Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Climate Change

New proposal created!

I've created the basic page and filled in some of the blanks. It's now very late and I need to get offline, but I will be back tomorrow and can flesh the page out more then. If anyone else feels like pitching in to help, please do.

Cadar (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I'd like to have a more neutral description of the scope of the Wikiproject, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force#Scope. That climate change is a threat to human welfare is generally accepted, but that it's a existential threat is a small minority view among experts. Also, you duplicate mention of the threat, without having a neutral description of what's going on (the increase in greenhouse gas concentration causes warming, causing more extreme weather, sea level rise and blah blah). Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback It was 2:30 AM when I was threw this together and just filled in blanks with whatever came to mind. By all means contribute with any changes you deem necessary. Right now I'm fed up with Wikipedia, having been dragged into a ridiculous dispute over another article. I'm also tired since I was woken up very early. It's best I take a break for now. I'll be back when I can, within the next day or two.

Cadar (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Thanks for the feedback on the project page. Hope the language of the (somewhat) updated description is better. I can write a lot about this, I'm just not getting the time right now Please don't forget to add your own username under the support section! Assuming you do, of course

Cadar (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Femkemilene: I took the description from the task force page as suggested - thanks for that! - but then found I had a lot of ideas of what else needed to be added. Hope it's more to your liking. It's grown much more than I had planned; I don't think there's anything unnecessary on the list, but any comments, suggestions or whatever you might have are welcome

Cadar (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How do we search mainspace for articles?

I would like to do a trawl of any articles which have climate-related subject matter, but the problem is that if I do a Wiki search for "climate", all that happens is I'll be redirected automatically to the Climate article. How does one avoid that? Any ideas?

I think the overwhelming majority of climate related articles already has been tagged as being part of the climate change task force, I'm sure there is some way to find it via that page. The help desk might help you with the specifics. I'd really like to have that assessment table that envitonment has specifically for climate change articles. Would be lovely to see how many of our top and high importance articles need improvement.

Good idea, I'll take a look through the task force page and see what I can dig out. Might need to wait on this, though: I've suddenly had real life issues intruding on editing time, not least of which is badly blocked drains which has been a three day nightmare and are still not resolved If you have the time and can do anything for the project at the moment, please feel free. I'm just not getting the time I need for it myself right now.

For searching: I usually put a typo in my wiki search, so that I get directed to the search page. Then I type in what I actually want to search. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Lovely bit of out-of-the-box thinking there, plus subversion of the system! You're a rebel after my own heart

Thanks! Cadar (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cadar: I would also suggest looking at Category:Global warming, which looks like:

UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: Many thanks for the help! I'll add this to my list of things to look into. Do you have any idea about the question in this section: searching namespace for anything which has "climate" in the article title without automatically being redirected to the climate article itself? That's something I'd like to know for use elsewhere, but it does apply here. If I can get a raw list, I can just save the page out and throw it into a text editor with a macro to strip the unnecessary HTML, etc. code off it and give me a basic list to work from. Or whatever. But it does need a list from somewhere as a start.

Cadar (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cadar: here's what you do: put your cursor in the search box, but don't type anything, just hit enter. That will send you to the advanced search page. If you expand the Advanced Search section, you will see the "Page title contains" row, and you can type "climate" there, then click on search to get all the pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Aha! That's what I'm looking for. Thanks Life is so much easier when things work nicely!

Hmm, so a quick glance at the box shows, eg. 9c and 3P next to each item. Does that mean 9 categories and 3 pages? And then our remit for the purposes of the proposal would be to trawl all those categories (I think I have the majority listed already - yay for lists and macros!) and pages and add the ones which would fall under our purview - is that right?

Things are starting to make a bit more sense now

Yes, 9C and 3P mean 9 categories and 3 pages. But don't worry about listing any additional articles in your proposal: we really only need some examples, which you have already listed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I thought it needed an exhaustive list. Great, then I'll run through the list of hits I've found and pull out the ones of the greatest relevance and use them as examples.

Next question: How much description is needed? As stated elsewhere, I have written a lot about this subject in the past and continue to do so almost daily. I can trawl my own writing to rustle up some necessary content, or work up something new if needed. How much would be too much/little?

