Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming

Issue and topics

I have added a comment on the main page regarding how I see this issue. Thanks. --Sm8900 14:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My position, and I what i believe should be our position, is that the Global warming article is being totally mis-managed and mis-named. Simply that. The article currently titled "Global warming" should really be entitled "Scientific details of global warming." The global warming article itself should really be an overview, and not just of science, but of politics, society, dissenting views. an article solely on the science should really be a sub-article. there really is absolutely no justification for a small number of editors to be continually scrutinizing each submission, and removing anything which does not give sufficient weight to their views.

I am also really appalled and mortified at their continued deletion of any other topics, themes or ideas which do not relate to what they consider to be the main topic. An article with as basic a title as "global warming" should be the overview for all other sub-articles associated with this topic. There is absolutely no justification for a small number of people claiming that they know what the topic "Global warming" entails, (and deleting any other views or ideas on the scope of this topic). That's what I feel should be our stated position in this mediation. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing something like this: the main "Global warming" article would merely be an outline; it would then have links to "Science of global warming" (essentially, the current article), Politics of global warming, and so on? I'm not convinced that would be especially useful to the reader, but the present article could be clearer about links to the non-science topics. They're mostly within-text wikilinks and can be overlooked. Maybe it would be useful to put at the top of the article, "This article covers the scientific basis of global warming. For the political controversy, see (etc)." The main article as it stands is already waaaaaaaay too long, so it would be unwise to subsume all the non-science aspects into it. Raymond Arritt 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The main article is waaay too long, I agree with you. This is because a small number of users have decided it should be used as the sounding board for their viewpoint and their viewpoint alone. This is absolutely in contradiction to all principles of Wikipedia.

I appreciate your suggestion. However, there is really no need to leave the article the way it is, and to relegate all other themes, sub-topics, etc., to other articles and links. The proper place for those links is within the overview. the proper place for the current article is in a sub-article entitled "Scientific details" or even "arguments in favor of global warming".

There is really absolutely no justification for the practice, such as this morning, of editing individual phrases and individual words, simply because they do not give sufficient weight to one side of this debate. This is really a total and complete contradiction of all Wikipedia principles. Just wanted to mention that. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What aspects of the science should be removed? Raymond Arritt 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

whatever quantity of text is currrently making it not feasible to add any other topics, themes, or contents. thanks. --Sm8900 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK in principle, but in practice we need something more specific. Give some examples that we can work with -- could you read over the article and propose "____ and _____ don't belong"? Thanks for bearing with me; we seem to be (slowly) getting somewhere. Raymond Arritt 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. i appreciate your positive attitude. However, I'm sorry to add perhaps a small additional complication. My goal is not the removal of any particular text; it is more a complete ending of the practice of a small number of users who have decided that the article has only one topic or set of themes, and their resulting continual deltion and removal of anything outside those boundaries.

Exactly where does it say that the way to preserve any article's coherence is for a small number of editors to educate and edit anyone who steps outside the topics they considr appropriate? Exactly what led anyone to think that was standard practice? An article with the name "Global warming" contains anything which pertains to the scientific, societal, or other views on global warming. it must be arrived at through general consensus of all parties involved. Not through the continual, vehement editing of a small number of editors who feel they are preserving some mythical version of the article's content and focus. In other words, if someone adds something relevant, pertinent and coherent relating to global warming, regardless of whether you feel it dilutes or redirects the article's focus, just let it be. --Sm8900 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's my specific request

Ok. You want a specific request from me? Here it is. Recently, i changed a sentence in the opening to read that some scientists dissent from global warming. It was changed back by Count Iblis to read "a few". Count Iblis felt it was important to note that it was only "a few". i changed it to "some" in order to utilize a term which is quantity-neutral. Count Iblis felt it needded to be changed because it did not adequately, according to him, reflect the true reality, and it detracted from the weight of the global warming view.

Now, what do you all think of that? Does that request seem too small? Too trivial? That's the whole point, you people. The problem is that it's there's no specific edit which is the issue here. the problem is the entire style which has crept into the page, suppressing dissenting view, and undermining the whole adherence to Wikipedia values in general. therefore, we want an entire change in the entire way this entry is handled. We are seeking nothing less than an utter and complete end to one small group suppressing other views, and continually the most minor of phrases, simply to give adequate weight to their own personal opinions.

