| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ozone depletion and climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
I think there probably is a notable topic here. However a lot of the article seems like a personal study rather than summarizing what is out there. To start getting a bit on track can I suggest that the title needs to be looked at first. The relevant policy on article titles is WP:TITLE. The current title is neither a commonly recognized name for the topic per WP:COMMONNAME nor is it a recognizablee or natural description of the topic as used in sources nor does it come under any explicit convention.
If a commonly used name or phrase for the topic could be found that could act as a title and help delineate the article. It is difficult to show a topic is notable if there is no commonly recognized name or description for it. Dmcq ( talk) 05:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- What title you wuld suggest? Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Air Pollution as with Gillespies book? WP does already do the comparision based on rather alarmist stuff as in merchants of doubt. It has not done this with real science literature about how environmental action was attempted over the course of history. WP needs much mnore on that. Take Joachim Radkaus Nature and Power, Cass and e.g. NZ scholar Alexander Gillespie, which all wrote lenghty studies or even books about the topic and its backgrounds. The fact that you dont know about the science in the field has been shown at other places. There is widespread scientific interested, human relationship with the biosphere is deemed of major historiographical and political significance. Why should I care if I have good sources at hand? I took the effort to google scholar "Ozone hole and global warming" and "Ozone depletion and global warming". In both cases Sheldon is on page one. That said, googling of the verbatim title brings ucsusa FAQ and a gavin schmidt realclimate entry, where he complaints about lay people confusing ozone depletion and global warming (which Ungar as worked on an expert, gavin is not into sociology). So its of concern and I do not see to do much about the titel. Even more, the success of the Montreal protokol versus the failure of Kyoto has been used by the likes of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber to ask to use a Montreal amendment as a means of fast-action strategies against global warming. Serten ( talk) 13:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well a quick search with Google Scholar [1] Sheldon was at number 7 which indicates that with a neutral point of view and this title the science should be the more important thing and the title does not describe an article which is mainly about policy. There was one at number 2 by RV Revere with something about policy but you mightn't like it as it says "Ratified by 172 countries and hailed by many experts as the most successful international environmental agreement, the Montreal Protocol has, unfortunately, not succeeded in halting deterioration of the ozone layer". The main reason they are linked is because it seems global warming may also be causing ozone depletion and there may be a reverse effect as well.
- If you want an article which is mainly about policy you need a different title, most people will think this one will be about the science which is completely correct according to Google Scholar. I also looked using Google search directly and using an incognito window so it wouldn't try and bias it to my previous searches and the results are solid. The main subject described by this title is the science.
- It is possible to just say the specific topic of the article in the lead and that it doesn't cover science, and then you wouldn't have to have science as the main topic, but from what you said at the ozone depletion you seemed to think it should cover the science as well. Covering both and not having the science as the main topic would not be in accord with WP:NPOV policy. Dmcq ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would have a title with policy or social studies or something like that in it otherwise any descriptive title will probably be misleading if those searches are anything to go by. Dmcq ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain what you mean with "the science"? The whole article is based on science and the topic as such is of scientific importance, as being proven by tertiary sources. The sources involved include the role of "the science" (as in athmospherical chemistry) aspects and its not to be left out. Serten ( talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no one intends to rename articles as ozone depletion to Technical stuff about ozone depletion. You try OR again. Check the differences between primary and secondary sources. Social science studies about technical issues, e.g. history of nuclear or clean air technology as by Radkau, or Grundmanns assessment of the effectiveness of science consensuses on actual policy making are the best secondary sources (the ones to be cited) and nobody cares about technical studies about 1980ies reactors or 1880 air filters. Radkau has delt with them already. Same for Grundmann. The comparision is a social science task but the perspective and the title is to be generic. We can use links to articles, where the technical stuff is being explained in more detail. The sources I have are the more appropriate, as using technical details is pure OR. Serten ( talk) 14:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- In so far, Ozone depletion would have to be renamed? We still use the simple name, even if the content is less about the issues of general interest but more into the tekkie detail. You still have not explained what "Science" means. The tekkie stuff of depletion or acid rain mechanisms is not at even a primary source for Grundmann, he compares the effectiveness of making assessments (which took the tekkie stuff into account) and I assume there is a readers interest for that. Serten ( talk) 16:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The more general interest is what you call the tekkie detail.