And I think the description is fine as is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I may be inspired to add more, but for now I've got other things to worry about, so it's low priority.

And another question: There's a section entitled "List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles". What does that entail? Which articles? The ones we'd be taking under our wing, i.e. the ones in the first list on the page? Do we need to check each of them and retrieve that info to compile this list? And if that's the case, isn't there a slightly less laborious method? Like, looking at the list of Wikiprojects? Also, why do Wikiprojects on the articles matter to this one? Is it so we don't end up working at cross purposes?

Again, does not not need to be a complete list of all related WikiProjects: the ones you have listed are fine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK.

Fourth question (although I might have lost count, but I think the last of the ones I have right now): How do we find interested editors? I'm pretty certain that about 99% of editors never check the proposals page for projects they might be interested in, which then begs the further questions: short of spamming the talk pages of related articles (and trawling them for editors), how do we find interested editors, and how do we get them on board?

To find other editors, I would suggest 2 routes: 1) post on the talkpages of the main articles a notice that you have proposed this WikiProject, with a link to this proposal 2) go to the major articles covered by the project and then click on "View history" at the top of the page; check the list of edits to see editors who have made major additions or many edits to the page, and reach out to them on their talk pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A cunning plan And that answers the other question, about whether it was poor etiquette to advertise the project on related the talk pages of related articles.

I think those are the biggest queries I have right now. I'm sure others will occur to me

Again, thanks for volunteering to help! Most appreciated.

Cadar (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Responses are in-line above; ping back with any follow-up questions. And thanks for your work on this! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Got them all, many thanks. It's getting late here and I'm yawning. I'll pick it up tomorrow. Night!

Cadar (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: One more question. The category list has "(number of pages in the category: )" after each item on the list. Presumably we (OK, "I") must find that number and fill it in. Does it need to be every article in each category, just a sample of relevant ones, or what's the protocol here?

Now I really am off to bed. I swear! Back tomorrow.

Cadar (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @UnitedStatesian: I've done a rework of the current content on the page, general tidy-up and fleshed out the description to more fully cover our remit. Let me know what you think

Cadar (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles relating to mass media and climate change - a separate subject under our remit?

Some comments in a recent conversation got me thinking, and I'm wondering: is it worth adding the mass media as a subject under the remit of the project? As stated elsewhere, the mass media has a huge influence on the general public's conception, understanding and attitude towards the situation. Are there any articles relating to that specific subject? Should there be? Should that be something we need to deal with?

Cadar (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

One veteran climate editors thoughts

UPDATE - I've come around to supporting as explained late in this threadNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
love the passion. Not sure of the cost-benefit yet.

In the past, the topic was a flashpoint for conflict. Its great to see that mostly mellowed out lately, but..... if you don't already know about the unhappy reality of "discretionary sanctions" someone will probably tell you so I might as well do so in a friendly way. Once an ed is technically aware that DS applies, any admin can impose a sanction BAM! that fast. It usually comes with plenty of warning.

The proposal has a project newbie mistake in my opinion. The proposal description states, in WP:WIKIVOICE, that there is a "climate change situation" which faces Earth now and is an immediate threat both to mankind and to the planet as a whole. However I evaluate that claim personally is moot. The text is classic editorializing which we aren't allowed to do anywhere except maybe in User space.

Cultural inertia will be the biggest obstacle. We already have a de facto task force, made up of regulars and page watchers at top article Talk:Global warming. In the past when someone has tackled one of the big parts of the proposed work they've started the thread there, or posted a DIFF to another venue there. Everyone who is really interested (as measured by watchlisting the top article) sees it. So the main challenge I foresee is getting established regulars to perceive value in contrinbuting to the project page to make it hum. One adage goes "Build it and they will come" and in this case that means not just creating the project space but once built trying to do the work here. Then use Abundant pointer-DIFFs (per WP:MULTI) at the main articles (global warming, climate change, scientific opinion on climate change, etc) to call attention to discussions taking place here.

