. Richard B. Norgaard, Michael E. Mann, Julie Sze, Joni Adamson, etc.) the description and critique of BTI's philosophy and proposed policies meet, pretty clearly, the current description (a couple examples). This, I'd say, works better as sourcing anyway, as these are reliable secondary sources from known experts unaffiliated with the page's subject.--Hobomok (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Some review is needed. And would perhaps be better done here than reverting the page. But some care is needed over sourcing, as revealed by your "known experts unaffiliated with the page's subject". Because that introduces bias: those opposed to the BI are, naturally, unaffiliated with it; and while "experts" they aren't necessarily experts in the domain under discussion; Mann for example is a physical climatologist William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It is best to revert to original wording and then begin discussion from there, rather than beginning with one (relatively new) editor's revised version. That revised version, I'll add, takes information from primary sources without engaging in discussion here after being reverted multiple times by two separate editors, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sadads has already explained sufficiently above why the original edits were reverted in the first place. Revert to the previous wording and then begin discussion from there. That's just following Wiki Policy, which hasn't been done at any point following these new revisions.

In terms of experts, you're saying that descriptions from notable environmental scholars, some peer-reviewed, are not sufficient, which makes no sense. These are experts in environmental economics (Norgaard), climate (Mann), and the sociopolitical aspects of environmental change (Sze and Adamson). Four experts from three different fields, each of which this institute claims to engage with, describe this institute's philosophy similarly. Using such secondary descriptions follows the basic manner in which an encyclopedia works (and it is what you wanted from the beginning: you called into question text as "supposedly backed by reliable secondary sources"). That these proposed secondary sources introduce "bias" is neither here nor there, as this is a review of the relevant scholarly literature on BTI and ecomodernism. There's more out there that follows the same description. A simple search of any scholarly database will turn that up.--Hobomok (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, Hobomok! Would you be so kind to be a bit more specific? I get your concern about primary sources, but repeat information was never a problem on Wiki, as far as I know. You revert more than 20 my edits. I would like to re-do ones you have no complaints about and discuss the rest. KhinMoTi (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, absolutely I will be more specific—give me a bit to get all of my off-wiki work finished and then I will properly respond to this.—Hobomok (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested and pending updates

Here are the updates I'd like to discuss with other editors to reach some sort of consensus.

• Summary changes according to [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], and [[4]] to make it more accurate, to eliminate the difference with the infobox (foundation year, etc), and to add the definition of the ecomodernism, which is not yet defined quite clearly, based on the sources.

The Breakthrough Institute is a nonprofit multidisciplinary environmental research center. Founded in early 2000s by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the organization is headquartered in Berkley, California.

The organization's research mostly lays in the domain of ecomodernist philosophy, an environmental philosophy which argues that technological development can protect nature and improve human wellbeing through eco-economic decoupling, i.e., by separating economic growth from environmental impacts. Many environmental scientists and academics outside of the institute have disagreed with Breakthrough's environmental positions.

• Add information about the origins, according to various sources ([[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], and this). In particular, to better disclose the topic of the nuclear power, planetary boundaries hypothesis, etc.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger have written a number of articles at Breakthrough, with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas to critiques of the planetary boundaries hypothesis. The Breakthrough Institute has argued that climate policy should be focused on higher levels of public funding on technology innovation to "make clean energy cheap", and has been critical of climate policies such as cap and trade and carbon pricing. The institute advocates higher levels of public spending on technology innovation, which they argue will lead to higher environmental quality, economic growth, and quality of life.

Michael Shellenberger left Breakthrough Institute in 2015 and founded another research nonprofit Environmental progress, where he's been serving as CEO since then. Ted Nordhaus continues to serve as Breakthrough's executive director.

• Actualize the data about their research programs, according to the official site (like, urbanization, human technologies, zero-carbon energy sources).

The Breakthrough institute is registered as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and is supported by various public institutions and individuals. As of 2022, the organization's chart of funders include Breakthrough Energy, ClimateWorks Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, among others.

