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

message: Ok. You want a specific request from me? Here it is. Recently, i changed a sentence in the opening to read that some scientists dissent from global warming. It was changed back by Count Iblis to read "a few". Count Iblis felt it was important to note that it was only "a few". i changed it to "some" in order to utilize a term which is quantity-neutral. Count Iblis felt it needded to be changed because it did not adequately, according to him, reflect the true reality, and it detracted from the weight of the global warming view.
Now, what do you all think of that? Does that request seem too small? Too trivial? That's the whole point, you people. The problem is that it's there's no specific edit which is the issue here. the problem is the entire style which has crept into the page, suppressing dissenting view, and undermining the whole adherence to Wikipedia values in general. therefore, we want an entire change in the entire way this entry is handled. We are seeking nothing less than an utter and complete end to one small group suppressing other views, and continually the most minor of phrases, simply to give adequate weight to their own personal opinions.
Let me add one final note. If you do want to create an article advancing a single particular opinion, and giving weight only to that opinion, then that's fine. However, the "Global Warming" article is not the place for that. If you do want to create such an article, then it needs to be given a more specific name, such as "Arguments for global warming" or something similar. An article with a name like "Global warming" should be a comprehensive overiew, of many different viewpoints, ideas, and events. So we seek a much broader change in the overall tone and direction of this article. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are trolls (best to ignore them), and the current version seems fine (i.e. neutral language or sourced).  ~ UBeR 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, here's my specific request

message: The following is a discussion which occurred between Uber and Titoxd recently at the Global Warming page. The comments by both Uber and Titoxd are a good summation of much of Uber's views on this topic, and is directly related to this issue. I am posting it here at Uber's direct request, as he unfoertunately is currrently unable to post. thnks. --Sm8900 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can reasonably agree with this, but I'm sure there will be people crying undue weight. I wonder though, if both of this topics have lengthy articles of their own, how much weight these topics actually carry when we're talking about global warming. Like you said, perhaps not much weight in the scientific journals, but it's definitely a topic that people in general are concerned about and interested in. ~ UBeR 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I catch your implication, you seem to want to take the article out of the scientific realm and put it into "what is the popular opinion about this subject?".  Sorry, since WP is a encyclopedia, we have to report the facts, not the whim of public opinion. --Skyemoor 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily. If you want to "report the facts", as you say, you will have to report the fact that there is a controversy (regardless of the nature of the controversy), and give it its due weight. Giving it more than two short paragraph is granting undue weight; giving it one sentence means that the article fails WP:WIAFA §1.(b). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is almost no scientific controversy as the skeptical climate scientists are a tiny minority.  You've simply made an unsupported pronouncement concerning WP:WIAFA 1.b. Care to make the case from the scientific perspective? --Skyemoor 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again Titoxd brings up a good point. I don't quite see what you're getting at Skyemoor. Are you impling global warming controversy doesn't have facts? My point was that if even if there's little debate in scientific journals, it would be ignorant to assume there is no controversy over the topic of global warming. ~ UBeR 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trolling again, UBeR. We've been over this dozens of times.  The article Global warming is about the science; the article Global warming controversy is about the controversy generated by politicians and pundits, --Skyemoor 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You calling Titoxd a troll? Imprudent. It was his idea. ~ UBeR 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Uber