Let me add one final note. If you do want to create an article advancing a single particular opinion, and giving weight only to that opinion, then that's fine. However, the "Global Warming" article is not the place for that. If you do want to create such an article, then it needs to be given a more specific name, such as "Arguments for global warming" or something similar. An article with a name like "Global warming" should be a comprehensive overiew, of many different viewpoints, ideas, and events. So we seek a much broader change in the overall tone and direction of this article. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people are trolls (best to ignore them), and the current version seems fine (i.e. neutral language or sourced). ~ UBeR 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Uber

The following is a discussion which occurred between Uber and Titoxd recently at the Global Warming page. The comments by both Uber and Titoxd are a good summation of much of Uber's views on this topic, and is directly related to this issue. I am posting it here at Uber's direct request, as he unfoertunately is currrently unable to post. thnks. --Sm8900 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• From someone who has not really edited this article before: having separate articles for the controversy and scientific positions of global warming may be a good idea, but the way it is currently done is just inadequate. One sentence cannot summarize what is essentially a contentious topic (and it is simply irrelevant whether the topic is contentious in scientific or political spheres - it is still contentious either way). While the ideal solution would be to write an entire two-paragraph section summarizing both the scientific opinion and the controversy articles here, and tagging both sections with {{main}} links to both articles, a simpler way to solve this would be with a navigation template at the top of the page, like several topics have. (See the Cuisine article for an example of what I'm thinking about.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can reasonably agree with this, but I'm sure there will be people crying undue weight. I wonder though, if both of this topics have lengthy articles of their own, how much weight these topics actually carry when we're talking about global warming. Like you said, perhaps not much weight in the scientific journals, but it's definitely a topic that people in general are concerned about and interested in. ~ UBeR 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If I catch your implication, you seem to want to take the article out of the scientific realm and put it into "what is the popular opinion about this subject?". Sorry, since WP is a encyclopedia, we have to report the facts, not the whim of public opinion. --Skyemoor 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you want to "report the facts", as you say, you will have to report the fact that there is a controversy (regardless of the nature of the controversy), and give it its due weight. Giving it more than two short paragraph is granting undue weight; giving it one sentence means that the article fails WP:WIAFA §1.(b). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is almost no scientific controversy as the skeptical climate scientists are a tiny minority. You've simply made an unsupported pronouncement concerning WP:WIAFA 1.b. Care to make the case from the scientific perspective? --Skyemoor 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again Titoxd brings up a good point. I don't quite see what you're getting at Skyemoor. Are you impling global warming controversy doesn't have facts? My point was that if even if there's little debate in scientific journals, it would be ignorant to assume there is no controversy over the topic of global warming. ~ UBeR 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're trolling again, UBeR. We've been over this dozens of times. The article Global warming is about the science; the article Global warming controversy is about the controversy generated by politicians and pundits, --Skyemoor 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You calling Titoxd a troll? Imprudent. It was his idea. ~ UBeR 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another discussion by uber

Here is another discussion, this one largely between uber and myself, which more clearly sums up the main issue. the real problem here is that Uber wanted to add some sourced statements quoting the dissent with global warming. That's pretty much where this whole thing started. the other party to this issue then created a "straw poll" with one option to toally exclude his cited sources, and the other to put that in. Afterwards, many people stated the poll itself was invalid. that's pretty much how this dispute began.

But it seems to me that uber was simply to ask for the right to insert new material, with valid sources. The other side seemed to say that he could not add his material, no matter how properly sourced. that seems to me to be fairly inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. So that is one of the main issues in this mediation.

By the way, you can view the original poll here: Talk:Global_warming#Straw_Poll.

You can view the discussion(s) of the entire original issue here: Talk:Global_warming#Restatement_of_the_problems_and_some_solutions_listed,

and also Here: Talk:Global_warming#Weasel_Words_and_NPOV_problems.

There is a summary of obections to the poll itself here: Talk:Global_warming#Objection:_Badly_designed_straw_poll_violates_wikipedia_policy_and_philosophy

Below is the quoted discussion.

Second option: The "weasel by proxy" as describe above by Blue Tie. That is, verified and attributable to third party source.