Breakthrough's executive director is Ted Nordhaus. Others associated with Breakthrough include former National Review executive editor Reihan Salam, journalist Gwyneth Cravens, political scientist Roger A. Pielke Jr., sociologist Steve Fuller, and environmentalist Stewart Brand. The organization's notable senior fellows include a geneticist Pamela Ronald, a principal research scientist at MIT Andrew McAfee, a novelist Gwyneth Cravens, an Australian scientist Barry Brook, an American sociologist Dalton Conley, a landscape ecologist Eric W. Sanderson, an American environmental scientist Erle Ellis, an American sociologist Fred L. Block, an Indian economist Joyashree Roy, an environmental geographer Ruth DeFries and Steven Pinker, among others.

• Update publications' list and the manifesto section, according to various sources ([[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], and [[22]]) to make it more neutral. It has probably too much direct quotes now and should be rebalanced

Breakthrough Institute's research is based on its Ecomodernist Manifesto[29] and organized around several principles, which it characterizes as follows:
*A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
*Human technologies, from those that first enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized economy, have made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance, even as those same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged.
*The human population will peak in the 21st century and then start to decline. The total human impact on the environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth.
*Ecosystems around the world are threatened today because people over-rely on them.
*Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species.
*Plentiful access to modern energy is an essential prerequisite for human development and for decoupling development from nature.
*Transitioning to a world powered by zero-carbon energy sources will require energy technologies that are power dense and capable of scaling to many tens of terawatts to power a growing human economy.
*Decoupling of human welfare from environmental impacts will require a sustained commitment to technological progress and the continuing evolution of social, economic, and political institutions alongside those changes.

• Restructure the article a bit with the new info.

• Add a couple of categories: Environmental research institutes, International educational organizations, International research institutes.

KhinMoTi (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

short answer: new categories are good. However, much of what you’re proposing is false balance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_%22equal_validity%22_can_create_a_false_balance). Neutral point of view doesn’t mean you give equal weight to “both sides.” Sadads explained this on this talk page a few months ago. Reliable Sources shouldn’t be removed, even if they are critical of the subject. There are going to be more sources critical of this than not critical, as generally experts have viewed writing like the Manifesto as flawed (example that could be added, but wasn’t: https://read.dukeupress.edu/environmental-humanities/article/7/1/233/8202/The-Theodicy-of-the-Good-Anthropocene).

Also, as explained previously on this page by myself and sadads, the BTI’s webpage and the manifesto themselves are primary sources. We should strive for information from reliable secondary sources, and we don’t need a point by point breakdown of the manifesto. We need a summary, a link to it for further reading, and relevant expert opinion on it.

Finally, we need to strive for clearer language when summarizing. “ eco-economic decoupling,” for example, is not accessible to a layman. This wording specifically was discussed at Shellenberger’s page and changed to be more accessible, and that is the version that is here now.

In short, much of what you propose, I think, is unnecessary information and creates false balance. The new categories, though, are a good idea.—Hobomok (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

My Comments:

• 'Summary'. I think the summary looks more or less balanced now. I'd only replace "many" with "a cohort" in the sentence "many environmental scientists and academics outside of the institute have criticized" to make it more sensible. And, for better reading, I propose to simply merge two sentences by using a comma: Founded in 2007 by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the institute is aligned with ecomodernist philosophy.
• Agree on categories
• I will leave my comments on other fragments once the editor above explains in which sections they intended to use them--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bormenthalchik82 (talk), Hobomok (talk).

  Let me clearly show the pieces of information I'd like to add, as well as its new sources (I do not list the old ones separately, although they are also used).

  Origins and foundation

  The Breakthrough Institute was conceptualized by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, who co-authored "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World" work in 2004. In the paper, the authors argued that environmentalism is incapable of dealing with climate change and should "die" so that a new politics can be born.

  [23]

  The two were described by Slate as "ecomodernists," while the authors have described themselves as the "bad boys" of environmentalism. The organization was established circa 2003-2004.

  Nordhaus and Shellenberger have written a number of articles at Breakthrough, with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas. [24][25][26]

  The Breakthrough Institute has argued that climate policy should be focused on higher levels of public funding on technology innovation to "make clean energy cheap", and has been critical of climate policies such as cap and trade and carbon pricing.[27][28]

  The institute advocates higher levels of public spending on technology innovation, which they argue will lead to higher environmental quality, economic growth, and quality of life.[29]

  Many of their positions have been debated by environmental scientists and academics.[30]

  Michael Shellenberger left Breakthrough Institute in 2015 and founded another research nonprofit Environmental progress, where he's been serving as CEO since then.

