Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This article has caused concern for some years, though that appears to be due to the controversial nature of the subject matter rather than that it specifically meets deletion criteria, The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article. The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. These are editing issues. It is notable that a number of people opposing the article now and in previous AfDs seem to feel that the topic is appropriate, but that the article needs cleaning up. While AfD can and does discuss clean up issues, it should not be used as a substitute for tackling the issues on the article talk page nor for positive editing on the article itself. If problems are arising though attempts to clean up the article there are |more appropriate routes to go through than AfD. Arguments of fringe and undue are well countered both by the sources provided by Warden, and by awareness, as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy, that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated). Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do. However, the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation. The two most controversial aspects of the list are the name and the use of quotes. These aspects need to be dealt with, but not by listing on AfD. I suggest opening a name discussion – either by RfC or Requested moves, and when that is concluded hold a similar discussion on the use of quotations in the article to see if they meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Quotations. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

DRVs for this article:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is, by its very construction, in violation of several Wikipedia policies.

It's a WP:QUOTEFARM, every single one of which is a WP:POVPUSH, attacking Global warming. Little to no attempt to balance these WP:FRINGE views with mainstream is done. Indeed, this article is promoted by global warming denialists [1].

These problems are not fixable by editing; they're necessary outcomes of the way the list is created, which actually requires a quote for inclusion.

However, this leads to worse problems: This list is Original research (these names are not taken from any sort of reliable source, but from scanning primary sources for things that people think are anti-global warming), and a potential WP:BLP minefield, as it attempts to classify possibly nuanced views based on single quotes.

Further, it often synthesises an argument from multiple sources. Take Garth Paltridge, where the conclusion of the argument is from a different paper than the first part. This is not a single example, and, is, again, another source of potential WP:BLP violations - and very definitely WP:SYNTH ones.

But the worst issue is that we've seen these sorts of lists before. This isn't an encyclopedic article; this is a popular denialist technique: The list of experts that oppose a position. We do not copy the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, but instead discuss it, using reliable sources. We certainly don't attempt to make our own list, to assist them in their campaign. We don't create our own list of scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment that second-hand smoke causes cancer, full of pro-tobacco arguments, nor do we provide articles to let cranks "have their say" on why the earth is flat.

And yet, we have this article, clearly based on a common denialist campaign tactic, and it's survived four AfDs, with little-to-no change. Any encyclopedic treatment of this subject would need to be a fundamentally different sort of article, for which the article, as it stands, would offer no usable content.

Let's put an end to this. 86.** IP (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes and comments by interested editors[edit]

These positions do not have equal weight, however: According to http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/articles/Anderegg_ClimateConsensus_Report2009.pdf "Based on our external assessment and relative weighing of expert opinion, we conclude that for five questions, the scientific community has reached a de facto consensus (more than 95% agreement) aligned with the view of the IPCC." - if less than 5% of the scientific community hold the poosition, then it is Perfectly reasonable not to spend 25% of our coverage on them, and not at all unbalanced. Your keep argument is therefore in violation of WP:FRINGE. 86.** IP (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading a book about the history of mathematical proof recently. There's an amusing anecdote in this about Italian mathematics in which, for a period, theorems were decided by vote rather than by proof. That is laughable because such matters are not decided by a head-count. In any case, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong - time will tell. The point is that the dissenting opinions are notable and so we should not suppress them. If we record the views of the Flat Earth Society then we can do the same for other contrarians. Warden (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually an argument for deletion, since the whole page is essentially a stacked "vote" by including one side of an argument rather than working though issues. However, as a matter of fact such matters are in the real world decided by a head count, or rather by consensus, as are all such issues. A theorem is only a theorem because mathematicans agree that it is. There's nothing laughable about this, other than your own belief that truth can be identified beyond the communities of experts who have the capacity to judge the topic at issue. You may intuitively believe that that truth exists independently of consensus, but in really it cannot, or if it does it cannot be proven to do so, by definition. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Giving this its own article, particularly with the extensive quoting, is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. As well, the topic is so broad that such a list will inevitably be (and is) synthesis, both because of the grouping of these individuals together under one opinion and because of the interpretations of their primary-source writings. (BLP is an issue as well - because we're interpreting these individuals' writings of our own accord, we may very well be labeling people as opposing science who do not actually do so.) Warden's argument that this article is part of a set actually highlights why this doesn't need to be a separate article: dissent should be covered in the other articles, where it can be properly contextualized. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but fix any problems Disclaimer: my own POV I have to struggle with is ultraclimatehawk. That said, the fringe views in the article are partially offset by the image in the lead (showing degree of consensus for mainstream view) and the many other (good) articles that cross-ref this one. So what if some % of entries on this page violate WP:OR or WP:FRINGE or WP:(other), IMO, while that may all be true, the article itself serves as an important pressure relief valve for skeptics/denialists. If this article goes away, such editors will more aggressively push to include this type of info in the other climate articles. Maybe its not ideal, and maybe the presentation at present stinks, but the existence of the page serves an important pressure relief purpose IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As set out above, These problems are unfixable, because they come out of the very design of this list'. You can't fix OR and synthesis, Quotefarming, and the like, when the article's goal is to provide a set of denialist quotes, organised through original research, in order to... well, WP:POVPUSH the views of the denialists. There is literally no encyclopedic purpose served by this list, you cannot "fix" thisx except by deleting it. 86.