Dmcq (
talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The topic is base of a scientific discourse that reaches much further than athmospheric chemistry "General interest" implys social science, history, legal and sociology aspects. These have not been taken care of but theyre much more important than technical details. Serten ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The more general interest is what you call the tekkie detail.
Dmcq (
talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- While the article is impressively developed, I concur with Dmcq. Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change does not appear to be a clear coherent topic of note. When I tried Google Scholar essentially all hits look related to UV and human health. General Google hits were all over the map, many directed to the same UV discussions and some explaining that Ozone depletion and climate shouldn't be confused as closely related. As good as the work is, it feels like sources were pulled together to create an Original Research sociological compare-and-contrast between the two movements. While that may be independently interesting, I'm not sure I see an Encyclopedia topic to put it under. And that is what it would need to pull it together into a proper Article. Alsee ( talk) 11:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- So somebody is looking at it. Good for you. It might be interesting to first of all remove all citations which don't mention both ozone and climate change in some form and any related statements and then what is left might show some coherence. I think what is left is the science about global warming may also cause ozone depletion and the policy work by Grundmann - which are practically two completely different subjects. And Grundmann doesn't seem to overtly say what is being said here, whether he has some subtext would need a secondary source to comment on it rather than referring to his work directly. Dmcq ( talk) 13:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sociological / juridical / political compare-and-contrast between the two movements has been done by a wider array of scholars and as well recently in journals by climate alarmist hysterics like Monbiot / Naomi Klein. In so far I do not care a damn about notability, its a given. User:Dmcq, we use citations to refer to what is being refered to. There is no rule that a topics references have to carry the title of the article in question. If so, you would better start to have the bullshit put together under the title List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming erased asap. Serten ( talk) 13:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- So you don't give a damm about notability, and obviously you don't care about the WP:OR policy either "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". But as I said I'm not going to bother about it, you can waste your time here writing down your thoughts as far as I'm concerned rather than trying to write a proper paper and get it past peer review. Dmcq ( talk) 16:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you said somewhere you don't care much for consensus either. Anyway a gooodly lot of WP:5P dismissed I believe. Dmcq ( talk) 16:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OR doesnt mean that any and all sources of an article have to carry the title in the abstract. With regard to ozone depletion and climate change, there are enough important sources that do so, the interesting point is that you counter the IPCC, relaclimate, the union of concerned scientists and the WHO, not to speak of various studies, books and scientific papers. Thats enough to exclude an afd and clearly provides notability. If you doubt, have a try. As said, the pillars of WP should apply to the climate articles as well - just start to take care with the famous List, basically it has not any source which mention the basic rules you ask for here. Serten ( talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)??
A sugared praise of Bob Watsons approaches as in successfully united the international science community to act on the problem with the ozone hole is not backed by any of the sources used as references. Prokaryotes changes are contentious. Consensus was far from being a main driver with Ozone. Biased editing, to be reverted. Serten Talk 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is a strange observation, because that is exactly what the Bob Watson article and the reference states. I've noticed your POV edit on Watson's article, has been removed over there too by uninvolved editors.
prokaryotes (
talk) 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Zweifelhaft ist freilich, ob dies zu den Regulierungen geführt hat. That said, no reason to keep you edits, which try to tell a diifferent story. Nothing changed at the Watson article. Youre repeatedly telling fairy tailes. COI again, I presume? Serten
Talk 14:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Clarification, your Watson edit was only slightly rm, because of technical basis, however the change is per the reference. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Quote Watson versuchte, die internationale wissenschaftliche Community zur Abfassung eines einzigen internationalen Berichts zu bringen. Dies gelang 1985 zum ersten Mal (WMO 1986), als alle relevanten Wissenschaftler zusammengebracht werden konnten. Es wurde eine gemeinsame Datenbasis geschaffen, womit viele ursprünglich kontroverse Punkte in einem einheitlichen Standpunkt zusammengeführt werden konnten.