  Ted Nordhaus continues to serve as Breakthrough's executive director.

  Breakthrough Institute's research is based on its Ecomodernist Manifesto and organized around several principles, which it characterizes as follows:

  • A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
  • Human technologies, from those that first enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized economy, have made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance, even as those same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged.
  • The human population will peak in the 21st century and then start to decline. The total human impact on the environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth.
  • Ecosystems around the world are threatened today because people over-rely on them.
  • Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species.
  • Plentiful access to modern energy is an essential prerequisite for human development and for decoupling development from nature.
  • Transitioning to a world powered by zero-carbon energy sources will require energy technologies that are power dense and capable of scaling to many tens of terawatts to power a growing human economy.
  • Decoupling of human welfare from environmental impacts will require a sustained commitment to technological progress and the continuing evolution of social, economic, and political institutions alongside those changes.[31]

  Research programs

  • Climate and Energy (led by Seaver Wang and Patrick Brown)
  • Nuclear Energy Innovation (led by Adam Stein)
  • Energy for Development (led by Vijaya Ramachandran) with the focus on research related to clean and cheap energy technologies
  • Food and Agriculture (led by Dan Blaustein-Rejto) with the focus on intensive farming characterized by a low fallow ratio, higher use of inputs such as capital and labour, and higher crop yields per unit land area.[32]

  Organization, funding and people

  The Breakthrough institute is registered as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and is supported by various public institutions and individuals.[33]

  As of 2022, the organization's chart of funders include Breakthrough Energy, ClimateWorks Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, among others.[34]

  Breakthrough's executive director is Ted Nordhaus.[35]

  Others associated with Breakthrough include former National Review executive editor Reihan Salam, journalist Gwyneth Cravens, political scientist Roger A. Pielke Jr., sociologist Steve Fuller, and environmentalist Stewart Brand.[36][37]

  The organization's notable senior fellows include a geneticist Pamela Ronald, a principal research scientist at MIT Andrew McAfee, a novelist Gwyneth Cravens, an Australian scientist Barry Brook, an American sociologist Dalton Conley, a landscape ecologist Eric W. Sanderson, an American environmental scientist Erle Ellis, an American sociologist Fred L. Block, an Indian economist Joyashree Roy, an environmental geographer Ruth DeFries and Steven Pinker, among others.[38]

  An Ecomodernist Manifesto

  In April 2015, An Ecomodernist Manifesto was issuedIn April 2015, An Ecomodernist Manifesto was issued by John Asafu-Adjaye, Linus Blomqvist, Stewart Brand, Barry Brook. Ruth DeFries, Erle Ellis, Christopher Foreman, David Keith, Martin Lewis, Mark Lynas, Ted Nordhaus, Roger A. Pielke, Jr., Rachel Pritzker, Joyashree Roy, Mark Sagoff, Michael Shellenberger, Robert Stone, and Peter Teague.[39][40] KhinMoTi (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, KhinMoTi, thank you for clarification. Let me comment on your suggestions. I will only comment if the updates you propose for the article can be confirmed by independent reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia's main policy. So, my primary focus would be on sources you used.

• I agree with you and Hobamook that adding categories will be beneficial to the page
• Origins and foundation. #23 source is primary, so I'd better avoid it or add a secondary source to confirm the information. Sources 24 and 25 cite Nordhaus and Shellenberger but do not confirm that they "have written a number of articles at Breakthrough". Source 26 doesn't open. The source 27 (WSJ) is an opinion of the institution's founders, and, a primary source. I believe it can incorporated if you quote them with something like "According to the organization's founders written in the Wall Street Journal", then "quote". I'd suggest not abuse using primary sources but if it happens once or twice, there is nothing bad about it.

Sources 28 and 29 do not open (for at least, not on my device). Source 30 shows "the page doesn't exist".