CLARIFICATION OF OPTION 2: This is a clarification (I hope) that was discussed on my talk page: Option 1 is the option to go back to the original version and everything will still be willy-nilly, straight back to square one. It doesn't matter if there's a source that actually says "Most scientists agree that ... and few scientists disagree (...)" If there actually is a source, then use it! If there actually is a source, make sure you're stating what it is saying (that is, not verbatim--just don't change the context). If there actually is a source, attribute the claim to that source. HOWEVER, if there isn't a source, then that claim doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This option is the only supportable one under Wikipedia (of the two options so far). If feel so inclined to do so, feel free to change your vote. ~ UBeR 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uber seems right. if there is a valid source, I see no reason to not use it. --Sm8900 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR is often right. I don't quite get the proposal here though. Personally I am a big reluctant to turn particularly the introduction into a patchwork of sources (the convention in papers is not to give references in abstracts: I think it helps a lot not to cite in the intro provided everything in it is substantiated with references later). It would be very hard to get it to read well that way.--BozMo talk 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not much problem with having numerous refernces and citations. For an example, see this article. --Sm8900 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Or this one. You see, BozMo, one of the wonders of Wikipedia is that it is not a paper encyclopedia nor is it a scientific paper to be published in a journal. If this article is to be used as a "gold standard" as one observer proclaimed, then it should stand against the toughest scrutiny. While I agree, an overload of refs in the lead can be burdensome or ugly, policy trumps prettiness. I also agree that refs are not required in leads because they are summaries of what's in the article, UNLESS the article provides no reference to the original claim within any portion of the article. That is the current case. Again, my clarification still stands. However, at the current momenet it looks like the weasel words are gone, and doesn't need sources (that is, unless you know who undoes it). Also note the current intro has a grand total of TWO refs. That's hardly eye-soring. ~ UBeR 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (end of post.) --Sm8900 18:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply cut and pasting discussions from another page doesn't make much of a case for mediation; it simply duplicates talk. We could cut and paste megabytes of discussion on this topic, but what would be the point? --Skyemoor 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's highly relevant and was not discussed (because all the points are valid, of course, and would be too hard to refute). If you're trying to stifle debate, try elsewhere. ~ UBeR 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing to look out for however, is the alteration of the "Requirements" for the articles by changing the topic in the opening paragraph. This is a quick, easy, and often used way for some to limit whats on the pages... then saying "But the opening paragraph spicifically says the article does not talk about that..." the articles should be edited based on wikipedia policy (which in it self often conflicts itself), not what the longterm editors have altered the pages to require.--Zeeboid 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Blue Tie

First comment: I think that there is a tremendous lack of trust on each side, leading to horrible behaviors that injure the ability to edit constructively. --Blue Tie 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Second comment: Ownership issues get in the way of accepting possible changes to the article --Blue Tie 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to both points. Some of these editors have been defending their versions of these pages for YEARS.--Zeeboid 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with the first point, and strongly disagree with the second. Certainly, there are POV-pushers who want to water the article down with tiny minority scientific views that have more visibility in political agenda outlets. They seem to be convinced that the political agenda should get more coverage and weight; they have been told that the article Global warming controversy is the article for this material, and that the Global warming article is about the science, though there is mention and wiki-linking in the latter about the former. Some are more polite than others.

On the second point, no one owns this article; editors are free to discuss and make changes as long as they bring verifiable information to the table. WP is blessed to have the participation of scientists directly involved in climate science to help with verifiability and assessment of minority categorization. It is unfortunate that some who push the political agenda attempt to undermine the credibility and veracity of those scientists. --Skyemoor 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering your are the one changing scientifically verifiable data to exactly the opposite conclusions reached to agree with your partisan agenda makes your opinion here shoddy. ~ UBeR 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Skyemoor, especially on the "ownership" issue. It seems that one or two editors want to completely remodel (not just amend) a long-standing featured article, going so far as to redefine the very term global warming. Having failed to gain consensus for their desired changes, they now complain of WP:OWN issues. It is worth noting that objections to these changes have come from both sides of the issue, including one individual usually on the "skeptic" side. When numerous other editors from both sides of an issue try to convince you something isn't a good idea, maybe you should entertain the possibility that, well, it isn't a good idea. Raymond Arritt 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you are referring to me when you say these things. I would like to respond that I have been concerned about WP:OWN for a while now, not just recently. I think I may have expressed it a couple of weeks ago or perhaps I held my tongue -- I do not recall. But it is not a new concern. I also do not feel I have failed to gain consensus for my desired changes (but that raises the question: What is consensus?)

And as far as "redefining" global warming -- I am not trying to do that. In fact, I am doing exactly the opposite. Please look carefully at the discussion I brought to the talk page. I have been carefully exploring all kinds of definitions so that wp is not making up its own original research definition. So far, no one has been able to explain why using verifiable, reliable sources to develop the article text here is not a good idea. Can you help out there rather than lobbing a bomb like this?

When I see that my sincere efforts to produce consistent, logical text that is not original research for consideration and discussion (and not getting involved in edit warring) gets a response like the one you just gave, it gives me cause to wonder if that, in itself is not a version of Not Invented Here Syndrome. It feels as though you would rather I just introduce the text into the article so that you can immediately revert it. Isn't this supposed to be a "consensus" approach through discussion here? Or is it the consensus that this article is the Holy Writ and cannot be altered without falling into grave sin? --Blue Tie 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another post by Blue Tie which makes me want to say, "hey! Right answer over here!" I agree completely, esp re the comments on the recurring reverts and deletions of valid new text and useful new ideas in this article. :) --Sm8900 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am busy right now. I will respond as soon as possible per advice from Sm8900 to be specific. However, I am unable to dedicate the time for a day or two. --Blue Tie 11:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Archived Section

I have no idea how to respond to the archived section (I do not understand why it was archived either - we were asked to provide specific input, which I did and immediately its archived. Weird. But anyway....).