message: Here is another discussion, this one largely between uber and myself, which more clearly sums up the main issue. the real problem here is that Uber wanted to add some sourced statements quoting the dissent with global warming. That's pretty much where this whole thing started. the other party to this issue then created a "straw poll" with one option to toally exclude his cited sources, and the other to put that in. Afterwards, many people stated the poll itself was invalid. that's pretty much how this dispute began.
But it seems to me that uber was simply to ask for the right to insert new material, with valid sources. The other side seemed to say that he could not add his material, no matter how properly sourced. that seems to me to be fairly inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. So that is one of the main issues in this mediation.
By the way, you can view the original poll here:
Talk:Global_warming#Straw_Poll.
You can view the discussion(s) of the entire original issue here: Talk:Global_warming#Restatement_of_the_problems_and_some_solutions_listed,
and also Here: Talk:Global_warming#Weasel_Words_and_NPOV_problems.
There is a summary of obections to the poll itself here: Talk:Global_warming#Objection:_Badly_designed_straw_poll_violates_wikipedia_policy_and_philosophy
Below is the quoted discussion.
Second option: The "weasel by proxy" as describe above by Blue Tie. That is, verified and attributable to third party source.
CLARIFICATION OF OPTION 2: This is a clarification (I hope) that was discussed on my talk page: Option 1 is the option to go back to the original version and everything will still be willy-nilly, straight back to square one. It doesn't matter if there's a source that actually says "Most scientists agree that ... and few scientists disagree (...)" If there actually is a source, then use it! If there actually is a source, make sure you're stating what it is saying (that is, not verbatim--just don't change the context). If there actually is a source, attribute the claim to that source. HOWEVER, if there isn't a source, then that claim doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This option is the only supportable one under Wikipedia (of the two options so far). If feel so inclined to do so, feel free to change your vote. ~ UBeR 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uber seems right. if there is a valid source, I see no reason to not use it. --Sm8900 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR is often right. I don't quite get the proposal here though. Personally I am a big reluctant to turn particularly the introduction into a patchwork of sources (the convention in papers is not to give references in abstracts: I think it helps a lot not to cite in the intro provided everything in it is substantiated with references later). It would be very hard to get it to read well that way.--BozMo talk 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much problem with having numerous refernces and citations. For an example, see this article. --Sm8900 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or this one. You see, BozMo, one of the wonders of Wikipedia is that it is not a paper encyclopedia nor is it a scientific paper to be published in a journal. If this article is to be used as a "gold standard" as one observer proclaimed, then it should stand against the toughest scrutiny. While I agree, an overload of refs in the lead can be burdensome or ugly, policy trumps prettiness. I also agree that refs are not required in leads because they are summaries of what's in the article, UNLESS the article provides no reference to the original claim within any portion of the article. That is the current case. Again, my clarification still stands. However, at the current momenet it looks like the weasel words are gone, and doesn't need sources (that is, unless you know who undoes it). Also note the current intro has a grand total of TWO refs. That's hardly eye-soring. ~ UBeR 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's highly relevant and was not discussed (because all the points are valid, of course, and would be too hard to refute). If you're trying to stifle debate, try elsewhere. ~ UBeR 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to look out for however, is the alteration of the "Requirements" for the articles by changing the topic in the opening paragraph.  This is a quick, easy, and often used way for some to limit whats on the pages... then saying "But the opening paragraph spicifically says the article does not talk about that..."  the articles should be edited based on wikipedia policy (which in it self often conflicts itself), not what the longterm editors have altered the pages to require.--Zeeboid 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another discussion by uber