** IP (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing their views is not the reason I want the list to remain, and you would know that if you read what I wrote and assumed I was telling the truth. You haven't spent time making other climate articles better, so I'm curious why you care about so much about deleting this particular one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was why you wanted to, I was explaining why it would be impossible to do what you ask. I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible. 86.** IP (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I don't see an intrinsic reason to oppose such a list; challenges to even the most widely-accepted consensus is a vital element of science. But the topic itself is thoroughly covered by the Global warming controversy article, and this list just seems to be repeating the same material. The content should be trimmed to a summary intro and a list of the cited scientists. The article name itself is awkward and should be changed. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a WP:COATRACK. Any minor opposition can be described in the relevant articles. Noformation Talk 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think Roscelese sums the problems up well - the problems with undue weight and synthesis are essentially insoluable with a list like this. Regarding NewsAndEventsGuy's comments on it having "an important pressure relief purpose", this is hardly a valid reason to retain it. Articles should be created for the benefit of readers, not to act as a sop to contributors unwilling to edit according to the agreed consensus. I know that this is a controversial issue, and I'm well aware that many people hold strong views, but that shouldn't sway our judgement when making decisions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently having OR and WEIGHT issues to it being formatted as a list like this; specifically grouping anyone who has ever expressed any disagreement with any facet of the current consensus on climate change together as a group for listing is a recipe for SYNTH that can't be solve without the deletion of the article. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mere existence of such an article is not an endorsement of these scientists' position, any more than list of communist parties is an endorsement of communism. The global warming denial movement is notable regardless of its scientific merit, and so are the people behind it. 169.231.54.151 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd argue that being "denialist" is hardly WP:FRINGE (and is likely to become even less so as time passes)...but if that's too POV, then simply because this is, in my opinion, an encyclopediatic list, provided WP:OR is stripped out. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list itself is WP:OR and there's no way for it not to be. No one but a Wikipedia editor has ever put together a list like this. Additionally, it's very doubtful that many of these names belong on the list. I see no policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so.... see [this list at Skeptical Science] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an index page to explanations of why anti-fglobal warming arguments are wrong. If you're going to sa that other lists of global warming deniers have been made, please make sure the pages linked to actually contain lists of anti-global warming people. 86.** IP (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please slow down and take a real look this time. For example, see the link "Oceans are cooling" under the subheading "it's cooling", which brings up [this]. There, you will see a statement attributed to skeptic/denier William DiPuccio. Click on one of the other common denier/skeptic arguments, and the page will start with a different statement attributed to another. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that this article should contain a multi-paragraph statement exapalining whta's wrong with every single quote? If not, not comparable. 86.180.228.28 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainly because it's OR. Secondly because of UNDUE. Shot info (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - by all means have another debate about how to improve the article or present the information in a better way, but I think it serves a useful purpose to the encyclopedia reader in providing context to the wilder claims of each side about the strength of their support in the scientific community, and I do not currently think it should be deleted. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After any OR and pointless quotes are removed there won't be much of an article left to keep. Most of the scientists don't even seem to be climatologists which is very odd. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: The article also contains scientists who aren't even qualified to speak about climate change such as Astronomers and Solid state physicists etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you saying, that physicists aren't scientists? Look at the title of the article Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am pointing out that the article has non-experts who are scientists commenting on global warming outside their own fields. The current title gives the impression that the people in the list will be experts on the subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't- it says "scientists" not "climate scientists", "experts" or "climatologists"Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not change the fact that people will infer that the scientists ARE experts, if they aren't experts then what is the point of having a list of non-experts? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Echoing other statements, WP:FRINGE is often misused to omit opposing information, which itself would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Lists in no, way, shape, or form, are endorsements of the viewpoints. Denial of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a notable and growing topic. Personally disagreeing with the views expressed by the scientists in question does not make the fact that the views exist any less notable. And WP:CONS is the ruling principle of what happens to articles on WP, not the near-religious and overzealous application of a half-dozen policies (that consensus can overide at any time) in effort to get rid of something you personally don't agree with. The consensus the last three times has been the same.