But in the end, if the herd of mules wants to keep doing the work on the fly via the de facto task force at main articles, that isn't the end of the world either. So..... those are a few comments. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW... why are we trying to create a new "project, instead of just forging ahead with the same work under the already-existing (but inactive) "task force"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for the input Oddly enough, although the offending sentence might sound shrill to someone who doesn't much care either way about CC, it was factual. However, I've removed it. Feel free to suggest (or make) any further changes you think might be necessary.

Regarding discretionary sanctions, I'd be quite happy if that were to be exercised pretty much up front if it was thought necessary. I'm well aware of how contentious the subject is and was rather surprised to find myself being personally attacked when we proposed the name change global warming -> climate change per WP:Commonname, which I still firmly believe does apply. At that point I stepped away from the discussion, having expressed my thoughts on the subject. Any-way ... moving on.

Regarding the upgrade of the task force, that was discussed in some detail and fully agreed on by all participating editors at the task force talk page, hence the creation of the CC project. It's kind of taken on a life of its own - to be honest, I probably would have gone ahead and proposed the project anyway, because the subject is certainly large enough, current enough and important enough to warrant it. There are a number of editors who care enough about the subject to get involved in a long-winded and sometimes acrimonious discussion about a simple name change of a single article, so to my mind there's no reason why they can't use some of that excess energy on actually working on the Project. Perhaps I'm just naive Oh, and I just capitalised it for the first time! How's that? Henceforth, let it be "the Project!"

Update: (and in response to some of NAEG's comments here and on the proposal page itself) the project has been proposed and is now a work in progress for myself and anyone else who wants to engage. I will stay engaged with the task force, but there my role will probably be mostly confined to copy editing rather than creation of new content except in rare circumstances. The CC project - assuming it does get sufficient support to be approved - will become my full time baby and I'll be reducing my involvement in other projects and task forces to make time for it. I'm assuming that supporting editors who have made known their intention to be involved will do so; editors who do not want to be involved don't have to be, and they can maintain the task force if they feel their efforts are better spent there - not sure why they would, especially since the TF is all but dead in the water - but they're welcome to do what they feel they should. Regardless, the project is now happening and has a life of its own. I haven't taken the time to start widely promoting it and asking for more support because I'm waiting until we have ironed out all issues (e.g., NPOV content, etc.) and we have reached a consensus on all aspects of it. Once we're there and everyone is happy, I intend a blitz to get the word out to all editors and get all concerned/interested editors on board. At that point I think the project will gain sufficient momentum to fully warrant approval and will then be live. So discussions about continuing with the current task force or trying to revive it are - for myself - certainly redundant.

Cadar (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Cadar (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

My next comment was cross posted with Cadar's update at 10:02.... oops NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's great.... GREAT!! .... to see you and Sean and other new climate editors. I want to help make an atmosphere where you want to stick around. So thanks. But this doesn't mean I will agree and if I don't agree that doesn't mean I want to fight or attack. Thomas Jefferson famously spoke of disputes among "rational friends". So in that spirit....

You mention prior discussion at the task force as though its sort of a done deal. I learned about that prior discussion over there after making my earlier comments over here. So I'm late to the game and I apologize for not saying these same things when it first came up.

Getting back to the substance....

"Momentum" among a small handful of active participants does not tell us why we should do a project. There is administrative overhead with projects, which Project:Environment has already done and can teach us about. From all that I've read, none of the eds in this discussion (including me) have any real experience working in task forces or projects. The only real reason for doing a project instead of a task force that I have gleaned from all the discussion is because at least two of our new climate editors (thank you thank you thank you ) have had bad experiences with the veterans (sorry sorry sorry ). The convincing argument I need to hear would answer this question In what way are the existing tools under the climate change task force inadequate, and in what way would these problems be addressed if we convert the task force to a stand alone project?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the word of encouragement, although I've been a WP editor for almost 15 years now; most of my contributions would fall under the "WikiGnome" heading. In the past I've been less closely involved than I am now, due to various circumstances in my life most of which no longer apply, hence my higher level of engagement. And since I'm actively engaged in the CC world in other capacities, and I identified an obvious gap which to my mind clearly requires filling in WP, my energies have been directed towards creating the project and running with it. Regarding why the project as opposed to the task force? Again, I think I've answered that in detail sufficiently previously, but two further and obvious reasons which might answer your last question: independence; and a set of our own tools which we can customise for our own use. The only advantage of the task force is less bureaucracy, but that's far outweighed by being a sub-part of a project and beholden to its oversight, and the lack of subject-specific tools for supporting the task force's work. Further, and perhaps redundantly, the task force is all but dead in the water. I for one am not particularly interested in trying to revive an almost inactive TF which as such is inadequate for the size, importance and complexity of the subject. That's just wasted energy. And, as a final reason, and to reiterate, importance. WP simply needs a dedicated project for this subject. Had I known there was no project previous to my engagement with the task force, I'd have gone ahead with creating it anyway.