http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_39.pdf
prokaryotes (
talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- No reason for your edits. Thats already within the previous text. Serten
Talk 15:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, the BW part was ok i agree, the part about Aant Elzinga cannot be accessed, since the book is paywalled. Other than that my edit addressed the edits from the Grundmann reference, which can be accessed via the reference. If you think that something is wrong with that, quote the part here. prokaryotes ( talk) 15:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- No reason for your edits. Thats already within the previous text. Serten
Talk 15:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Zweifelhaft ist freilich, ob dies zu den Regulierungen geführt hat. That said, no reason to keep you edits, which try to tell a diifferent story. Nothing changed at the Watson article. Youre repeatedly telling fairy tailes. COI again, I presume? Serten
Talk 14:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Undue weight, POV, Bias. You put the consensus on top, no reasons for that in the sources, to the contrary. You fail to support that. COI again? Serten
Talk 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is now sorted after years (except for the bottom part, which is still based on your edits). The section is in the same place as before. I use your own references. If you think there is a COI, here is the place to report it /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard prokaryotes ( talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Undue weight, POV, Bias. You put the consensus on top, no reasons for that in the sources, to the contrary. You fail to support that. COI again? Serten
Talk 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yawn. Its not sorted, its been biased. The concensus approach NOT being used in the Ozone case, was crucial for its success. Watsons approach was fruitful to propagate a separate role of the science community in climate issues, but with mixed results. Again, the failure of the linear model is more important. You try to push it, against science evidence. Interesting paradox Serten
Talk 15:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence Bob Watson, successfully united the international science community in 1985 to act on the problem with the ozone hole, before a consensus existed. DO you have suggestions to change the sentence? Other than that, this part doesn't justifies removal of previous additions i.e. Enquetekommission and Schneider.
prokaryotes (
talk) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Neither the Enquetekommission and Schneider are relevant for the comparision. Serten
Talk 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Enquetekommission was explicitly mentioned by the source (Grundmann) you have added, as an example when climate action was achieved without consensus. Schneider is one of the most cited resources when it comes to IPCC and the consensus process. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Neither the Enquetekommission and Schneider are relevant for the comparision. Serten
Talk 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence Bob Watson, successfully united the international science community in 1985 to act on the problem with the ozone hole, before a consensus existed. DO you have suggestions to change the sentence? Other than that, this part doesn't justifies removal of previous additions i.e. Enquetekommission and Schneider.