• Ecomodernist Manifesto. It is based on a primary source #31 again but I believe the manifesto has been covered in many other articles, so if you shorten that manifesto to 2-3 sentences highlighting the main aspects of it, it would probably work. If there are secondary sources, please, add them.
• Research programs. Source 32 leads to Britannica, where a definition of "intensive agriculture" is explained. It says nothing about research programs.
• Organization, funding and people. The source 33 leads to Charity Navigator, which is often used on Wikipedia. I think it is fine to use it. Sources 34-38 all lead to the website of BI, so they are all primary sources. Unless you have secondary sources for the same information, it would be abuse "of primary sources" on Wikipedia. I would refrain adding the information if you don't have other confirmations.
• An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Source 39 is good and can also fit the Ecomodernist Manifesto above. Source 40 looks like a primaru website.

I hope my analysis helped you! Don't hesitate to ask any questions!--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Irrelevant / unsupportive citation in 'Criticism'

In the section titled 'Criticism', the following two statements are made: (1) "Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose its funding." and later, (2) "However, as Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque" . These are 'supported' by the citation 'https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/breakthrough-institutes-inconvenient-history-al-gore . But on that page, Thacker does not make any reference to the Breakthrough Institute, in regards to funding. He does say "think tanks have been exposed as quasi lobbying organizations, with little funding transparency" - but this is a general reference to all 'think tanks', not a specific accusation leveled against the Breakthrough Institute. I plan to remove these criticisms unless anyone can provide a good reason not to. Steerpike5800 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, he is not criticizing the funding, but the intellectual rigour of the institute publications. It shouldnt be removed, but corrected. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so we can agree that Thacker's 'reference article' is leveling two broad criticisms at think tanks in general - funding transparency, and intellectual rigor. And we can agree that the rest of the article provides no evidence whatsoever of 'funding transparency' issues. So the current reference is clearly not supportive of the main body article statements ""Journalist Paul D. Thacker alleged that the Breakthrough Institute is an example of a quasi-lobbying organization which does not adequately disclose its funding."" and ""However, as Thacker has noted, the institute's funding remains largely opaque"". You seem to be suggesting that the main body article be 'corrected' to reflect the true intent of the reference? I don't believe it is the responsibility of editors to re-write main body articles to justify the inclusion of a reference. The statement and associated reference should be removed because it is blatantly inaccurate, and if someone else wants to create a new 'criticism' paragraph that more correctly reflects what Thacker is saying, and use the reference, they are free to do so. Steerpike5800 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of "environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions"

I made an edit adding 'some' to the above sentence, so it would read: "Since its inception, some environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions.". This was removed as a 'weasel word'. But without this clarification, it gives the impression that all (or the majority) or environmental scientists and academics take this position.

Obviously, there is a set of environmental scientists and academics who praise or value these environmental positions - for example, at an absolute minimum, those environmental scientists and academics who consider themselves to be 'ecomodernists'. There needs to be some acknowledgement that there is a body of environmental scientists and academics that do not criticize these positions.

What about using the word 'traditional' in the sentence - as in "Since its inception, traditional environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions."? That actually makes a lot of sense to me and reflects the idea that ecomodernism is indeed a new, non-traditional approach. Steerpike5800 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely against any inclusion of 'traditional environmental scientists', as such thing does not exist. Ecomodernism claim of novelty is itself just a claim, not a consesual fact, especially given that much of the criticism directed against it rests on the recognition that it is not really distinct from modernism itself. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

'such a thing does not exist' - that's nonsense. Environmentalists exist on a spectrum like many other disciplines, and they range from 'Traditional', 'Conservative' or 'Classic' to 'modern', etc. How about this from the MIT Reader: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-american-environmentalism-failed/ "How American Environmentalism Failed" (context: "Traditional environmentalism has lacked a meaningful, practical democratic vision ..."). Or how about this - I just read this article in "The Atlantic" today - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/03/climate-change-nuclear-power-safety-radioactive-waste/672776/ in which they refer to 'mainline environmentalists' (context: "Although only a handful of the mainline environmental organizations are openly “nuclear inclusive” (for example, the Nature Conservancy), many quietly accept that nuclear power can be part of the climate solution"). Or how about https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/09/republicans-climate-change-conservatives-environmentalists-arkansas ("Not all environmentalists eat tofu: the hunters fighting climate change") (context: "In order to address the urgent realities of climate change, traditional environmentalists must..."). I can give you dozens of mainstream, quality articles referencing 'Traditional Environmentalists'.