Cadar (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, distilling down to the crux I've heard two tangible things. If that reads on the page like trivializng I am sorry I can't form the words better. Please see the box at the top of my talk page. I'm trying to give a Cyclic redundancy check to make a strong consensus by making sure we understand the key points. So with that said...

The tangible advantages I hear are

* Independence from Project:Environment oversight

* Creating subject-specific tools that do not exist as a task force under Project:Environment

* (please add any others I stupidly overlooked)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in a nutshell you've listed the two main reasons for choosing (or upgrading to) a project over a task force. To your list I would add the other two reasons mentioned most recently by me: importance of the subject - and that can be objectively weighed by the amount of traffic the entire subject and all its related articles gets alone (in a word, "huge"), quite apart from the WP-independent facts - and the current state of the TF. Part of my reasoning behind floating the project is to make a clean sweep and start over with new blood, new energy and new perspectives on a new project which can - sure, carry the torch forward for the defunct TF - but also just fill a critically unfilled gap in WP mainspace.

Cadar (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

How any given editor views the importance of a topic might be vital to that person's decision to volunteer in this way, but it is not one of the beaucratic reasons to package the work as a project instead of a project alternative. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I can think of at least a few reasons to start up this project:

1. Cadar is enthusiastic about doing it. We should empower enthusiastic volunteers to the greatest extent possible, unless they want to do something that has harmful side-effects.
2. There are many articles that merit being rated and prioritized from a climate change perspective, that don't really belong in WP:Wikiproject Environment. For instance, Variable renewable energy and Grid energy storage are tremendously important concepts in terms of mitigating climate change but are not part of Wikiproject Environment.
3. # The term task force is usually used to mean a temporary group that's mandated to work on a problem until it gets solved.
4. Renaming it could, all other things being equal, help us recruit new members. Which of the following sounds catchier, and more important and convincing: "Please join WikiProject Birds" or "Please join the Birds Task Force of WikiProject Animals"?

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Clayoquot:! I have not processed these points yet, but this is exactly the sort of thing I need to hear to help think this through, so thank you for sharing! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't find points 1, 3, or 4 in the various Wikispace pages that disucss task forces and projects. If you think such things do appear in the guidelines, please share a DIFF to help me learn about task forces and projects! For point number 2, it would be interesting to hear from Project:Environment what they think their scope might be. For one thing, that page includes a mention of a sub-topic that is still classed as a UserProject (sustainabile technology). I have followed those links to the author and left them a note inviting them here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, what guidelines are you referring to? Do any of them give a reason to believe that after Cadar does the work that he has so graciously offered to do, we will shake our heads and say, "Ooh, it was a mistake to let Wikiproject CC exist and we should have let the task force continue down the glorious path that it was on? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council and sub pages. One thing that shouts! from these pages is the goal is community collaboration, and your reply is emphasizing the willing effort of a single ed. That's great and all, but it isn't the stuff of a of a longterm sustainable group effort. And besides that, you've change the question which to restate is In what way are the existing tools under the climate change task force inadequate, and in what way would these problems be addressed if we convert the task force to a stand alone project?" Can you add bullet reasons that are not already in this thread? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I've finally seen the light and now support this effort. If you're interested, here is some of my reasoning. Number of articles, I agree with Cadar's and Clayoquot's observation that there are lot of articles. Without doing an analysis of the number (how to steps are here), I'm confident there are at least a few hundred (putting it in the grey area between task force and stand alone project)... and maybe quite a bit more (more articles is a reason to do a project instead) . Specific tools, I'm new to WikiProjects so it took a while to load the general concepts in my brain. If I understand correctly, the only substantive tool that requires a stand-alone project is the ability to grade climate change articles on the basis of subject-priority of an article compared to others withing the scope of the project. We'd do the same quality assessment no matter what. As a task force we already have the cute little templates under Project:Environment. I suppose the the WikiProject banner might have some nuances that are a little different as a standalone vs a Project:Environment task force but I don't know what they would be. False hope This refers to my initial desire to remain a task force. I'm a collaboration nut and at one point in this discussion all participants said they didn't know much about WikiProjects. So I was eager to be a WikiProject apprentice under Project:Enivornment's mentorship. Oops. It seems there's no one home over there after all. Apologies and caution Thanks for bearing with my thought process and if I've alienated anyone, I'm still here, ready to try to (re)build bridges. I believe that to succeed its important to just do great articles, and leave our opinions about how much climate activism matters (as a good or bad thing) to off-wiki. If we don't stick to that protocol, we invite drama as more people of varying POVs decide to challenge us on that stuff, instead of the work of producing useful content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy section, "Explicit Remit"

