Talk:Climate change consensus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change consensus redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Weather: Climate Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1

Merge?

Time to merge this into public opinion on global warming perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? - only a small portion of this article relates directly to that topic. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merging but the other title is longer, perhaps some thought should be put into the overall title for the topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a merge - the two topics cover (or should cover) the same ground, but this one with a meaningless slant to the title. Public opinion on global warming is a good title as it is part of a set including scientific opinion on global warming, economics of global warming, politics of global warming, etc. --Nigelj (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's scientific opinion on climate change. What is the slant you think is meaningless about the title? Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right about that name! The slant comes from the word consensus: there's a clear scientific consensus (as in SOoCC), but then this goes on to talk about the politicians and the public, and as we know, there is still a lot of relatively meaningless noise coming from these quarters, that is not best described by the word consensus. That's why we have all the other articles, and all the geographically specific articles, 'Politics/public opinion/economics of CC/GW in US/UK/Europe/Australia/etc' (there are dozens of them, I believe). It would be nice if all of this could be summarised as a 'consensus', but really it can't yet, and I think all the bits will be better explained, in their own separate places at this point in CC history. --Nigelj (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very definitely they should be merged. I think the public opinion title is probably better for the merged article and the bit about whether the public thinks there is a consensus amongst scientists can form a major part of it. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

It's been almost a month with no objections. I believe we are in consensus. Since no one has taken the liberty to move forward, I'll do my best. Below is a list of what I've did, if anyone has an objection. I'll be happy to step aside and discuss how to handle each list item.

Lead
1. Questionnaire regarding level of agreement over global warming essentially duplicates the sources and content of that found in Scientific opinion on climate change.
2. Sources over public opinion may be moved to Public opinion on climate change.
Section 1: Scientific community
1. The section "List of position statements" essentially copies from Scientific opinion on climate change#Statements by organizations in an incomplete manner. It may be removed without loss of information.
2. All remaining information may be found on the main page, therefore no content needs to be moved.
Section 2: Allegations of coercion, censorship, or other external factors
1. Op-eds by Lindzen may fail WP:RS.
2. The remaining information may suffer notability issues.
3. Despite these concerns, most of the information may be moved to Global warming controversy. Removed for now, it's inclusion may be discussed on the receiving article's talk page.
Section 3: Petitions
1. In the subsection "Concurring", may belong on Politics of global warming.
2. In the subsection "Dissenting", information may be moved to back to its corresponding main articles, respectively: Earth Summit, Leipzig Declaration, and Oregon Petition.
3. The information in "Dissenting" may be summarized into Politics of global warming. A proposal may be made on the corresponding talk page.
Section 4: Open letters
1. Information may be summarized and moved to Global warming controversy.
2. Proposal is underway for its inclusion, depending on whether it is notable and the sources reliable.
Standard Appendicies: See also, References, ect.
1. See also is just a collection of links and can be deleted.
2. References are included inline with its corresponding sections. Nothing lost here.
Resulting Page
1. Disambiguation for now.
2. Later it may be redirected to Public opinion on climate change or Scientific opinion on climate change.

Here is a link to the page before the merge, in case there information that I've missed and someone would like to recover. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion underway in Talk:Global warming controversy#Merge from "Climate change consensus".

Discussion not started in Talk:Public opinion on climate change, don't believe it will be improve the article.

--CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

[reply]

The merger broke the link at Scientific opinion on climate change that pointed to Petitions and other "self-selected lists of individuals' opinions". The link should be replaced with a Wikipedia section that addresses a collection "self-selected lists" of the same nature. Your proposal to spread the Petitions between several articles will leave that original link without a referrent; what about placing the whole section "as is" into either Global warming controversy or Politics of global warming, as a compilation of several noteworthy petitions? Diego (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of steps should be expanded to include the missing steps from the Wikipedia:Merge#Performing_the_merger guideline, in special to check the Special:WhatLinksHere to fix the links that now point to a disambiguation page. Diego (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]