—Matt (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - the last AfD closed as no consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Consensus can change and indeed it already did change in the last AfD.Griswaldo (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Where there is OR remove & discuss it, where there is POV remove & discuss it, but we don't delete whole articles that clearly have an encyclopedic interest. POV is not a deletion criteria nor is coatracking, we solve the problem, if there is nothing left then we look to delete it as no content. This hasn't been done yet. If there are examples of OR these should be taken up on the talk page, but having looked through the article all of the comments look well sourced and in context. Being a potential BLP minefield doesn't mean that it IS a BLP issue, since when do we delete articles because the have the potential to have issues. If the initiating editor can see BLP issues I suggest they immediately remove them and bring it up on the talk page. I would suggest that this nomination is based on a POV with such rhetoric as "...attacking global warming...". It is not wikipedia's job to defend a position or act on such POV, but it is Wikipedia's to reflect that there is a clear interest in finding out who these scientists are that are going against the consensual position. Khukri 13:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is ORIGINAL RESEARCH through and through. It establishes a novel inclusion criteria then forces Wikipedians to interpret primary sources to figure out if they meet this inclusion criteria. It is also a QUOTE FARM. If the article is kept quotes need to be moved to the citations and not be displayed on the page like this. The fact that people supporting this entry's existence are also reverting good faith efforts to remove the quote farm is a major problem.Griswaldo (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the introductory material, which is a little too close to making a judgemnt. The quotes in this case are a convenient way of showingthe views--we don 't usually do it, but in my opinion, it's justified. Reducing their length would introduce problems of selective quotation. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator confuses "minority" with "fringe". Although I don't think it's a very good article, I can't see much point deleting it.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix the problems noted, per Khukri and others. As a comment, the quote format is novel but seems effective, though some quotes could use pruning. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the excessive quoting effective? and effective at what? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can work on developing a consensus re the quotes after the AfD closes. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question. You're making an argument based on the fact that they are "effective." Unless you explain why/how your argument will appear to be without substance. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a comment in passing, as I hadn't really looked at this article in detail, prior to this AfD discussion. An AfD isn't really the appropriate place to discuss format issues, imo. I agree that the article needs work. Assuming it is retained, I'd be happy to work on the quote issue. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC). Comment revised 20:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing in an AfD and you haven't looked at the article in years, "if ever?" Can you please strike your argument in that case.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See clarification above. I looked at the article, talk page & this page carefully for this AfD discussion. Sorry for the confusion, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should use strike through so people can see what I was commenting on. You clearly said you might not ever have read this article in your comment before you changed it. Also, you are still not answering the question, which is not about form at all. You made an argument and someone asked you to explain it and you've been dancing all around it ever since. Please explain what the list is effective at doing. If you don't, once again, you're proving to us that you're just saying stuff without any grounding. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attack other editors who make good faith contributions. Also, the place for a discussion on improving the article is that article's Talk page, not the Deletion page. --Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's part of his keep statement, it should be fully explained here what he meant. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Colonel Warden's argument that this article is part of a "set" is self-refuting. There are, as he points out, several articles in which the issue is thrashed out. This article is structured in such a way that this completely trashes WP:NPOV. It's a list of names with potted summaries of arguments in one side of a dispute, and that a marginal, indeed largely fringe, position. It's pure propaganda for a non-mainstream position. The inclusion of quotations turns it from a genuine list into an advocacy aticle. Even as a mere list it has no utility, since "opposing the maistream view" is not a single position. Someone who believes the temperature will rise to the extent that we'll all be ash in five years time also "opposes the mainstream" view. There are many inconsistent and contradictory divergences of opinion, some of which are pure fringe and some of which are legitimate matters for debate. Including all these in a single list obfuscates matters and creates the impression that there is some sort of consistent, well-thought-through opposition opinion, rather than a jumble of individual disagreements about a variety of aspects of a complex topic. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About fixing problems Here is one way some of the objections might be addressed; I'm not suggesting we debate whether this is a good way or bad way here because this page should really just be about the existence of the page in any form. If the page survives AFD, interested editors can bash or cheer this approach on the articles talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This statement in the lead explains exactly why the article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and has no place at Wikipedia: "This article is an attempt to list notable scientists who have made statements in disagreement..." (and removing that statement would not fix the problem which is accurately described by the statement). Instead of editors combing through everything a scientist has said, articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break, for easier editing[edit]

  • Comment: the nominator and other editors argue that this list is WP:OR -- but, if so, so is every other list in the encyclopedia. Making a list involves editorial choices, generally by many editors. See, for example, the Revision history of the List of science fiction authors -- or virtually any other list in the encyclopedia.
The nominator appears to hold strong personal opinions on this topic. The list is said to be "attacking Global warming." It is said to be "a popular denialist technique." The article is is said to be "clearly based on a common denialist campaign tactic." Perhaps the nominator should review WP:Assume Good Faith. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apples to oranges Pete. You can find reliable secondary and tertiary sources that classify an author as a "science fiction" author without having to decide on your own based on his/her books. What we're asking editors to do here is to decide on their own based on primary sources. Apples to oranges.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources available for this topic as well -- one that comes to mind was a series of profiles of climate-contrarian scientists by Lawrence Solomon that ran at Canada' National Post AWB, and was (ims) made into a book: [2].