I realize that just by speaking up and defending Kim, I futher compromise him or her. But I do not want to have Kim be in the position of explaining themselves. It was me who wrote what I wrote and invited him or her to join and I did so entirely because I think Kim is exceptionally fair and capable, not because of any POV.

I requested that Kim become involved because repeatedly, he or she and I have NEVER (as far as I know) agreed on ANYTHING. We always seem to disagree. Yet Kim has always been polite, reasonable and as far as I can tell especially gifted at avoiding heat and anger. I thought that a person like that would be great for mediation.

I believe that it is an indication of just how deeply dysfunctional the editing is on this page that I can offer praise to a person and this is seen as a threat to others. This continuous suspicion about the motives of other people is pathological and injurious to good editing. It is disturbing. Assume Good Faith. Good grief, is that really so hard? --Blue Tie 11:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also am not sure why this was archived, since this matter is still very much open, and has not really moved very much towards resolution, from anyone's view. --Sm8900 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, those who support your position edit in good faith and the rest are pathological who must change their ways. Got it... --Skyemoor 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you got it. The two issues... pathological responses and good faith are not mutually exclusive. One can have really weird reactions and be entirely honest with them. But the weirdness remains. It is pathological for the levels of suspicion to be so high on this page. Its "twitchy" and "knee-jerk"ish. It is dysfunctional for editing. I have no doubt that the people who respond this way do so in what they consider to be the best interests of the article. But that good interest does not make the negative behaviors any more positive. It just means that the editors have no bad intent. Which I believe to be the case. I have been on the receiving end of some pretty strong and undeserved abuse generated through knee-jerk reactions. I continue to Assume Good Faith, but observing the reactions so far, I no longer assume that my comments will generate anything but these hostile reactions, regardless of my politeness, willingness to discuss or my sincerity. I do not believe that this comes out of bad intent. But it is bad behavior.--Blue Tie 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoor: It would help if people actually told me what their positions were, actually. Could you and Blue Tie help me understand (perhaps just briefly summarizing what you'd like to have changed about the global warming page) --Kim Bruning 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, my original mediation request for the page was couched in terms of behaviors that hindered editing. My feelings on this have grown stronger. So, my thoughts were indirectly on page content but more directly on the process conducted here. However, since you have asked, I will comply and review the page again. I may copy and paste many of my prior discussions from the article talk page. Thanks for helping here. --Blue Tie 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a just a brief summary, for now, please? --Kim Bruning 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any specific content or structural changes that I see as necessary or desirable, apart from spinning off content as the article becomes too large. My concern is with maintaining the scientific integrity of the page through verifiability of material and the avoidance of undue weight to very small minority positions. --Skyemoor 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Are you opposed to any proposed changes in particular, at this point in time? --Kim Bruning 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My previous statement addressed changes as unnecessary and undesirable. I don't see this mediation as being active any longer due to your archiving it; I was simply addressing what I saw as your curiousity. --Skyemoor 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, then, you would be content with trimming/cutting the recently added financial and other effects section, as it is both unscientific and overly detailed. ~ UBeR 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is excellent in many regards, but I think it can be improved in the following ways:

1. A brief introduction that summarizes the article before you get into the meat of the article. A slower movement into the Science talk. Virtually the whole current intro could become some detail content and a new intro written.

2. More recognition of global warming as something that has happened in the past -- that the current warming trend is not unprecidented in earths history... but then, it might possibly be unprecidented in man's history. I guess a moving in from the long term perspective down to the current short term perspective -- sort of a recounting of history and focus on current issues in that order. This means moving the pre-human and pre-industrial global warming more to the top.

3. Remove the Ozone and Acidification sections. Not relevant to global warming

4. Expand or add a discussion of the momentum in global warming and the consequent problems with mitigation efforts, even with full compliance.

5. Project Navigation template re-designed so it fits to one side of the article and moved to the top (if that does not violate any wikipedia standards).

6. Edit to remove repetitive points / over emphasis. Areas of overemphasis might include Solar forcing and repetition of human involvement in global warming.