prokaryotes (
talk) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yawn. Its not sorted, its been biased. The concensus approach NOT being used in the Ozone case, was crucial for its success. Watsons approach was fruitful to propagate a separate role of the science community in climate issues, but with mixed results. Again, the failure of the linear model is more important. You try to push it, against science evidence. Interesting paradox Serten
Talk 15:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- If ypou want to write an article about the consensus, go for my draft. No relevance for the comparision with Ozone. . an edit comment like "too much sociology" in a sociology/STS releated topic is sort of hilarious. Serten Talk 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Serten Talk your revert count is now 3, read WP:3RR. Do not edit war because you disagree. Except for Schneider addition, the content is based on YOUR own references, and the author Grundmann dedicates 1-2 pages to this Enquetekommission. Thus, relevant to the discussion. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is your selective use. I don't see a 3RR, as we have rather different versions. If you want to write about the Enquetekommission, try an different article. You misquote RGs research by ignoring his results. No relevance for the comparision with Ozone here. The very basic STS rule (consensus comes after regulation, not before) compare
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/32/2/235 applies. Serten
Talk 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Sagepub study mentiones "Brian Wynne's study of Cumbrian sheep farmers". Serten, i suggest that you add or maybe slightly modify existing content, rather then to remove mention of Enquetekommission, which is imho a good example. And btw, the NPCC, also is structured in a similar way. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is your selective use. I don't see a 3RR, as we have rather different versions. If you want to write about the Enquetekommission, try an different article. You misquote RGs research by ignoring his results. No relevance for the comparision with Ozone here. The very basic STS rule (consensus comes after regulation, not before) compare
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/32/2/235 applies. Serten
Talk 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I quote the abstract Science studies has shown us why science and technology cannot always solve technical problems in the public domain. In particular, the speed of political decision-making is faster than the speed of scientific consensus formation. Brian Wynnes study is a legendary showcase in STS, yes. Serten
Talk 19:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- But this is an example about sheep farmers, how is this related to Ozone depletion and climate change? This example (there are many other examples) would belong into an article about Decision Making in Politics prokaryotes ( talk) 19:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I quote the abstract Science studies has shown us why science and technology cannot always solve technical problems in the public domain. In particular, the speed of political decision-making is faster than the speed of scientific consensus formation. Brian Wynnes study is a legendary showcase in STS, yes. Serten
Talk 19:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Goodness, its about STS studies, not about sheep. Nature invited Brian Wynne, the sheep guy, to do a review about a bestseller from Naomi Oreskes. Serten Talk 08:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The recent edits expresses Prokaryotes COI, but has nothing to do with the science in question. Revert Serten Talk 23:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I ask you to stop making up unfounded claims about my edits. You mistaken expertise with a COI, it is not. Read WP:COI. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- What you call expertise is not in line with Science ;) Serten Talk 16:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nature looks different. Serten Talk 16:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
XingboGao (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Olivia0831 ( talk) 00:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Briannabanana0 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Briannabanana0 ( talk) 19:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ozone depletion and climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 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. |
I think there probably is a notable topic here. However a lot of the article seems like a personal study rather than summarizing what is out there. To start getting a bit on track can I suggest that the title needs to be looked at first. The relevant policy on article titles is WP:TITLE. The current title is neither a commonly recognized name for the topic per WP:COMMONNAME nor is it a recognizablee or natural description of the topic as used in sources nor does it come under any explicit convention.
If a commonly used name or phrase for the topic could be found that could act as a title and help delineate the article. It is difficult to show a topic is notable if there is no commonly recognized name or description for it. Dmcq ( talk) 05:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- What title you wuld suggest? Climate Change, Ozone Depletion and Air Pollution as with Gillespies book? WP does already do the comparision based on rather alarmist stuff as in merchants of doubt. It has not done this with real science literature about how environmental action was attempted over the course of history. WP needs much mnore on that. Take Joachim Radkaus Nature and Power, Cass and e.g. NZ scholar Alexander Gillespie, which all wrote lenghty studies or even books about the topic and its backgrounds. The fact that you dont know about the science in the field has been shown at other places. There is widespread scientific interested, human relationship with the biosphere is deemed of major historiographical and political significance. Why should I care if I have good sources at hand? I took the effort to google scholar "Ozone hole and global warming" and "Ozone depletion and global warming". In both cases Sheldon is on page one. That said, googling of the verbatim title brings ucsusa FAQ and a gavin schmidt realclimate entry, where he complaints about lay people confusing ozone depletion and global warming (which Ungar as worked on an expert, gavin is not into sociology). So its of concern and I do not see to do much about the titel. Even more, the success of the Montreal protokol versus the failure of Kyoto has been used by the likes of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber to ask to use a Montreal amendment as a means of fast-action strategies against global warming. Serten ( talk) 13:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well a quick search with Google Scholar [1] Sheldon was at number 7 which indicates that with a neutral point of view and this title the science should be the more important thing and the title does not describe an article which is mainly about policy. There was one at number 2 by RV Revere with something about policy but you mightn't like it as it says "Ratified by 172 countries and hailed by many experts as the most successful international environmental agreement, the Montreal Protocol has, unfortunately, not succeeded in halting deterioration of the ozone layer". The main reason they are linked is because it seems global warming may also be causing ozone depletion and there may be a reverse effect as well.