message: Guys, I'm sorry to be repetitious. However these mediations have one purpose and one purpose only. these are only for mediating a specific conflict betweeen two users (or two groups of users). That's it. So we should stop listing all the things which we want changed about this article, and start listing any ways that the pro-GW has been unfairly blocking and impeding us. That should be our entire and our main focus. Otherwise, you will see, there will be nothing the mediators can do. Thanks.--Sm8900 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, when I wrote this, I hadn't looked at the main page yet, and didn't realize the mediator had already stated that right now they only hope to keep things somewhat moderated, and can do little to actively intervene. I suggest we start refining our focus here. otherwise, as I said, the mediators will only be able to take little or no action. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to stay on that beam. But the mediator has specifically asked for information about what should be changed in the article.  So I complied.  But I mentioned the central issue as being behavior centered. --Blue Tie 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Blue Tie, you're right, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. We should start with specific edits, and then explain how those edits were blocked by some pro-GW people. My comment here was meant for people who are trying to say how we should restructure the entire article, instead of listing specific edits which have been the subject of recent disputes. Thanks for your helpful reply. --Sm8900 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mediators don't take action. They can only help people help themselves. In this case (in theory at least) we can try to help people reach consensus on the page, and then all go home. --Kim Bruning 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of the pro-GW people consider themselves subject to the need for consensus, that may mean there will be little progress. As I just posted on the main page, one of the main unstated aspects of this conflict is that there is an administrator intervening for their side. That has added considerable undue weight to one side of this. Just to be fair, William Connolley has been extremely open about his identity, and who he is, in a positive sense, so I'm not trying to be overly harsh here; just stating a fact.  --Sm8900 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Wikipedia is controlled by liberals. Every liberal platform or talking point in Wikipedia is carefully watched by member's of Gore's Hoard. All contrary evidence, facts, criticism is instantly reverted by this band of socialist e-thugs. They all back each other up, and they all get away with it because the Admins feel the same way.
That is the truth. You all know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.184.6 (talk) 
::Not so sure of that.  Maybe it's true, but I have no way of knowing. On the other hand, young people tend to be more liberal than older people, the internet is more of a young person's game than an older person's game and the general age of wikipedia editors from what I can determine is less than 30 years. So wikipedia might have a liberal bias.
::However, if we follow the guidelines of NPOV, VER, RS, and NOR, then the bias should be mitigated. --Blue Tie 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main office of the wikimedia foundation happens to be located in florida. But not everyone on wikipedia supports this fellow Gore (or in fact, even lives in the USA.) --Kim Bruning 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Here is a note from another user who disagrees directly with the whole direction of the GW article, on exactly the issue and area which we have raised. The following is an exchange from Orane's talk page, which I am posting here at Orane's direct request. This is more evidence that there are two real sides to this issue, and that this issue is in need of a real compromise which gives both sides real representation.
GW
You seem to be basing your edits to GW on the page saying: "Global warming is happening, we are all gonna die. Oh, by the way, it's not really important, but some people are uncertain." But since the page doesn't say this at all, or anything like it, I can't see your criticism as at all valid William M. Connolley 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my critique of your opinion is entirely relevant. If you've added your tag for an invalid reason - as you obviously have, since you make no attempt to defend your opinion - it should be removed William M. Connolley 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have defended my opinion on the talk page, under 'neutrality,' and others have supported me. You have no right to guard the article as you have been doing, and you are in no position whatsoever to judge whether my opinions are valid or invalid. I can see why numerous attempts to improve and balance the article have failed— editors like you bludgeon anyone who dares to challenge it. This is an article that fails miserably to explore the political and social aspects of global warming (Why, for example, have governments failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?), and fails to give due treatment to those who doubt global warming, or whether greenhouse gasses are the cause. Don't, however, for a minute think that I'll concede to your bullying. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orane, I totally agree with all your ideas stated above. I appreciate having your support. By the way, do you wish to comment at the mediation page? Not trying to harp on this, but just suggesting it. The more different voices we have there, the better. By the way, if not, would it be a problem if I copied some of this comment there, as proof for our side? Thanks. --Sm8900 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go right ahead. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another user indicating a problem