7. Edit to add more emphasis to under-represented areas such as naturally mitigating factors.

8. Ensure that the languge and flow are smooth and accessable to average high school level readers.

That's a summary you asked for.--Blue Tie 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what has been said. I think a restructuring of the article is needed and has been needed for a long time. Right now as it stands only selective parts of the subtopics are being displayed. I think all subtopics from the Global Warming series should be displayed in brief to give the reader a full outline of the topic. Certain topics such as and especially "Controversy" and "Politics" should not be obscured from the article as they are now. I don't believe there is any "harm" whatsoever in introducing these into the article (as it is a significant part of the topic, science or not) with outlines with a "see main article" link.

Some of my ideas on things that need fixing.

1. Introduction of small "Controversy" "Politics" and "Economics" sections

2. Too many hockey stick graphs. Some of which I find deceptive to the reader and I question the data and method used in reaching some of these conclusions. An example of this can be seen in:

IMO this graph is junk science, and is pretty much stating the equivalent of: The surplus of hammers in China has tripled in the last 10 years, therefore the effects of global warming have a huge beneficial impact on the production of hammers.

These should be removed.

3. Too much weight given to anthropogenic global warming. I have seen a few surveys (I'll admit there aren't enough of these) which question climate scientists on their view of how much man has had influence on the earth's warming. These surveys suggest around a 50/50 split. 1 [2(PDF)]

4. Pre-human global warming should be moved under "Causes" and not under "Other related issues".

5. "Financial Effects" should be shortened and moved under "Economics".

6. "Ozone depletion" should be removed or drastically shortened.

7. "Climate models" should be shortened.

8. Global warming in popular culture was removed a while back and branched off into another page (even though it was very small), would like to see brief outline of this in the article. The machine512 06:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of communication,I do not know what to think of #1, I disagree with #2. I am not sure I agree with #3 but I think not. I want to move pre-human global warming but I am not sure it goes under causes. I have not reviewed financial effects, but I suspect it is speculation. I like the inclusion of climate models but I note that there is an article on the subject. I hate pop culture stuff, but it is per policy to summarize break-offs. --Blue Tie 07:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response. Well, we need not worry about shortening the Financial Effects as WC removed it. A lot was speculation, however I think non-speculative economic information/data would be good in the article. #1 is important as there is a lot surrounding the issue, and as you've stated before, this page isn't "the science of global warming" a main article should go over all of the subtopics in brief as that is what makes a good read and thorough understanding. This page should be a "portal" into all aspects and then break off to other pages. #2 That image bothers me as it is pure speculation that is has anything to do with GW and also is speculative whether disasters have increased or reporting of disasters has increased (which is very misleading to look at, and makes you wonder whether it is relevant information or is for the sole purpose of "shock and awe"), and shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia. You're right, Causes isn't the best place for "pre-human global warming", maybe "History of warming" is a better place and that could be split into two or more sub-sections with past and present. The machine512 10:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you'd both like to tidy the article, in slightly different ways. Do you see points on which you probably both agree on together and could possibly work on already, without much controversy? --Kim Bruning 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be. But there are others like Skyemore, who seem to feel that these changes would be bad.--Blue Tie 21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the issue is not any one edit or section, but rather the entire way that various edits have been handled, and the way that consensus has been side-stepped, and instead one side seems to keep reverting and deleting another. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but that seems to me to be why we have this mediation, and why things got so acrimonious in the first place. I am not aware of any statement, topic, or specific edit which was itself the specific underlying issue. So unless I'm wrong, I don't see much room for common ground. If things are improving, or if anyone feels the underlying issue is declining in importance (or also, if the opposite is true), please feel free to comment here, one way or the other. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if folks could already start doing some regular business-as-usual tidying, as a small beginning, right? --Kim Bruning 21:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as you maintain the scientific accuracy of the article, Skyemore will likely not protest. --Kim Bruning 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. ~ UBeR 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing a clue there somewhere. Hmm, Skyemore, what's the big issue with those edits in particular? --Kim Bruning 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A note re this mediation

Guys, I'm sorry to be repetitious. However these mediations have one purpose and one purpose only. these are only for mediating a specific conflict betweeen two users (or two groups of users). That's it. So we should stop listing all the things which we want changed about this article, and start listing any ways that the pro-GW has been unfairly blocking and impeding us. That should be our entire and our main focus. Otherwise, you will see, there will be nothing the mediators can do. Thanks.--Sm8900 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when I wrote this, I hadn't looked at the main page yet, and didn't realize the mediator had already stated that right now they only hope to keep things somewhat moderated, and can do little to actively intervene. I suggest we start refining our focus here. otherwise, as I said, the mediators will only be able to take little or no action. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to stay on that beam. But the mediator has specifically asked for information about what should be changed in the article. So I complied. But I mentioned the central issue as being behavior centered. --Blue Tie 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Blue Tie, you're right, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. We should start with specific edits, and then explain how those edits were blocked by some pro-GW people. My comment here was meant for people who are trying to say how we should restructure the entire article, instead of listing specific edits which have been the subject of recent disputes. Thanks for your helpful reply. --Sm8900 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediators don't take action. They can only help people help themselves. In this case (in theory at least) we can try to help people reach consensus on the page, and then all go home. --Kim Bruning 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (I'm pretty sure people won't actually go home afterwards, but hopefully they'll pick up some more ideas on reaching consensus, at least :-) )