While we discuss this, I have removed the following from the project proposal page

Why start a new group, instead of joining an existing group?

No other existing WikiProject has the explicit remit of coordinating all articles relating to what may be the single most important situation facing humanity right now. This project seeks to redress that and bring climate change into sharp focus, as well as to maintain an up-to-date body of knowledge of the current state of the situation as it develops and evolves.

I moved this here for discussion for two reasons.

First, much of this topic falls under an arbitration ruling, WP:ARBCC. In part, the final ruling has a section on principles in which there is a paragraph that reads as follows

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

7) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Second, whatever the intent, the phrase explicit remit of coordinating all articles can too easily be perceived as an assertion of WP:OWNERSHIP, inappropriate extra clout for determing WP:Consensus, and runs risk of stepping on toes of other projects and task forces who also think articles fall under their "remit".

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

remit

noun [re'emit, ri mít] (plural remits)

1. area of responsibility: the scope or area of responsibility belonging to a particular person, group, or investigation

e.g. This matter is beyond the remit of the committee.

Source: MS Encarta®

This is the exact sense under which I used the word, and no other. There are other definitions—it's a verb as well as a noun—but none of them have any bearing on the subject. None of them have any connection with "ownership", express or implied. Every task force and project on Wikipedia has a remit. That's literally their reason for existence. Some of those remits overlap, but that does not imply ownership in any context. It merely implies overlapping areas of responsibility.

Regarding the rest of your comment, are you perhaps suggesting that climate change is not objectively important? Really? Then why are you even involved with editing the articles, or this project? What's the point if it's not important?

Cadar (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cedar: let me reply as a third person, with the aim of preventative mediation if that's a thing (I interpret your answer as you being frustrated, correct me if I'm wrong).

First of all, I agree with you that the word remit does not imply ownership.

However, I think the problem NEAG identified is not mostly about the word remit (NEAG: correct me if I'm wrong), but about two other word choices in your statement. Specifically: single most important issue and redress. I think it is fair to say that calling climate change the single most important issue is not completely neutral. There are probably RSs out there that call income inequality, resource scarcity, upcoming nationalism and biodiversity loss more important than climate change.

Not giving a value statement about how important climate change is in the proposal, but simply stating that it has a large amount of articles under its remit (which is indirectly because it is considered important by RSs) will make it more likely that your proposal passes. I don't think NEAG implied CC was not important.

Please keep in mind that written text can be interpreted quite negatively, and try to be more civil than IRL social convention require of us :). Assuming good faith is really important! Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Femkemilene: Thanks for the input. And you're right, I am frustrated, although that's not relevant to this discussion. I'm perfectly calm as I write this.