This cite should be added, but my point is that, for editors familiar with the topic, the prominent skeptics (and science-fiction authors, etc etc.) are already well-known, and so seldom cited to a secondary source in most lists. Thus the claim for OR is flawed, and can (and should) be readily fixed. Hardly a cause for deletion. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that '69.86...' may very well have got to the core of the issue here. We don't have a definition from a reliable source that allows us to distinguish scientists 'opposing', from scientists 'not opposing' - and on that basis, we should only be listing 'scientists expressing an opinion on the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming' - and due weight would seem to imply that 97% or so of the scientists are in the 'not opposing' camp. To give undue weight (and an article) to a small minority, on the basis of our own synthesis, is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and common sense. We are stating that the distinction is real, significant, and something more than an arbitrary classification, and then attempting to show that it is valid by compliing an arbitrary list of individuals we think fit into the category. This is circular logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would not be appropriate to have a list of scientists opposed to the theory of gravity (69.86.225.27). That would be a fringe view. This article is about a minority.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by User:Tigerboy1966 would be worthy of laughing dismissal if it weren't written with such implied authority. There are plenty of highly respected mainstream scientists who are working within the framework of consensus science to oppose or augment the mainstream theory of gravity in various ways. In contrast, the global warming denialists are all working outside the normal avenues of scientific discourse and have generally distinguished themselves by being extraordinarily oppositional to the normal epistemic discourse. This so-called "list of scientists" outlines a hodge=podge of opinions that are essentially all excluded from the academic discussion of the science of global warming due to the Not even wrong-iness of the arguments. Claiming that the scientists who oppose mainstream GR are somehow "fringe" while these denialists are just a "minority" is not only turning WP:FRINGE inside out; it's just plain ignorant of the state-of-the-art of mainstream science. It's arguments like this which make a strong case for why you shouldn't let anonymous internet users edit an encyclopedia that is striving towards accuracy. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am puzzled by the comments which say that the article includes primary sources. Experimental data would be primary. These are quotes from scientists commenting on a range of evidence from primary sources. That would make them secondary sources. Can someone explain this, please? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources are sources independently discussing the position of the scientist. The quote in this case are primary sources because it is looking at the actual quote the scientists have made and inferring their position from this. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tigerboy, whether a source is considered primary, secondary or tertiary depends on what it is being use to verify. In cases where you are trying to verify a claim about a person, anything that person says or writes is always considered primary. As you know the sources here are being used as evidence for claims made about people. As you also know those sources are all written by the people the claims are being made about. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP specifically allows us to use material written by the subject as a source, provided it is not unduly self-serving. In theory there could be an issue with unsupported interpretation of such sources, but in practice a statement such as "It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming" seems to leave no room for doubt as to the author's position. Gandalf61 (talk)
  • Delete and replace with something else - a proper article, not a list of names with a one-line bio each, and an isolated quote. All the present article says is that at this point in time (between about 1996 and the present) this person said this, which appears to contradict the present science. The present assessment may not have been the accepted science when they said that, they may no longer believe what they said then, what they said then may not have been central to their 'conclusions' at the time, they may not even know or care much about climate science but for whatever reason at that point in time they gave someone a usable quote. Most of this is meaningless. What we need is a proper article about the evolution of scientific thought, including the prevalence of scientific dissent where it occurred and was significant, in the field of climate science over the last 10 - 20 years. This isn't it. What we would write would be NPOV, and it would be based on scholarly sources on the subject at hand, e.g. history of science sources, not just various WP editors' random collection of favourite isolated primary-source quotes, in no particular order, with no narrative, no progression and no context. --Nigelj (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, it sounds like it could also be a home for most of the info in Global warming controversy, and then that ambiguous title could be freed up to become a disambiguation page, since "Global warming controversy" could refer to so many different aspects of the issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've tried to avoid looking at this article and the debates about it (because I make it a rule to avoid getting embroiled in disputes over the substance of controversial topics that I care about in real life), but today I broke my own rule and looked -- and I was appalled at what I saw, solely from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy. This is a work of original research and a WP:QUOTEFARM. It does not belong in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you outline the OR aspects as you see them please? Thanks Khukri 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this is original research: This is a hand-curated collection of quotations from 44 people who fit the extremely broad inclusion criteria of having at least one peer-reviewed article, at any time in the past (not necessarily recent) in some area of "natural sciences," broadly construed and not necessarily relevant to climate, who at least once made some sort of attributable statement that the curators of the article (not necessarily some other reliable source) interpret to indicate "disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the Third (or Fourth) Assessment Report of the IPCC." The interpretation of what constitutes "disagreement" is an original determination by Wikipedia contributors, the decision of who to include in the list seems to be subjective, the quotations are not presented in any context -- particularly not the kind of context that normally would be supplied by the kinds of reliable WP:secondary sources that Wikipedia is supposed to rely on (and note that it often is possible to distort a person's meaning by quoting them out of context), and the implications of the opinions have been characterized based on the judgment of Wikipedians who sorted them into article subsections. Not only is this original research, but there are multiple layers of original research here. --Orlady (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most regular Wikipedian contributors would think that this article had "something wrong with it". However, I've yet to see an argument that is persuasive enough to override WP:Use common sense, also known as WP:Ignore all rules. Does this article perform a useful encyclopedic purpose? Yes, it allows a relatively objective assessment of the state of scientific disagreement with the global warming consensus. Is it an article with a large amount of public interest? Yes, it's one of the most regularly accessed WP articles. Could it be improved- yes, but that's not a reason to delete it. It survived three previous deletion attempts. Does it break multiple WP policies- arguably yes, but not in a way which (in my judgement) outweighs the need for a reasonably well written article about the scientific fringe of the climate change consensus. In my view it allows "sceptics" to claim that some scientists disagree, while allowing "believers" to say that the disagreements are relatively minor and with a small number of scientists, and "objective" readers to make their own minds up. Allowing some assessment of these positions I think is a worthwhile enyclopedic endeavour in a topic of international interest. --Merlinme (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is a series of cherry-picked quotes from scientists (many with no expertise in climatology) going to give " a relatively objective assessment of the state of scientific disagreement with the global warming consensus"? If we are to allow "objective readers" to make their own mind up, we have to (a) present both sides of the debate, and (b) source it to the section of the scientific community which is actually qualified to debate the science. This article singularly fails to do either. I don't think there could be a clearer demonstration why Wikipedia needs rules... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't every quote on the whole of Wikipedia fall under 'cherry picked'? The title is those who are opposed to the mainstream ... it's about a certain position, there is nothing wrong with that what so ever for an encyclopedia, as can be seen by the other examples of lists shown above. People have said this article is OR, and it has been shown that there are lists throughout wikipedia that fit people/things into positions. I'd like to see what editors understand about OR, and how it applies to this list and how (if it does) is it different to any other list on Wikipedia. To address having an article from a position, it is not as though this is the only article on global warming, there are loads of objective articles that layout global warming in all its details, this article is simply a criteria to meet the common question, "Who are these scientists are going against concensus?". And regarding your points about sourcing it to the relevant scientific community, again there is a discussion on going on it's talk page exactly about reducing the article to those a have published in climate sciences. Khukri 05:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I'm surprised you think it doesn't present both sides of the debate. The lead lays out in some detail the consensus position; there's a graphic at the top of the article showing how the views in the article are a small minority in the scientific community. If that isn't balance, I'm not quite sure what is. --Merlinme (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with mentioning it on the fringe noticeboard? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable and encyclopedic topic - it is useful and interesting to see who disagrees with the mainstream view of global warming, and what arguments these people have put forward in published and reliable sources. WP:COATRACK argument is nonsense, because this article is not advocating a position or point of view; it is simply a rigorously sourced list. WP:SYNTH argument is also nonsense for the same reason - a list is not advancing a position, it is just a list. WP:BLP violation is not an issue as long as everything in the list is sourced. WP:BATTLEGROUND is a behavioural guideline, not a reason for deletion. The list could perhaps be cleaned up in places - and personally I am not a fan of the title - but that is not grounds for deletion either. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And WP:QUOTEFARM? Synth applies because the article advances a position that is not found in any secondary or tertiary sources. The entire list is such a position.Griswaldo (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:QUOTEFARM proscribes quotations that are not pertinent i.e. quotations which are not relevant to the topic being written about. All the quotations I can see in this list look very relevant to the topic of the list. And I am totally baffled by your view that this list is advancing a position - do you think that list of astrologers is promoting a belief in astrology, or list of modern dictators is advocating the overthrow of democracy ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not true. The guideline has several prescriptions which apply here, notably "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style". The very stucture of the use of quotation is unencyclopedic. Also, "Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations." That fits this case exactly. If "list of astrologers" included long quotations justifying astrology and denigrating its critics, then yes, it quite obviously would be "promoting a belief in astrology", as would a list of dictators, each supplied with quotations glorifying their achievements and pointing out failings of democratic regimes. This is pretty obvious really. Paul B (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      No, Paul B, it's not obvious. People keep throwing around WP:QUOTEFARM as if the article is clearly in violation, but you're cherry picking what is quite a carefully worded essay (which is worth repeating; QUOTEFARM is an essay, not an official policy). For example: "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit." It certainly does not say "delete any article which contains lots of quotes". It recommends avoiding quoteboxes, but that is a relatively minor issue which is already being discussed. --Merlinme (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) WP:QUOTEFARM is merely part of an essay - it's not a guideline at all. Having said that, I would be happy to see these passages cited rather than quoted. I see there has been some recent discussion of this at the list's talk page. I still don't see a valid argument for deletion here. Over and out. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The expression "this is pretty obvious really" referred, clearly, to Gandalf's spurious arguments about lists of astrologers and dictators. In fact I can't see how anyone reading it can think otherwise. I note that my comments on that particular argument haver gone completely unanswered. I never said the QUOTEFARM was a policy, only that its content applied legitimately to this article, which ity does. The fact that the essay also discusses misuse of quotations that do not apply to this article is wholly irrelevant. However, that too should be pretty obvious. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess what Gandalf61 and I are trying to say is that 1) if the quotes are "pertinent", the article doesn't even violate QUOTEFARM; and 2) even if it did violate QUOTEFARM, that would not be sufficient reason to delete the article. --Merlinme (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Once a dictator/astrologer, always a dictator/astrologer? One problem here is that no effort is put into researching the development of each individual's views. Any properly sceptical scientist will evaluate and re-evaluate data and research as they develop - and there have been many developments in climate science since the mid-1990s when some of the quoted statements were made. Yet we blithely list these people under 'scientists opposing' mainstream science forever on the basis on one quote, found by a wikipedian with no supporting text, argument or secondary source. I think underlying this approach is a tacit assumption that scientific views are like religious beliefs - you are either born with them, or you adopt them for life. Real science doesn't work anything like that, and the whole concept of listing 'fellow believers' as if it did is quite unsavoury to many. --Nigelj (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked through the article, I think the supporting text is in the quote and in the reference, if you have an example where this isn't the case, please remove it immediately as a BLP issue. Taking your personal development one step further then, should we remove all peoples beliefs from Wikipedia because we cannot guarantee its accuracy at the time of reading? Remove that Tom cruise follows Scientology because at 6:45 this morning he changed his mind? If there is evidence to suggest their view point has change we remove it, and I'm sure that with the number of global warming activists we have here they'd certainly find comments that Lindzen had changed his mind. Khukri 14:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article's role is to list "peoples beliefs" in mainstream science - like those of others in e.g. Scientology - then this is at odds with the actual scientific method. Secondly, I think there's more to collaboratively building good Wikipedia articles than putting up statements to see if "global warming activists" can find reasons to take them down again. --Nigelj (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have several articles on this topic. This one is inherently POV by virtue of its structure. No one is suggesting that all reference to these individuals and arguments should be eliminated, but that they should be placed in the proper context of the debate(s) they are part of, per WP:NPOV, which is a CORE policy. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary page break 2, for easier editing[edit]