Since none of the pro-GW people consider themselves subject to the need for consensus, that may mean there will be little progress. As I just posted on the main page, one of the main unstated aspects of this conflict is that there is an administrator intervening for their side. That has added considerable undue weight to one side of this. Just to be fair, William Connolley has been extremely open about his identity, and who he is, in a positive sense, so I'm not trying to be overly harsh here; just stating a fact. --Sm8900 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what i mean by that is that if you have a concept you'd like to defend, the place to do that is in the article itself, not with never-ending reverts, edit wars, and so forth. The fact that all of that has taken place shows a problem with the direction of the article itself. That is why I feel this mediation is warranted. --Sm8900 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bottom Line

Wikipedia is controlled by liberals. Every liberal platform or talking point in Wikipedia is carefully watched by member's of Gore's Hoard. All contrary evidence, facts, criticism is instantly reverted by this band of socialist e-thugs. They all back each other up, and they all get away with it because the Admins feel the same way.

That is the truth. You all know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk)

Not so sure of that. Maybe it's true, but I have no way of knowing. On the other hand, young people tend to be more liberal than older people, the internet is more of a young person's game than an older person's game and the general age of wikipedia editors from what I can determine is less than 30 years. So wikipedia might have a liberal bias.

However, if we follow the guidelines of NPOV, VER, RS, and NOR, then the bias should be mitigated. --Blue Tie 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The main office of the wikimedia foundation happens to be located in florida. But not everyone on wikipedia supports this fellow Gore (or in fact, even lives in the USA.) --Kim Bruning 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Regarding the subject at hand, I would name William M. Connolley as a primary instigator/culprit. I'd invite anyone to browse his site-wide edits, and see that he wears his politics on his sleeve and edits according to those views. For example: [1], [2]. Note that, while Mr. Connolley is clearly aware of the article on An Inconvenient Truth (as shown by his edits there), he apparently did not feel the need to call that documentary a "propaganda" film. No doubt he would respond that the former is propaganda while the latter is not, but this will only illustrate my point. At any rate, I have to agree with the concerns of Sm8900 regarding this whole subject. The virulent bias and stifling control is sickening -- but more importantly, it flies in the face of Wikipedia. Stop it. Now. Please. --70.105.253.147 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another user indicating a problem

Here is a note from another user who disagrees directly with the whole direction of the GW article, on exactly the issue and area which we have raised. The following is an exchange from Orane's talk page, which I am posting here at Orane's direct request. This is more evidence that there are two real sides to this issue, and that this issue is in need of a real compromise which gives both sides real representation.

GW

You seem to be basing your edits to GW on the page saying: "Global warming is happening, we are all gonna die. Oh, by the way, it's not really important, but some people are uncertain." But since the page doesn't say this at all, or anything like it, I can't see your criticism as at all valid William M. Connolley 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my critique of your opinion is entirely relevant. If you've added your tag for an invalid reason - as you obviously have, since you make no attempt to defend your opinion - it should be removed William M. Connolley 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have defended my opinion on the talk page, under 'neutrality,' and others have supported me. You have no right to guard the article as you have been doing, and you are in no position whatsoever to judge whether my opinions are valid or invalid. I can see why numerous attempts to improve and balance the article have failed— editors like you bludgeon anyone who dares to challenge it. This is an article that fails miserably to explore the political and social aspects of global warming (Why, for example, have governments failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?), and fails to give due treatment to those who doubt global warming, or whether greenhouse gasses are the cause. Don't, however, for a minute think that I'll concede to your bullying. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Orane, I totally agree with all your ideas stated above. I appreciate having your support. By the way, do you wish to comment at the mediation page? Not trying to harp on this, but just suggesting it. The more different voices we have there, the better. By the way, if not, would it be a problem if I copied some of this comment there, as proof for our side? Thanks. --Sm8900 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(End of post.) --Sm8900 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The real issue

I would like to point out that on the mediation page, Zeeboid made a clear request. He said we should have a criticism section. W Connelly then disputed this. He said such things belong in the "controversy" article, and said that this article is for the science. Well I disagree. Why shouldn't the "Global warming" article contain a criticism section, as well as various other political and societal sub-topics? An article solely for science should be entitled "Science of Global Warming." So I absolutely stand by Zeeboid's position. This is just one example of the kind of one-sided, totally unfair editing which has crept in, where one side makes an entirely reasonable request, and the other side totally undermines it, by claiming that they and they alone can correctly define the article's scope. I absolutely demand that this mediation lead to some sort of useful compromise, in the form of incorporating some sort of "criticism" section. --Sm8900 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me state this simply. Zeeboid requested a section on "Criticisms of global warming." The pro-GW side rejected that entire idea. mediation means we should come to some sort of compromise. However, compronise means some form of the original idea. Therefore I absolutely feel we should have such a section.