Regarding what I wrote in the description, I realise that there's a sensitivity to expressing points of view on Wikipedia, and I'm refraining from expressing mine. The perception that the climate change "situation"—because we've already established that "crisis" is a trigger word here—is the most important issue facing mankind right now is not merely inside my head. It's now generally understood by even the informed lay person to be one of two existential crises situations facing the planet's life in general and the human race specifically. There is much more than a 75% scientific consensus on this point. The uncontrolled, "free" media are talking about it every day. There's a push within the media to stop referring to the "situation" as "climate change" and to refer to it as a "climate crisis". They understand at least something of what is at stake and its importance, and are trying to make that understood to the general reader. The other crisis—sorry, "situation"—we face is one of biodiversity, which is probably as important, but has only become an issue made public within the last five or ten years at most; that alone gives it less significance right now. Ergo, by a process of simple logical reasoning, and considering the facts, climate change is important and needs a priority given to starting a project to deal with all its ramifications here on Wikipedia. I simply stated that importance.

Furthermore, climate change has been known to be an impending problem for 30 or 40 years, and we're still failing spectacularly to deal with it. If we don't get it under control in the next decade, we will in all probability lose the battle and be facing, not just "climate change", or even a "climate crisis", but a "climate catastrophe". Taken to extremes it may well result in a runaway greenhouse effect and mass extinction. This is what I understand from my extensive research over the last few decades on the subject in the science, and also believe to be the case, but this is literally the first time that I have used the expression "climate catastrophe" on Wikipedia. Again, this is not my opinion. My opinion is irrelevant. These are the facts. You can look them up. I can give you references if you can't find them. As editors on Wikipedia, we are concerned with conveying the facts—not our opinions—clearly and concisely to the general reader. It makes no sense to self-censor or to refrain from expressing the gravity of the situation in order to avoid upsetting other overly-sensitive editors here on Wikipedia, because of a bunch of self-imposed rules which do not apply when discussing the bare, hard facts of consensus reality, as supported by the science. I stand by my (self-censored) descriptive statement as I last edited it, every word of it. My only issue with it is that it's too restrained, considering the facts.

What I do find interesting, and ironic considering the rationale for this entire section of the talk page, is that the piece of text pasted above by NewsAndEventsGuy actually has little to no bearing on this discussion. I'm copying and pasting the entire text here before explaining my statement:

7) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

My points:

1) There is no advocacy on my part for any point of view. As already clearly and unequivocally stated, I'm just trying to express the facts, which is what I'd perhaps mistakenly been led to believe was the job of editors here.

2) The notion that "my own interests" are my motivation for my contributions is actually laughable. If "my own interests" were of any significance whatsoever, I literally wouldn't even be on Wikipedia, because spending my time and money coming here to contribute and then have to defend myself is very far from in "my own interests". How "my own interests" could even be best served by my wish to merely highlight the facts of the climate "situation" is utterly beyond my understanding.

3) "Significant viewpoints"? Really? How significant is the scientific consensus and the viewpoint of the uncontrolled mass media in this "situation"? I don't think this needs further comment from me.

4) My description was not written for an article. This page is not an article page, nor even an article talk page. The project proposal page is not an article page. The text above only mentions articles. I've laid down a challenge which I will now repeat here: any editor can access my entire editing history. They are welcome to look through that history and find just one example of a lack of NPOV, "my own interests", my "personal feelings" or even my "particular view" anywhere in any article which I have edited, and to call me out about it. I will gladly answer for it, and accept any sanctions imposed by any editor or administrator as a result of it.

Regarding the civility of my comments, I make it a habit to re-read and self-edit them before posting them, and tone down any offensive language. I am not rude. I merely don't sugar-coat what I write for the sake of accuracy and the sake of wasting as little time as possible, especially considering how much time and energy I have to expend defending myself and my good faith edits. Which, I might add, are ALWAYS in "good faith", although that expression seems to have a malleable and fluid meaning here on Wikipedia. In the hands of some editors it's just a weapon. I stand by every word I write. It would be nice if other editors could make the same effort, but that clearly isn't going to happen. Regarding how comments may be taken, it's worth bearing in mind that the expression of an opposing viewpoint is neither rude nor confrontational.

Anyway, having written all of this, and in light of other issues and comments and personal attacks which have been directed against me, I'm beginning to think I made a mistake getting involved at all. I came here to contribute with editing. Instead, I've found myself spending more time having to defend myself—like this—than I have in editing. which is madness. Clearly both myself and my (still unexpressed! Can you imagine if I had expressed them?) opinions are not really welcome here. It's probably best if I rather withdraw from this project and the task force and find other routes to direct my energies which don't result in me being constantly second-guessed or argued with.