- If you want an article which is mainly about policy you need a different title, most people will think this one will be about the science which is completely correct according to Google Scholar. I also looked using Google search directly and using an incognito window so it wouldn't try and bias it to my previous searches and the results are solid. The main subject described by this title is the science.
- It is possible to just say the specific topic of the article in the lead and that it doesn't cover science, and then you wouldn't have to have science as the main topic, but from what you said at the ozone depletion you seemed to think it should cover the science as well. Covering both and not having the science as the main topic would not be in accord with WP:NPOV policy. Dmcq ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would have a title with policy or social studies or something like that in it otherwise any descriptive title will probably be misleading if those searches are anything to go by. Dmcq ( talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain what you mean with "the science"? The whole article is based on science and the topic as such is of scientific importance, as being proven by tertiary sources. The sources involved include the role of "the science" (as in athmospherical chemistry) aspects and its not to be left out. Serten ( talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no one intends to rename articles as ozone depletion to Technical stuff about ozone depletion. You try OR again. Check the differences between primary and secondary sources. Social science studies about technical issues, e.g. history of nuclear or clean air technology as by Radkau, or Grundmanns assessment of the effectiveness of science consensuses on actual policy making are the best secondary sources (the ones to be cited) and nobody cares about technical studies about 1980ies reactors or 1880 air filters. Radkau has delt with them already. Same for Grundmann. The comparision is a social science task but the perspective and the title is to be generic. We can use links to articles, where the technical stuff is being explained in more detail. The sources I have are the more appropriate, as using technical details is pure OR. Serten ( talk) 14:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- In so far, Ozone depletion would have to be renamed? We still use the simple name, even if the content is less about the issues of general interest but more into the tekkie detail. You still have not explained what "Science" means. The tekkie stuff of depletion or acid rain mechanisms is not at even a primary source for Grundmann, he compares the effectiveness of making assessments (which took the tekkie stuff into account) and I assume there is a readers interest for that. Serten ( talk) 16:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The more general interest is what you call the tekkie detail.
Dmcq (
talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The topic is base of a scientific discourse that reaches much further than athmospheric chemistry "General interest" implys social science, history, legal and sociology aspects. These have not been taken care of but theyre much more important than technical details. Serten ( talk) 22:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The more general interest is what you call the tekkie detail.
Dmcq (
talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- While the article is impressively developed, I concur with Dmcq. Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change does not appear to be a clear coherent topic of note. When I tried Google Scholar essentially all hits look related to UV and human health. General Google hits were all over the map, many directed to the same UV discussions and some explaining that Ozone depletion and climate shouldn't be confused as closely related. As good as the work is, it feels like sources were pulled together to create an Original Research sociological compare-and-contrast between the two movements. While that may be independently interesting, I'm not sure I see an Encyclopedia topic to put it under. And that is what it would need to pull it together into a proper Article. Alsee ( talk) 11:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- So somebody is looking at it. Good for you. It might be interesting to first of all remove all citations which don't mention both ozone and climate change in some form and any related statements and then what is left might show some coherence. I think what is left is the science about global warming may also cause ozone depletion and the policy work by Grundmann - which are practically two completely different subjects. And Grundmann doesn't seem to overtly say what is being said here, whether he has some subtext would need a secondary source to comment on it rather than referring to his work directly. Dmcq ( talk) 13:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- The sociological / juridical / political compare-and-contrast between the two movements has been done by a wider array of scholars and as well recently in journals by climate alarmist hysterics like Monbiot / Naomi Klein. In so far I do not care a damn about notability, its a given. User:Dmcq, we use citations to refer to what is being refered to. There is no rule that a topics references have to carry the title of the article in question. If so, you would better start to have the bullshit put together under the title List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming erased asap. Serten ( talk) 13:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- So you don't give a damm about notability, and obviously you don't care about the WP:OR policy either "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". But as I said I'm not going to bother about it, you can waste your time here writing down your thoughts as far as I'm concerned rather than trying to write a proper paper and get it past peer review. Dmcq ( talk) 16:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you said somewhere you don't care much for consensus either. Anyway a gooodly lot of WP:5P dismissed I believe. Dmcq ( talk) 16:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:OR doesnt mean that any and all sources of an article have to carry the title in the abstract. With regard to ozone depletion and climate change, there are enough important sources that do so, the interesting point is that you counter the IPCC, relaclimate, the union of concerned scientists and the WHO, not to speak of various studies, books and scientific papers. Thats enough to exclude an afd and clearly provides notability. If you doubt, have a try. As said, the pillars of WP should apply to the climate articles as well - just start to take care with the famous List, basically it has not any source which mention the basic rules you ask for here. Serten ( talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)??