Wikipedia is supposed to be means of collaboration. Once several good-faith editors agree on some idea, and it is valid and relevant, that is supposed to be enough reason to do it in some form. Only in the global warming article are valid ideas dismissed so quickly. So that's why I want to state that this idea should be implemented in some form. Thanks. --Sm8900 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for this in the past as well (last year) as have many many others, and we've all been knocked down by these same *few* editors watching the article. "The article is about science." It really isn't at this moment (with financial effects, kyoto protocol, etc) and nor do I think it should be. So what is the excuse? The machine512 04:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

<scratches head> Let me get this straight. You're telling me there's already an entire article on criticisms of Global Warming, Right? --Kim Bruning 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but there a few certain people *cough* who don't believe it warrants anymore than 5 words in the article. ~ UBeR 03:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is long enough as it is. There can be passing mention of controversy with a link to the main article, but there is no reason to go into detail here, when basically every scientist recognizes anthropogenic global warming. It would be giving those minority views undue weight. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and having William Ruddiman's blurb on Pre-industrial global warming isn't undue weight? The machine512 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem like undue weight to me. There is one source disputing it, and one supporting it. From what I can tell, this is not a theory that has been debunked by dozens of studies. If you could find several reliable, respected scientific sources arguing against the presence anthropogenic global warming, then I am sure that the main editors of the article would consider giving it a little more weight (I would, at least). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, regardless of what other articles already exist, there is no reason that a section desired by several good-faith editors should not be accepted. There is nothing which says this article is only about science, or only about arguments supporting global warming theories. This article is entitled "Global warming," meaning a general overview encompassing many things, including arguments both for and against, as well as (just to reiterate) other political and societal sub-topics. --Sm8900 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Every article that mentions those who are against the idea of man caused global warming (Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Global warming controversy for example) are full of "Yea But..." statements while the articles that maintain a perspective in agreement with what some *caugh* editors feel should be displayed are limited so heavely that even the opening paragraphs are changed to limit what can be displayed in the article (Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a good example of this. To focus this on the article in question (Global Warming) however, I also need to use the examples of what is hapening elseware, as it re-enforces whats going on here. Anytime valid, refrenced, sourced information is inserted into the article, if it does not jive with what those who have been guarding this article for years agree with, it is removed. Global Warming having no critism section (when there is much critism about it) and instead POV Forking the critism off to seperate articles is exactly what should NOT be happening. And because of it, you end up with this problem, but even the articles that are FORKED every which way to contain the information that doesn't jive with some *caugh* editors (Global warming controversy), these articles are protected just the same, and full of the same "Yea But..." statements that are removed from the main article. you can't have it both ways, and I fear some of the editors are too engrosed in their profession (wether it be climate modeler, or what have you) and their activism to put on the NPOV glasses, or even discuss a change to make it a worthwile entry. Instead, the changes are just removed, and threads like this are opened. this article, much like anything controversal, needs a criticism section that states the criticism as it is.--Zeeboid 02:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible area for reconciliation and compromise

Upon reflection, it seems that much of the turmoil revolves around the purpose or focus of the article. I do not mean, "Is it neutral or pov". I mean, that some people apparently see it as Science Only whereas other people see it as an article on the general topic of Global Warming.

I am more of the latter. do not want a science compromise, but I view this article as being a General Article about Global Warming.

I think that this difference about the purpose of the page makes it harder to get agreement.

Somewhere, wikipedia needs one article that is a summary article on Global Warming, or possibly the whole subject of Climate Change. If the whole subject of Climate Change is the master article, then this article would almost need to be renamed to something else.