Cadar (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I always find it sad to see people go that contribute positively and I think have the potential to grow into better editors, especially considering the work you've already done for this WikiProject.

1) Great :). Considering many of the newspaper articles have a POV in presenting facts around climate change, we need a way to discuss this POV without giving the original poster the impression that they are attacked.

2) I don't think anybody has expressed concern about you 'breaking' this specific part of the policy. The text by NEAG was a copy of an entire paragraph from the policies.

3) I think this sentence in its entirety might have been the reason of concern. reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. I think that the policy, while wise and all, is the most difficult for us editors. Even for me as a more experienced editor and climate scientist, I often really ask around and Google Scholar around to see what viewpoint on different aspects of global warming are mainstream and which aren't. It's not a shame if people make mistakes in it, and we should create a culture in which we can express concern about this without attacking or getting defensive (not saying you are defensive btw). You can see the discussions we had on including projections for SLR for instance for its difficulty. I have caught high quality media making mistakes in this as well.

4) I've not checked look at your edits in main space, but I do think it's good to maintain a calm demeanor on Project pages as well (I know I sound like some old grandma using the word demeanor. Blame it on English being my second language). I understand your passion, but it does raise concerns, even if people do agree with your opinions.

All in all, I hope you stay and that you appreciate that concerns around POV statements need to be aired sometimes. If it is aired in a personal attack, maybe you can send a message to the editor expressing how they can better voice their concern without attacking a person's integrity. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope you stick around, too, @Cadar:. A few comments....

(A) Is climate change all the things you said? You're singing to the choir here, I think.

(B) Should we follow the Guardian's lead viz-a-viz "climate crisis"? Same answer.

(C) Can we follow the Guardian's lead viz-a-viz "climate crisis"? This is where we have a problem. Just as the Guardian's editorial board had meetings and engaged in a decision-making process, which was then documented, we would have to win a community consensus in favor of an exemption to the standard WP:NPOV policy to speak of a "climate crisis" in WP:Wikivoice. Even if successful, we'd need to also present the community consensus to WP:ARBCOM seeking a modification of WP:ARBCC#Principles. And if that were successful, there's still the chance that the foundation would gag on our plans. It's theoretically doable, from a process point of view, but just launching forth on the strength of your/our editorial opinion exposes you/us to charges of WP:NOTHERE advocacy. Nevermind what we intend, we would be asking for accusations in our direction. So sure.... pursue an exemption and permission to change the framing according to our rules and policies. The Guardian did that before making their announcement. If you try to use our procedures to accomplish such a goal, I won't object, but I won't boldly advocate either. My belief is that superb, comprehensible, punchy articles will speak louder than any spin or framing we could apply, and that's where my interest lies. Meanwhile, I'm not interested in boldly putting this framing out there without jumping those hoops. Not only am I not interested in doing it myself, I'm opposed to anyone else doing it because such a procedural shortcut invites drama that would tie us up and maybe suck me into allegations by association. Better to keep above the muck whether you try to get permission to that reframing or just work on content that would appear either way.

(D) There's more to say of course, but I think the really important part is in paragraph (C) so I'll leave it at that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A few thoughts: The Neutral Point of View policy applies to articles. "Backstage" pages such as WikiProject pages are not required to follow NPOV. They only have to abide by the considerably looser standards of WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Having said that, it is good for the description of a WikiProject to be inclusive of a range of reasonable beliefs, in order to include a wider range of people. I think Femkemilene did a great job of explaining how reasonable people can agree that climate change is a big problem, but disagree on whether it is the single most important issue in the world. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: A WikiProject isn't just about tools and banners on talk pages. It's also about creating a mini-community where editors support each other as they work on difficult subjects because mutual support gives them freaking hope. Let's try to remember that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hope is why I work on the climate pages and am interested in this project, and that's obviously true for some of you too.... but hope has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. On the one hand, I agree... a narrow technical read of the NPOV policy suggests it is about article space specifically. I might be the only editor in this conversation with any experience of DS under the ARBs ruling in WP:ARBCC. We are obligated to proceed under WP:ARBCC#Princples. Hope isn't on that list but community buidling certainly is. Sec 2.1.1 The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. in part that takes assuming good faith. I'm raising issues and disagreeing and being accused of making personal attacks for my effort. That doesn't bode well for respectful disagreement, so please let's remember that too. And while the narrow read of NPOV policy correctly suggests its limited to article space, let's try to avoid wikilawyering to defeat the spirit of our P&G. This has happened before, and the ARBs addressed this in WP:ARBCC#Neutrality_and_conflicts_of_interest saying advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. This means we can certainly have an article titled "Climate crisis" that is about the phrase and reframing efforts for which there are abundant RSs, but we run afoul of the ARB ruling when we declare a crisis in Wikivoice. On the other hand, as I said before, there is a way we can do that by winning a community consensus and a modifiation of ARBCC. This isn't a personal attack on anyone, its just how this place works, for those of us who do not want to invite future challenges by the blessedly currently quiet denialists. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Next steps