message: Upon reflection, it seems that much of the turmoil revolves around the purpose or focus of the article.  I do not mean, "Is it neutral or pov".  I mean, that some people apparently see it as Science Only whereas other people see it as an article on the general topic of Global Warming.
I am more of the latter.  do not want a science compromise, but I view this article as being a General Article about Global Warming.
I think that this difference about the purpose of the page makes it harder to get agreement.
Somewhere, wikipedia needs one article that is a summary article on Global Warming, or possibly the whole subject of Climate Change.  If the whole subject of Climate Change is the master article, then this article would almost need to be renamed to something else.
I'll stop chattering and just throw that out for now. --Blue Tie 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel Blue Tie is absolutely right. This should be a real overview article, and it currently is not. I also agree that, in large part, that is the real reason for this whole issue. --Sm8900 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I stand by my word that if you find several reliable, published, peer-reviewed scientific sources that challenge global warming, then there should be more weight given to the skeptical camp, but otherwise, the article should remain as is. The topic is scientific, so of course it will focus on the science, not the conjectures of politicians, businessmen and other people who have a vested interest in seeing less importance given to AGW. The framing of the article as something other than a general overview of global warming is nothing more than a clever ruse to give more weight to the skeptical camp. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if I find one, that should be sufficient for some inclusion per wikipedia standards.  But that is a completely separate discussion from what I am proposing.  The topic is scientific but it is not JUST scientific.  Thus, I have proposed a different approach to the article than is currently delivered.   Your imagined scenario of it being a clever ruse to give more weight to the skeptical camp is wrong on several counts.  First, I am not so clever.  Second, I do not engage in ruses.  Third, I do not happen to be a skeptic.  On the other hand, I do want wikipedia to be better. --Blue Tie 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cielomobile, I find these remarks to be totally counterproductive. Please do not assume you know the motives of others. I find your remarks unfounded and unsupported by fact. Some users want to see this article free to evolve in scope, and to encompass a variety of societal developments. --Sm8900 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My last sentence was nothing more than an afterthought; it was not even part of my argument. But this mediation is not longer productive, so I am no longer going to participate in it unless something new is brought to the table. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that all official-ish mediation at this location had ceased a while ago. You are currently talking on the discussion page for the mediation page. --Kim Bruning 08:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask, Kim, why the mediation has ceased,  when nothing at all has been resolved, or even addressed? That does not seem to me like the actions of a neutral mediator working towards a resolution. And I thought you are the mediator here working towards that. thanks. --Sm8900 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a chronically overworked human being, and I've already stated I can't take the case proper. Also no one else can be dug up (either that or no-one wants to burn themselves on the case) I'll try to raise someone one more time one more time. :-/ --Kim Bruning 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts.  Let me add a bit.  I have not observed (I may have missed it though) some of the behaviors that led me to request the mediation in a while.  Perhaps there has been a change.  The article is being discussed in ways that are fairly wide-ranging and so far I have no detected anything like the former hostility.  Recognizing your limited time, I can accept the idea that we can sort of wait a bit to see what happens.  I am an optimist. But I do not think that means that this should be closed yet.  Others may have different views about the mediation though. Certainly the other side is not here much and that limits its effectiveness anyway. --Blue Tie 13:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I must respectfully disagree. The reason you do not see those previous hostilities is that the article is currently locked, i think. The tone of discussions about the article is relatively less important, since the issue remains the same; complete disagreement about the fundamental direction of the article, and on the scope of new additions. Most people on the page would say that we are far from resolution. --Sm8900 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Kim. I too appreciate all your efforts, and I totally understand. However, if that is the case, may I please suggest that the mediation be un-archived? and again, thanks again (seriously); I do realize this can all be fairly time-consuming. thanks. --Sm8900 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the archived page, I cannot see much of value there. Much of the discussion was petty and unfocussed. I think it would be better to have a fresh start. iIf there are suggestions or proposals of substantial value, they can easily be copied. --Stephan Schulz 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: the point of a mediation is to bring all views to the table. the fact that there were so many views, some of them perhaps petty, shows how needed this meidation is. Most mediations do not bring in a dozen parties; usually, less people are involved. this one is messier precisely because it is more needed. So I favor un-archiving it in its present form. the mediator can impose rationality; that is the whole point of a mediator. --Sm8900 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the mediator cannot "impose" anything. I fear that if the science camp achieves relative consensus but the skeptical camp sticks to its position, the only way to achieve final closure would be with ArbCom. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible area for reconciliation and compromise

message: I would support unprotection to include yesterday's Summary for Policymakers, if and only if we can gain a Wikipedia consensus in the text to be included about it first.  I think this is a great opportunity to see how well the sides are willing to work together. James S. 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone is biased some way. The best improvements add balance. James S. 12:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection proposal 

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