I'll stop chattering and just throw that out for now. --Blue Tie 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel Blue Tie is absolutely right. This should be a real overview article, and it currently is not. I also agree that, in large part, that is the real reason for this whole issue. --Sm8900 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I stand by my word that if you find several reliable, published, peer-reviewed scientific sources that challenge global warming, then there should be more weight given to the skeptical camp, but otherwise, the article should remain as is. The topic is scientific, so of course it will focus on the science, not the conjectures of politicians, businessmen and other people who have a vested interest in seeing less importance given to AGW. The framing of the article as something other than a general overview of global warming is nothing more than a clever ruse to give more weight to the skeptical camp. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if I find one, that should be sufficient for some inclusion per wikipedia standards. But that is a completely separate discussion from what I am proposing. The topic is scientific but it is not JUST scientific. Thus, I have proposed a different approach to the article than is currently delivered. Your imagined scenario of it being a clever ruse to give more weight to the skeptical camp is wrong on several counts. First, I am not so clever. Second, I do not engage in ruses. Third, I do not happen to be a skeptic. On the other hand, I do want wikipedia to be better. --Blue Tie 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile, I find these remarks to be totally counterproductive. Please do not assume you know the motives of others. I find your remarks unfounded and unsupported by fact. Some users want to see this article free to evolve in scope, and to encompass a variety of societal developments. --Sm8900 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My last sentence was nothing more than an afterthought; it was not even part of my argument. But this mediation is not longer productive, so I am no longer going to participate in it unless something new is brought to the table. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that all official-ish mediation at this location had ceased a while ago. You are currently talking on the discussion page for the mediation page. --Kim Bruning 08:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, Kim, why the mediation has ceased, when nothing at all has been resolved, or even addressed? That does not seem to me like the actions of a neutral mediator working towards a resolution. And I thought you are the mediator here working towards that. thanks. --Sm8900 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a chronically overworked human being, and I've already stated I can't take the case proper. Also no one else can be dug up (either that or no-one wants to burn themselves on the case) I'll try to raise someone one more time one more time. :-/ --Kim Bruning 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. Let me add a bit. I have not observed (I may have missed it though) some of the behaviors that led me to request the mediation in a while. Perhaps there has been a change. The article is being discussed in ways that are fairly wide-ranging and so far I have no detected anything like the former hostility. Recognizing your limited time, I can accept the idea that we can sort of wait a bit to see what happens. I am an optimist. But I do not think that means that this should be closed yet. Others may have different views about the mediation though. Certainly the other side is not here much and that limits its effectiveness anyway. --Blue Tie 13:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I must respectfully disagree. The reason you do not see those previous hostilities is that the article is currently locked, i think. The tone of discussions about the article is relatively less important, since the issue remains the same; complete disagreement about the fundamental direction of the article, and on the scope of new additions. Most people on the page would say that we are far from resolution. --Sm8900 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim. I too appreciate all your efforts, and I totally understand. However, if that is the case, may I please suggest that the mediation be un-archived? and again, thanks again (seriously); I do realize this can all be fairly time-consuming. thanks. --Sm8900 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the archived page, I cannot see much of value there. Much of the discussion was petty and unfocussed. I think it would be better to have a fresh start. iIf there are suggestions or proposals of substantial value, they can easily be copied. --Stephan Schulz 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

the point of a mediation is to bring all views to the table. the fact that there were so many views, some of them perhaps petty, shows how needed this meidation is. Most mediations do not bring in a dozen parties; usually, less people are involved. this one is messier precisely because it is more needed. So I favor un-archiving it in its present form. the mediator can impose rationality; that is the whole point of a mediator. --Sm8900 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the mediator cannot "impose" anything. I fear that if the science camp achieves relative consensus but the skeptical camp sticks to its position, the only way to achieve final closure would be with ArbCom. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection proposal

I would support unprotection to include yesterday's Summary for Policymakers, if and only if we can gain a Wikipedia consensus in the text to be included about it first. I think this is a great opportunity to see how well the sides are willing to work together. James S. 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a start:

U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers Friday that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions according to Patricia Romero Lankao, a lead author from NCAR. The original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." But the second sentence does not appear in the final version of the report.

China objected to wording that said "based on observed evidence, there is very high confidence that many natural systems, on all continents and in most oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." The term "very high confidence" means researchers are at least 90 percent sure of their findings. When China asked that the word "very" be stricken, three scientific authors balked, and the deadlock was broken only by a compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.[3]

Any objections? James S. 07:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind if the article remains protected. I do not mind if it is unprotected. I am less concerned about specific edits than I am about the overall article and I am less concerned about that than I am about the suspicious approaches taken by editors towards people who want to improve wikipedia without bias. --Blue Tie 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is biased some way. The best improvements add balance. James S. 12:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Using this page

Currently, users are being directed to the talk page for Global warming. However, so far, no mediation has occurred at the article's talk page. all that has occurred is further discussion. and besides the talk page is not the place for mediation; this page is. I would like to suggest that we continue to use this page. Hope that sounds good. Thanks. --Sm8900 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)