A sugared praise of Bob Watsons approaches as in successfully united the international science community to act on the problem with the ozone hole is not backed by any of the sources used as references. Prokaryotes changes are contentious. Consensus was far from being a main driver with Ozone. Biased editing, to be reverted. Serten Talk 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is a strange observation, because that is exactly what the Bob Watson article and the reference states. I've noticed your POV edit on Watson's article, has been removed over there too by uninvolved editors.
prokaryotes (
talk) 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Zweifelhaft ist freilich, ob dies zu den Regulierungen geführt hat. That said, no reason to keep you edits, which try to tell a diifferent story. Nothing changed at the Watson article. Youre repeatedly telling fairy tailes. COI again, I presume? Serten
Talk 14:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Clarification, your Watson edit was only slightly rm, because of technical basis, however the change is per the reference. prokaryotes ( talk) 14:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Quote Watson versuchte, die internationale wissenschaftliche Community zur Abfassung eines einzigen internationalen Berichts zu bringen. Dies gelang 1985 zum ersten Mal (WMO 1986), als alle relevanten Wissenschaftler zusammengebracht werden konnten. Es wurde eine gemeinsame Datenbasis geschaffen, womit viele ursprünglich kontroverse Punkte in einem einheitlichen Standpunkt zusammengeführt werden konnten.
http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_39.pdf
prokaryotes (
talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- No reason for your edits. Thats already within the previous text. Serten
Talk 15:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, the BW part was ok i agree, the part about Aant Elzinga cannot be accessed, since the book is paywalled. Other than that my edit addressed the edits from the Grundmann reference, which can be accessed via the reference. If you think that something is wrong with that, quote the part here. prokaryotes ( talk) 15:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- No reason for your edits. Thats already within the previous text. Serten
Talk 15:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Zweifelhaft ist freilich, ob dies zu den Regulierungen geführt hat. That said, no reason to keep you edits, which try to tell a diifferent story. Nothing changed at the Watson article. Youre repeatedly telling fairy tailes. COI again, I presume? Serten
Talk 14:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Undue weight, POV, Bias. You put the consensus on top, no reasons for that in the sources, to the contrary. You fail to support that. COI again? Serten
Talk 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is now sorted after years (except for the bottom part, which is still based on your edits). The section is in the same place as before. I use your own references. If you think there is a COI, here is the place to report it /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard prokaryotes ( talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Undue weight, POV, Bias. You put the consensus on top, no reasons for that in the sources, to the contrary. You fail to support that. COI again? Serten
Talk 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yawn. Its not sorted, its been biased. The concensus approach NOT being used in the Ozone case, was crucial for its success. Watsons approach was fruitful to propagate a separate role of the science community in climate issues, but with mixed results. Again, the failure of the linear model is more important. You try to push it, against science evidence. Interesting paradox Serten
Talk 15:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence Bob Watson, successfully united the international science community in 1985 to act on the problem with the ozone hole, before a consensus existed. DO you have suggestions to change the sentence? Other than that, this part doesn't justifies removal of previous additions i.e. Enquetekommission and Schneider.