Looking at the list of supporters and the discussion above, it looks as if we have consensus that the WikiProject should go ahead. Unfortunately, it also appears that Cadar, our original volunteer to spearhead the effort, has lost a lot of enthusiasm in the process.[1] I suggest that out of respect for Cadar, we give him at least a few days to think over and confirm whether or not he wants to do this, and if the answer is negative we can see if someone else might volunteer. In just a few weeks, Wikimania 2019 will have a theme around sustainability, and I suspect that could be an opportunity to widen our circle of participants. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we'll wait a few days for Cadar. Really hope they're staying. Is anybody here going to the Wikimania to get some more editors in? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

While we wait for Cadar, I found this description of how we might organize, with emphasis on the role of "project coordinator" we are discussing. For some reason the section pinpoint link isn't working. Scroll down to the section "Control and organization" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

First step

I'd like to suggest that the first step should be getting expert guidance from the wikiproject people on gracefully converting the task force to a project in such a way as to preserve, as much as possible, a seemless archive history of the task force's work, integrated with the new archive we're going to start building as a project. And any other conversion issues, too of course. For one thing, what happens to all the discussion here at the proposal stage? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm thinking is that this is uncharted territory even for experts here (judging from lack of answers on your questions). I think the conversion is as 'simple' as

1. Move task force to new page
2. Move subpages of task force to WikiProject
3. Move this page to subpage of WikiProject and link from main page
4. Have a bot retag all the articles. I've asked the experts for whether there is a bot available for this already. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There are a very few subpages (listed here). Since there are more than none, iwe might accidentally break something if we do it manually. To prevent this, maybe we should get help from someone with the sub-page mover power. See Help:Moving_a_page#Moving_subpages NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This actually doesn't sound so bad. Pinging WhatamIdoing who I think understands the technical aspects of upgrading a task force to a Wikiproject, or would probably know someone who knows. Whatamidoing, do you have any advice for us here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I just boldly submitted an uncontroversial technical move request, seeking to execute the "conversion" from task force to stand alone project. Femke, once that happens I think it might be time to ask your contact at the project council to run their bot NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, thank you for moving all this forward! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Project now active - Next steps

FYI, the task force and sub-pages have been successfully moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change. Next steps as I see 'em

• Wrap up this proposal page and proposal talk page in some appropriate manner. Unless someone has a better idea, this might work

• Move the original proposal Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Climate_Change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Original project proposal (historic)
• Move this proposal talk page from [[ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Climate Change ]] >> Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change/Original project proposal talk page (historic)
• Tag both as "historic"
• Manually move any threads from the proposal talk page to the project talk page that are "current" and not about the proposal.
• Manually merge/import anything from the archived proposal page to the project page that seems needed/desirable

• Work on banner conversions for articles tagged for the task force

I think Femke has a lead on someone who can help us.

• Take stock to make sure its all working right
• Then run with it.

Do you have more or different ideas? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, re: the firt bullet above (what to do with the proposal page and the proposal talk page) I have asked for expert advice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile FYI - Climate crisis article

FYI, "Climate crisis" used to be a redir pointing at Global warming but today I took a first crack at an article about the phrase, and efforts to reframe the issue that way. Since others may make further changes, I'll just link you to the version history for "climate crisis". If you can make it better, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)