We need to somehow change the current standalone statement "environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions" to acknowledge that this is not an exclusive position of all environmental scientists and academics (ESA for short, for this discussion), because it is patently obvious that 'some' ESAs do not criticize these positions - especially not 'all' these positions. There are the ESA's that are a member of Breakthrough itself; and there are the ESAs that identify as Ecomodernists. But beyond that, there are clear elements of the Ecomodernist position that many ESAs are now embracing; take Nuclear Energy, Carbon Capture, or Green Hydrogen as an example. The Nature Conservancy is one of a number of mainstream (is that acceptable?) Environmental Organizations that have accepted that Nuclear Energy has an important role to play in the battle against climate change. Example - https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/policy/clean-energy-climate-policy-economic-benefits/ "Incentives for clean energy—including zero-emitting nuclear, natural gas with carbon capture and storage, and green hydrogen, alongside solar and wind power—would help diversify our energy mix."

What if we extend the current sentence as follows - "ESAs have criticized ... but a growing number are accepting at least some of these positions, such as the need for Nuclear Power, Carbon Capture, and Green Hydrogen" - and use the Nature Conservancy reference above as a citation? We could also introduce the former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who left Greenpeace because of its opposition to nuclear (reference: https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835). Or (and I hate to suggest it ...) we could even quote Ms. Thunberg and her acceptance of Nuclear Energy - https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2023/04/03/greta-thunberg-has-embraced-nuclear-power-will-the-greens-follow/?sh=3aa9fa8d1e9a .

Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the "traditional environmental scientists" wording either. But I do not like the current wording, which implies unanimity. I think the best way to phrase the sentence is this:

"since its inception, many environmental scientists and academics have..." Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Many" is also WP:WEASEL.

If there is no unanimity, there are sources where environmental scientists agree with the Institute. Those who want to change the text should find those sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I found plenty of sources (posted above in my previous reply). Would they be acceptable to you? I'm trying to avoid getting into edit wars, where someone nit-picks a reference because maybe its not 100% inclusive, or whatever). Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked the first two, and they do not even mention the Breakthrough institute. Therefore they are obviously not acceptable. See WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The matter at hand here is that the Wikipedia article is saying "Environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions". The positions are clear - acceptance of Nuclear, acceptance of Carbon Capture, acceptance of Green Hydrogen - among others. You don't need a citation to specifically mention 'Breakthrough Institute' in order to make the counter point. If you use that requirement - mentioning Breakthrough by name - then the majority of the citations currently used to justify the statement don't measure up (they don't mention Breakthrough, and/or can't be validated because they are references to a book that has to be purchased, or are otherwise non-transparent). Example - current reference #16, Michael E Mann, "The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy" - no link provided, and when I search for that title it's just a book I would need to buy on Amazon. Reference #13 ('Against the Anthropocine...') - just an ISBN # is given, and a title, but nothing that can be verified. Reference #17 links to an NY Times article, which is paywalled. In short, it should be sufficient to cite sources that agree with the positions of the Institute, not the institute itself (by name). Steerpike5800 (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules, Wikipedia talk:No original research is the right place. Not here.

they don't mention Breakthrough Then they should be deleted. Which ones are those?

can't be validated because they are references to a book That is not a problem. Books are fine as a source.

which is paywalled Also not a problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to focus on my comment "The matter at hand here is that the Wikipedia article is saying "Environmental scientists and academics have criticized Breakthrough's environmental positions". ". The focus here is on the environmental positions, not on Breakthrough. It is not 'original research' to demonstrate that there is support for these 'environmental positions' among Environmental scientists and academics. Steerpike5800 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you close your eyes and hope that the rules go away because you cannot see them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the sentence is 'environmental positions', not the organization. You are using rules to protect a clearly biased 'take down' article. This needs to get reviewed by others. Several posters have suggested the simple inclusion of 'many' as a solution. I've suggested 'Traditional' or 'mainstream'.

How about another approach; it shows clear bias in the article that the statement in question ('environmental scientists ... have criticized ...') is present in the introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph says virtually nothing about the institute itself then immediately launches into a criticism. What if we simply move that statement into the existing 'Criticism' section? Steerpike5800 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

So you want it both ways - you want to retain criticism in the 'head', and you want to retain the stand-alone 'Criticism' section, which contradicts the very guideline you are quoting.

