Jump to content

Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Unfortunately, the individual who approved this article did not see the obvious fail of criteria #4, namely that the article be neutral. In particular, there are two points of Wikipedia policy/guidelines to which the article fails to conform: namely undue weight and fringe theories policies. Essentially, this is an article written about a fringe theory and pseudoscience, in this case, global warming denialism. The article, as written, does not conform to these guidelines. In particular, the sources from the most reliable reviewers, those being ones with scientific credentials, are given short-shrift and the reviews by denialists and, frankly, charlatans are given equal weight in defiance of Wikipedia policy. The analysis by Philip Ball is given such minimal attention in the article, it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting the positive spin reviews of the book without looking at the fact that it is far more likely for self-selected and ideologically-similar denialists to review the book than actual scientists or disinterested parties. Moreover, as the book itself is a minor player in the ultimate context of the article which is the scientific history of global warming, it is fairly clear that the article is not offering proper analysis of the subject the book purports to be about. In particular, the major scientific flaws of the book cannot be addressed because the book itself is too obscure to have been reviewed thoroughly by scientific experts. This means that the content coverage of the book isn't sufficiently vetted and, indeed, coverage of the details of the book are in explicit violation of policies on primary sourcing and the need to use independent sources to evaluate fringe material. It is with regret, then, that I conclude that unless these major problems are fixed this article cannot be listed as a "good article".

Pursuant to the recommendations of GAR, I have added the NPOV template to the article to indicate that its failings in this regard need to be addressed. Hopefully, this will attract the appropriate attention to fix these problems.

On a more general note, it is very difficult to write about a fringe/pseudoscience field to the level required to get the accolades in the Wikipedia review process. I commend the person attempting this for their effort and regret that the article is so problematic. A much shorter article that didn't weight the content of the book as heavily is basically all that can be allowed from the sourcing idealizations of the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. Sorry.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose reassessment -- Article was correctly assessed under good article criteria by the reviewer, and ScienceApologist is applying the wrong standards in this reassessment. SA is judging the content of the book rather than the article about the book. There is nothing that prevents a book about a non-majority view from meeting the good article criteria, as this article does. For an example of a good article based on a book about a true fringe theory, see The CIA and September 11 (book). There is no indication that the article does not conform to WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE -- the article is presented in a neutral tone with all available notable viewpoints and critiques, some are positive and others are negative. There is no indication that any notable critique of the book has been omitted, nor is there indication that non-notable critiques have been improperly included. The synopsis conforms to WP:BOOK, as does the section regarding reception of the book. SA mentions "scientific flaws" in the book, which indicates SA's misapplication of good article criteria in this reassessment -- the GAR is not a judgment on the content of a book, it is an assessment of the article itself and its treatment of the book's coverage in verifiable and reliable sources. There is simply no argument to be made about the underlying science covered by this book -- it's irrelevant to the GAR process. The NPOV tag should be removed, as the tone is entirely neutral and NPOV has been previously and adequately addressed. Minor4th 08:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comparison GA. I actually agree that that is a good article based on a book about a fringe theory. The article about this book does not nearly rise to that standard. Note that, compared with this article, a much smaller fraction of the space in that article is devoted to attempting to explain the content of the book (only the content that is judged relevant to the notability of the book and that which was vetted and evaluated by third-party commentators). The basic fact that most reliable sources have found extreme flaws with much of the content in that book are clearly laid out for the reader from the lead and onwards. This is in stark comparison to this article which presents the book not in context but rather as something of an objective take on the situation.
While you are superficially correct that I have made a judgment about the contents of the book, I've only done this to the extent that our guideline on fringe theories require. In particular, we are asked as Wikipedia editors to judge whether subjects are fringe theories or not in order to decide how to properly handle them. I am empowered by that guideline to make a determination, based on reliable, third-party sources, whether this book is a mainstream textbook about science or science policy or whether it is something else. It is pretty clear to me by this standard that this book is an opinion-piece with an agenda — and the particular position taken by the author in writing the book has been impeached by a multitude of reliable sources as being, if not explicitly pseudoscientific, then at the very least divergent from the documented academic consensus. This is as far as I went with making any judgments, simply following the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia to come to the conclusion that the book in question was covered under our guidelines on fringe theories. After that, it was simply a matter of deciding whether this article rose to the standards we as a community have agreed upon are needed to write articles neutrally on such subjects. And this article, sorry to say, does not rise to those standards.
Incidentally, stating that you "oppose reassessment" as though this were some sort of !poll makes no sense. GAs are supposed to be reassessed at any time by anyone. You can ask for a third-party reassessment if you think my reassessment is no good, but unless you deal with my complaints the article will be delisted because the whole point of the Good Article system is to allow any user in good standing to review/reassess the article at any time. Unlike WP:FAC and WP:FAR which require consensus reviews, good articles are left to be handled by individual editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a book about a fringe theory, and you calling it a fringe theory does not make it so. In any event it doesnt matter. The content of the book is not what is being evaluated. Do not apply criteria that are inapposite. You are trying to suppress content that you disagree with. Let's be honest here. Take the reassessment to the community because you are reassessing to push an agenda. The nominator just moved a fringe, marginal critique to the top of the list to appease you and you have made a mockery of the good article process. It disgusts me that you would do this. Step back. Minor4th 17:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're being needlessly personal and are manifestly not assuming good faith about my evaluations. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that ScienceApologist misapplies labels to an article on a book. First, it is not a fringe theory. Second, you need to read up on pseudoscience, because the questions that are raised are legitimate criticisms and are not pseudoscience like astrology or paranormal activities. For example Ball pointed out (as did the National Academy report here) that the Hockey Stick graph was flawed, and all it can show is that the current temperatures are the highest since the Middle Ages Warm Period. Well, duh. This is about the book, not the science. I stand by the original review, and I am quite willing to take it to a community review if needed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the content, this is about appropriate handling of an issue where consensus is clearly opposed to the author. The article does not do a good job of explaining that and so fails to be neutral. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I would like to point out a potential impropriety with SA's reassessment on this particular topic. SA was the subject of an arbcom case related to WP:FRINGE and has been blocked two or three times for editing WP:FRINGE in violation of his arbcom sanction [1]. The fact that he is trying to improperly change policy to advance his own agenda should be carefully considered in view of this reassessment -- this reassessment based on WP:FRINGE is yet another attempt to define topics as "fringe" when SA disagrees with them and when they clearly do not belong there. SA should recuse from this GA reassessment. Minor4th 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/GA3&oldid=377870068"