prokaryotes (
talk) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Neither the Enquetekommission and Schneider are relevant for the comparision. Serten
Talk 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Enquetekommission was explicitly mentioned by the source (Grundmann) you have added, as an example when climate action was achieved without consensus. Schneider is one of the most cited resources when it comes to IPCC and the consensus process. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Neither the Enquetekommission and Schneider are relevant for the comparision. Serten
Talk 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The first sentence Bob Watson, successfully united the international science community in 1985 to act on the problem with the ozone hole, before a consensus existed. DO you have suggestions to change the sentence? Other than that, this part doesn't justifies removal of previous additions i.e. Enquetekommission and Schneider.
prokaryotes (
talk) 15:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yawn. Its not sorted, its been biased. The concensus approach NOT being used in the Ozone case, was crucial for its success. Watsons approach was fruitful to propagate a separate role of the science community in climate issues, but with mixed results. Again, the failure of the linear model is more important. You try to push it, against science evidence. Interesting paradox Serten
Talk 15:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- If ypou want to write an article about the consensus, go for my draft. No relevance for the comparision with Ozone. . an edit comment like "too much sociology" in a sociology/STS releated topic is sort of hilarious. Serten Talk 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Serten Talk your revert count is now 3, read WP:3RR. Do not edit war because you disagree. Except for Schneider addition, the content is based on YOUR own references, and the author Grundmann dedicates 1-2 pages to this Enquetekommission. Thus, relevant to the discussion. prokaryotes ( talk) 17:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is your selective use. I don't see a 3RR, as we have rather different versions. If you want to write about the Enquetekommission, try an different article. You misquote RGs research by ignoring his results. No relevance for the comparision with Ozone here. The very basic STS rule (consensus comes after regulation, not before) compare
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/32/2/235 applies. Serten
Talk 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Sagepub study mentiones "Brian Wynne's study of Cumbrian sheep farmers". Serten, i suggest that you add or maybe slightly modify existing content, rather then to remove mention of Enquetekommission, which is imho a good example. And btw, the NPCC, also is structured in a similar way. prokaryotes ( talk) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is your selective use. I don't see a 3RR, as we have rather different versions. If you want to write about the Enquetekommission, try an different article. You misquote RGs research by ignoring his results. No relevance for the comparision with Ozone here. The very basic STS rule (consensus comes after regulation, not before) compare
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/32/2/235 applies. Serten
Talk 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I quote the abstract Science studies has shown us why science and technology cannot always solve technical problems in the public domain. In particular, the speed of political decision-making is faster than the speed of scientific consensus formation. Brian Wynnes study is a legendary showcase in STS, yes. Serten
Talk 19:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- But this is an example about sheep farmers, how is this related to Ozone depletion and climate change? This example (there are many other examples) would belong into an article about Decision Making in Politics prokaryotes ( talk) 19:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I quote the abstract Science studies has shown us why science and technology cannot always solve technical problems in the public domain. In particular, the speed of political decision-making is faster than the speed of scientific consensus formation. Brian Wynnes study is a legendary showcase in STS, yes. Serten
Talk 19:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Goodness, its about STS studies, not about sheep. Nature invited Brian Wynne, the sheep guy, to do a review about a bestseller from Naomi Oreskes. Serten Talk 08:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The recent edits expresses Prokaryotes COI, but has nothing to do with the science in question. Revert Serten Talk 23:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I ask you to stop making up unfounded claims about my edits. You mistaken expertise with a COI, it is not. Read WP:COI. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- What you call expertise is not in line with Science ;) Serten Talk 16:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nature looks different. Serten Talk 16:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
XingboGao (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Olivia0831 ( talk) 00:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Briannabanana0 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Briannabanana0 ( talk) 19:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)