I'm not suggesting we do away with the criticism, I'm suggesting we take it out of the 'head' where it is given disproportionate prominence in the article. The 'head' should give a broader introduction to the purpose of the Institute.

From that WP page (CSECTION):

"In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.

Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies

Often it is best to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections. The article does not have a dedicated "Criticism" section."

The article DOES have a dedicated Criticism section already, and I'm suggesting we move the critical statement out of the 'head' and into that criticism section to make the 'head' section less biased. But Wikipedia encourages criticism to be 'woven throughout the article', which this article already has - so that suggests we should do away with the 'criticism' section. It would seem you are defending both approaches - criticism woven into the article AND a dedicated Criticism section (not to mention, overwhelmingly critical content in the 'publications' section - with references to 'military industrial complex' and 'social justice' - which are way out of scope for a critique of their publications). Steerpike5800 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The introduction has the function of summarizing the article, so it should also contain an point of the criticism section. WP:CSECTION is hardly applicable in this case, as in many other articles that do contain criticism and controversies sections. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so cite the WP:CSECTION rule to justify not making a change, then ignore it when it's not convenient (and claim that WP rules don't actually apply in reality - when convenient to support the narrative, of course). One way or another, we need to get a more balanced article so you can't keep throwing up arbitrary roadblocks. Either move the criticism, or agree to improvements to the first paragraph (as discussed below) by removing the irrelevant references to "US Economic Growth" and "urbanization". Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasnt me that brought CSECTION in, so its not for me to justify it. Its a bare fact that this isnt an universally aplicable principle, it is at most a recommendation. The introduction section has as porpuse to summarize the article, as stated in WP:LEAD

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

you want to retain the stand-alone 'Criticism' section No, I don't. The criticisms should be spread over the article instead of ghettoed in a single section. But resisting the whitewashing action of deletion in the lede is more urgent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Content in the head is not representative of the sources provided and should be re-written.

The current head content is not a good summary of the institute's stated goals. And while I don't think we should re-write article content based on existing citations, we could better summarize the existing citations and thus retain them as a starting point, then expand the content and provide additional or replacement citations.

The head states this: "The institute advocates for an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. economic growth, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization". This is not reflective of the content of the citations provided (those that I can read - the Orion archive and the Time article). Nowhere is 'urbanization' stressed as a primary solution, nor even mentioned. And why is 'increasing U.S. economic growth' stated as something the institute is advocating for? If anything, it should simply be 'economic growth', not US specific, but more to the point - it's not a primary focus of the institute.

It's not clear to me why we can't use the statement from the Institute's own website - "The Breakthrough Institute is a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges." It is a primary source but it is not in the least bit contradicted by the two citations I read - in other words, the exact same citations could be used to validate the statement; it is no less a reflection of the citations than the current statement. Steerpike5800 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I moved this section. See WP:BOTTOMPOST. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we can't use the statement from the Institute's own website

WP:SELFPUBLISH JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, how about a head statement as follows: "The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development (including nuclear power and carbon capture) in order to address environmental challenges." The current published statement makes no reference to the fact that the Institute exists to solve environmental challenges - it just states that they support growth and believe in nuclear power - a focus on negatives and a deliberate attempt to avoid their primary goal. The citations already provided (Orion and Time) fully support this re-wording (Orion: "In attempting to solve these problems, we ..."; Time: "If we're smart, this approach might be the new way to attack climate change: ..."). Steerpike5800 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I undid my previous commment, as i didnt understood your proposal. I think we could use

"The institute advocates for an embrace of modernization, technological development, and increasing U.S. economic growth, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization + , in order to address environmental challenges"

JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain where you are getting 'U.S. Economic Growth' from, and also, 'urbanization'. These are not the stated goals of the institute, and are not backed up by the references. This was raised last year by user 'Quant Analysist' in 2022, seen in the first 'talk' section above. Quoting Quant Analyst above: "what the institute "advocates for" needs to be backed up by evidence of statements from the institute (not dissenting journalistic opinion). The Orion article cited does not mention "urbanization" or "economic growth". These terms should be backed up by proper sources or else removed. " He (Quant Analyst) is saying exactly what I'm saying and he makes perfect sense. Please explain how you justify retaining 'urbanization' and 'growth'. Steerpike5800 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The climate pragmatism report was written by the institute. In the Times commentary, it mentions the report emphasis on the "the iron law of climate policy", and goes on to say that what follows from it is that "Any climate policy that is viewed as obstructing economic progress will fail — especially in large developing countries that are counting on rapid economic growth to lift citizens out of poverty". The pragmatic strategy imply the conciliation of growth and climate action. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a WP rule or guide somewhere against 'implying' a conclusion.