  • Keep - Clearly yet another puerile attempt at a damnatio memoriae, which tactic in itself is offensive to the basic core values of nearly all of us. Whose encyclopedia? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. If these individuals are notable for their own articles they may have them. If their views are notable, they can be quoted in the relevant articles on the controversy. Your comment does not address any of this issues raised here. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't even care what the "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is, whether they think it is real or not. Whichever it is, there is nothing wrong with a list of prominent dissenters on any highly significant topic, but to object to such a list smacks of persecution of "heresy". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the compilers of the list themselves that have taken on the task of deciding who is a 'heretic' - based on their own research. If the individuals on the list are actually 'prominent dissenters', they should say so themselves, which there is no evidence for - just cherry-picked quotes, with no context (and indeed, no evidence that the individuals concerned still hold these views). The article is a gross violation of WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's just a POV Fork file full of original research with no encyclopedic purpose (list of trivia, essentially). Exists only to try to push a view. Should have been deleted last time through as the votes were clearly there. The BLP violations alone are astronomical. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
commentsee WP:NOTVOTE. You could have a thousand deletes, but if they just repeat or rephrase the same points they don't add to the debate or affect the outcome.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise for those !voting keep. I'm sure that the admin closing this discussion will be aware of this - so what exactly are you adding to the outcome here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was citing a specific WP behavioral guideline in response to a point made by another user who seemed to need some clarification on how AfD outcomes were arrived at. Is that wrong?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The !votes last time were about 38 keep to 42 delete with a few neutral or other ideas. The close of no consensus was therefore quite correct. Warden (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On the comments regarding undue weight I pretty much agree with Til Eulenspiegel above in that this seems like an attempt to eradicate material that many users disagree with. Articles on minority viewpoints by definition have a more constricted subject than articles dealing with the majority consensus. It is the former articles that lend themselves to lists of this nature, and not the latter. A list of all scientists who support the consensus global warming theory would be so large and expansive as to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but a list of scientists who oppose it is much more manageable and the result gives insight into their varying objections. Weak keep due to some potential OR issues. ThemFromSpace 22:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If " A list of all scientists who support the consensus global warming theory would be so large and expansive as to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE", then how is a reader going to really understand that this list is actually tiny? That is the way the POV is being worked here. To the casual reader, a few dozen looks like quite a lot. A few dozen lengthy quotes in emphasis boxes look like quite a landslide of considered opinion. Yet we can't show them next to the tens of thousands of other statements that make them look insignificant. In this 'list' format, apparently, we can't even discuss how the reasoning given in each quote box is easily shown to be false in the light of published peer-reviewed material, or that the facts stated are not verifiable, or out of date, or whatever is the case for each of them. In other words, this article uses every trick in the Wikipedia rule-book to escape having to give a NPOV treatment of the actual, specific material that it contains. I don't think it was designed like that by anyone in particular, but that is why it has become the coatrack, and the poster-child, that it now undoubtedly is. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course Wikipedia should carry this material - that deleting this article is tantamount to suppressing this information is a strawman argument that has come up a few times already - but where material this sensitive, important and so easily misunderstood or misrepresented is covered by Wikipedia it is vital that we give it the NPOV treatment that is central to the WP way. By compressing it into a list, rather than covering it properly in what I have called one or more 'proper articles' we fail on one of the main pillars of what we do here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the article is kept, someone will need to figure out how to rename it in such a way as to adhere to WP:NPOV, as the current title is extremely problematic. As for the comments above... well, thank God I'm commenting here instead of trying to close this mess of an AFD. If this inches to No Consensus, please for the love of all that is holy consider an RFC to sort some of these issues out - as the issues cited as reasons for deletion (QUOTEFARM, Original Research, NPOV, etc) are all going to still be there once the debate ends. Don't let this sit another two years before fighting it out again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is subject to regular scrutiny and debate - there are some 23 archives of the talk page. It seemed fairly stable until the recent flurry of opposition. The nature of the topic makes it a battleground and occasional spasms of this kind seem inevitable in this topic area until the general issue becomes more settled or is resolved. Warden (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find it ironic that the 'Global Warming' article is blessed as being perfectly accurate and complete, and the article that challenges this theory is being debunked and put up for possible deletion. I also find it interesting that the (factual, actual and verifyable) memos that debunked much of the global warming research has not shown up in the "Global Warming" article. Nor has the fact that Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas to which all anthropogenic processes contribute very little. With cleanup of the issues that have been expressed, this article is more factual than the "Global Warming" article. I was told once that Wikipedia is controlled by people with a strong liberal bias, and should be considered in that light. I refused to believe that at the time, but if this article is actually deleted, I will have no choice but to change my mind. If the key people within Wikipedia are unable to maintain objectivity, then it is my opinion that the entire site should be shut down. . Mweisger (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that these alleged spike-in-the-heart quotations for the most part have not made it into the scientific literature? [[For example, see this way of sorting the list] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mweisger, I see that this is your first contribution to Wikipedia. While your problems with reality having a liberal bias