Is the US a 'large developing country'? if not, why is there a reference to 'US Economic Growth'? The article you reference focuses on developing economies ("Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well").

Further - the Institute, and the Times article, are accepting as a simple reality that NOT taking into account economic growth is going to cause climate policies to fail. That does not translate to 'Economic Growth' being a primary driving force for the Institute. The reference to Economic Growth (US or otherwise) is simply out of place and inappropriate in the head article.

In a similar manner, 'Urbanization' is not a stated goal of the Institute. Urbanization is not mentioned in the Time Article nor the Orion article, nor by the Institute itself. The Institute does take the position that human development has been a good thing, but only to defend it against the 'degrowth' agenda from some environmentalists ("Where ecotheologians suggest that the unintended consequences of human development might be avoidable, proponents of modernization view them as inevitable, and positive as often as negative."). That's hardly justifying the use of 'urbanization' as being a primary means of solving the climate problem. We need to remove 'Urbanization' from the 'head'. I again propose to replace the current wording with " "The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development (including nuclear power and carbon capture) in order to address environmental challenges."" Steerpike5800 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Their manifesto sez Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I originally suggested we use BTI's own statement as the best summary of their position, but user JoaquimCebuano invoked WP:SELFPUBLISH as a barrier. So if we have to rely on independent sources, we can't justify 'urbanization' (reviewers rightly focus on more appropriate items). However, if we can use their own manifesto as a reference, then this works.

They mention 'urbanization' as a member of a list of items that together can 'reduce human demands on the environment'. As long as it is presented in that context, it makes sense and reflects their goals. If we can include the original list of items together, and retain the important fact that it is to 'Reduce human demands on the environment and provide more room for non-human species', I'm good with that. Numerous 'other' elements of their statement (Nuclear Power, desalination, etc) are picked up by the reviewers in the citations, so focusing only on 'urbanization' and dropping the context of 'reducing human demands' presents a false impression.

I would propose the following re-wording, based on the above discussion:

"The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development (including nuclear power and carbon capture) in order to address environmental challenges. Their Ecomodernist Manifesto (citation) claims that Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species. "

We can either cite the economist manifesto right after its use above, or simply add it to the existing list of citations at the end of the paragraph. Steerpike5800 (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I published what I wrote above (with minor changes) but you changed 'demonstrated potential' to 'alleged potential'. Since we are talking about what the Institute believes, I think it's appropriate to say 'demonstrated' but since you are going to fight about it, I'll agree to simply remove 'demonstrated' but also to remove 'alleged'. The statement is already 'conditional' by virtue of opening the sentence with 'Proposing' - it's what they propose, not a statement of fact. Steerpike5800 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is what the Institute believes, then its not 'demonstrated', demonstration is public consensus, there is no consensus that 'agricultural intensification' would be any better for the environment, quite the contrary, this goes against most environmental sciences. So it is 'alleged'. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Founded in 2007, or 2003?

According to the institutes websites about page, used as source in this article (is ones own web profile a reputable source?), it was founded in 2007. However, the institute is already mentioned in a 2005 article form the NYT. Curiously, reading Mr. Shellenbergers page on the institutes website one stumbles over an even earlier date, 2003. So we got three different dates, each used for a different wiki article. It doesn't help that on this very page there are two different dates one in the info box, the other in the header, both provided by the very same source. Might be good to look into making it consistent across all three pages and, especially, to at least have consistency within an article. I will start this topic for the other two pages as well.

Kind regards, 178.115.75.53 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point. By 2004 it had the website (https://web.archive.org/web/20040402061617/https://thebreakthrough.org/). Although at that point the "about" page is entirely about "Michael Shellenbergers" (sic) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)