may seem important to you, they are of little relevance here, where we discuss whether the article should be kept or deleted according to agreed Wikipedia policy (which is arrived at by community consensus). If you wish to argue that Wikipedia should be shut down (By whom? The Obama administration? The UN? An angry mob wielding torches and pitchforks?), I suggest you do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am discussing here is objectivity. The minute the argument was made that the article should be deleted because it was only attributable to a "fringe" group, the argument to delete lost all merit. The fact is that the number of true climatologists (not generic "scientists") that take issue with the mainstream "science" grew significantly when the memos between global warming advocates was made public, and has been steadily growing ever since. Since this is a discussion area, I won't cite this evidence, but it is there if you wander around the internet. There is nothing "fringe" about Global Warming Dissention, and as long as that is the argument being used, the premise is false, and therefore the article should stay. Mweisger (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some editors simply want to delete anything that questions the Global Warming theory. However, skepicsism is not fringe. It is a necessary part of science. This AfD is simply another attempt to hide the opinions of noteable scientists. Certainly, some of these scientists are wrong, but their opinions are still notable and should be a part of wikipedia. Q Science (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, what we are seeing is a marginalisation campaign in action, and there's little "neutral" about that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comments above. No one is arguing that this material should not be covered by Wikipedia. What some people are saying is that covering such important information in the form of a list of names and quotes, is not the best way to present it. WP:NPOV requires that we 'explain the sides' in any disputed area. Listing quotes without context, timeline, counterargument, consideration of the speaker etc, throughout a whole article, under a heading that refers to 'science' twice, does not meet this central policy requirement. --Nigelj (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we must AGF those are not pretexts... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for (1) WP:SYNT concerns—"opposing the mainstream scientific assessment" can mean disagreements over a huge number of details. Clearly an attempt to draw a net as wide as possible in order to pigeonhole people, (2) WP:POVFORK concerns—there are articles describing this controversy in detail e.g. global warming controversy, but this list is a collection of quotes from a single perspective, and (3) WP:LISTN concerns—the criteria that anyone who has ever published a paper in natural sciences is a qualified commentator on climatology is rather thin. I'd like to see a reliable source that has assembled such an "opposition list" based on a similar enough criteria. Although I recommend removing this list from Wikipedia for the above reasons, the list of quotes may actually be appropriate at Wikiquote. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ask for some sources - here's a selection from a variety of perspectives:
  1. Maxwell Boykoff (2009), "Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians", Climate change science and policy, p. 401, Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling...
  2. Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, Oxford University Press, 2005 — interesting for its lofty view of climate change debates across the centuries, listing the notables on each side of the argument
  3. Laurence Solomon (2010), The deniers, Eminent environmentalist Lawrence Solomon set out to find whether any real scientists diverged from global warming orthodoxy. What he found shocked him. Not only did world renowned scientists dissent on every headline warming issue, but the dissenters were far more accomplished and eminent scientists.
  4. "The Scientist Deniers", The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia University Press, 2011, This chapter shines a spotlight on the scientist-deniers and their claims...
  5. "Contrarian Scientists", The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 151, As climate change denial has matured, the number of 'scientists' who promote it has grown in size and diversity...
Warden (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last two, at least, are worth a look. What a different perspective from ours in this article! Rather than list these 'scientists' and their quotes, the recent scholarly NPOV treatment is to follow the financial and the historical threads of the climate denial movement. The references show that these are very strong threads with clear linkages, and that these people are to be found dangling on the ends, insisting that they be referred to as 'scientists' at all costs. I don't think the present article quite makes that well-documented perspective clear with NPOV. I don't see how a list of unchallenged quotes ever will. --Nigelj (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary of assuming that any single (or few) author book is consistent with NPOV. On that list, 3 and 4 seem to have pretty clear and opposing POVs. The existence of this list page is not in any way exclusive of climate change denial or scientific opinion on climate change covering other themes. The former does in fact touch on some of the historical and financial threads you mention (though personally I've never been too impressed with the "denial" page). The fact that other topics could be covered isn't in itself an argument for deleting the list, but rather could be seen as an argument for expanding other pages. Dragons flight (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#3 is written by Lawrence Solomon and published by someone who is described by the Huffington Post as the communications director of a hedge fund company.[3][4] #4 is written by a science academic[5] and published by an Ivy League university. I was particularly referring to #5 above, one of 'The Oxford Handbook of...' publications from the Oxford University Press. --Nigelj (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for commenting on my post. I did some spot checks of the list myself, e.g. Claude Allègre and Frederick Seitz, and I agree that those scientists can be legitimately included in a list. However, as evidenced in the above discussion, and as one can read in the two biographies I've mentioned, there needs to be (1) a better criteria for selection: individuals that have been noted (in the real world sense, not WP one, i.e. not just "his name is a blue link") for their comments and opposition, and by that I mean noted by independent sources or by mainstream opponents. Both guys I mentioned meet this criteria. The other thing that needs to change is (2) instead of a quote farm, each list entry needs to spell out how the person has been noted for their opposition, e.g. caused a media furor in France when their appointment came up, or the other guy caused the NAS to address a written protest to NYT. So, there is a sourcebook in this list from which to build a proper one, but keeping the quote farm in article space in the hope of eventually producing a NPOV text is not appropriate, and entries need to conform to the more stringent criteria (1) above. I think the present list should be userfied or moved to a WikiProject space pending rewrite, which is pretty much the same as Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted those are not lists (or none of the ones I can see are), and, as such, these sources do not show that such lists as the one Wikipedia has manufactured are encyclopedic, they simply show that some people deny climate change - which everyone knew already. We have two articles: Climate change denial and Global warming controversy on this subject, as well as this list, and there is no reason why we should split a series of POV-pushing quotes off of the two articles we have already which actually discuss the views and their relationship to the mainstream in detail, instead of:
A. Dediding that the IPCC is the ruler of all climate change debate, and any slight disagreement means denying the mainstream assessment.
B. Leaving out all of the responses to the denier's points. Global_warming_controversy#The_mainstream_scientific_position.2C_and_challenges_to_it - Note that every single one (on a quick skim) of the points raised by the quotations in the list is covered in our main article, as well as a host of others - but in the main article, the views are put in context, and all of this context is completely missing from the WP:POVFORK under discussion. 86.** IP (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that once someone does the NPOV rewriting I suggested above it will become apparent that the resulting list is mostly duplicating other articles. But I'm uncertain about that just yet. Simply organizing the material by the guys' names may be valuable to someone. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For instance Seitz is mentioned in climate change denial, but not about the NAS incident, and Allègre is mentioned in neither that article nor in global warming controversy, although both incidents were notable in their respective countries. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really more of a call for close as merge. 86.** IP (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; someone could go over this list as an easy way to identify missing personalities/events from those two controversy/denial articles, but the useful and NPOV material is found in the biographical articles linked from it. (That's what I meant by using it as a sourcebook.) Both events I mentioned above are not found in this list, but rather in the biographies of those two guys. The quotes in this list are themselves pretty worthless because they give no indication if they are of any notoriety. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was about to close this but would prefer to voice my opinion as an argument rather than as a "supervote". The argument that this list constitutes original research is compelling. In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The reference to Wikipedia's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this.

    In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources. In addition, as the lead makes clear, the position is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious WP:FRINGE and WP:POVFORK concerns.

    The "keep" opinions are unpersuasive, because they mostly do not address the problem of engaging in original research when making controversial lists of living people, and frequently consist only of arguments to avoid such as appeals to usefulness or alleging bad intentions on the part of other editors. On this basis, I recommend that the discussion, in its current state, be closed as "delete" based on the strength of arguments.  Sandstein  18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sandstein's description of the editing process here is incorrect. For example, I have added one entry to this list - Freeman Dyson. He's fairly well known to be a sceptic and the particular trigger for adding him was the source which was used as the citation. That source was The Independent newspaper, which takes a overt stance of political independence and high-minded, high-quality reporting. Their editor introduced the subject as "World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson ... He's also one of the world's foremost climate change sceptics.". He has also been profiled in a similar and extensive way by the New York Times. It's their finding that he is a notable scientific sceptic, not ours.
Now, when this entry was added to the list, it was challenged and there was some discussion on the talk page which went over these points. The consensus was then that the entry should remain. So, there was no OR here - just the normal and proper process of working from secondary sources. The quotation appears because the current format of the list expects one. But if editors don't like the quotes, these may be removed as they are not fundamental to the nature of the list. The core structure of the list is the list of names, supported by citations and linking to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. And compared to most of the other Lists of scientists, this list is far better sourced and supported. All those other lists just seems to have columns of wikilinks without any supporting evidence. Suggesting that this list is poorly constructed is therefore the reverse of the truth. Because it is such a battleground, the entries and their sources are inspected with unusual vigour and so the quality of the list is correspondingly high. Warden (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The interview of a skeptic with a science journalist is just an outlet for the skeptic. There's nobody there to provide a competing NPOV narrative. And that science journalist in particular has had his ethics questioned [6]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word ethics doesn't seem to appear in your source which seems rather bloggish. Anyway, here's that NYT source which describes Dyson as "Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists ... his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science.". How is any OR required to understand that Dyson belongs in this list? Warden (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was OR involved in reading that NYT article, which you have only mentioned just now as a straw man. But look for instance at the entry for Garth Paltridge; it's sourced only from his own writings. Did anyone else notice him as an AGW skeptic? I can't tell from this list. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page is problematic for several reasons. A list of this sort, especially with quotes, is always going to give the impression that there is a large well-supported minority which does not think humans are causing climate change, which gives undue weight to that position. The paragraph at the beginning pointing out that the vast majority of scientists don't agree with these opinions is not going to redress the balance and the reader is going to be left with a misleading impression. Secondly there are problems with original research. The entries in this list are by and large sourced to statements made by the individuals concerned and not to reliable secondary sources which describe the individual as opposing the scientific consensus. It is therefore up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether a certain statement means the individual is opposing the scientific consensus on global warming and that is not a decision we should be making. Fixing this would require most of the list to be removed and then re-added when someone can source it, which is little different from deletion. Finally there are BLP concerns. If the statements quoted here do not accurately reflect the position of the individual, the individual has changed their mind or the individual disagrees that they are opposing the mainstream scientific assessment then the list is violating BLP. This is a particular danger of using primary sources. Being seen as a climate change denier could certainly damage a scientist's career.

    There are two other important concerns I have which don't necessarily require deletion of the page. The first is that the scope of the list is overly broad. Anyone who disagrees with the IPCC report could potentially be included, and people who deny that humans are causing climate change at all are lumped in with people who merely question the accuracy of climate models. Secondly many of the people in the list do not work within fields relevant to climate change (mathematicians, astronomers, nuclear physicists, optics specialists, mining geologists etc) and including them is misleading. Hut 8.5 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1142648316"