Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Frederick Davies
Parties involved	William M. Connolley, Guettarda, Sympa, Mostlyharmless Stephan Schulz
Mediator(s)	nkayesmith
Comment	Page has been deleted

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming]]

Request Information

Request made by: Frederick Davies 21:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

Who's involved?

William M. Connolley, Guettarda, Sympa, Mostlyharmless Stephan Schulz

What's going on?

I believe William M. Connolley is using the article to rebute the author of one of the chapters of the book (chapter 4) instead of simply providing criticism; he is using language, and references which could not have been available at the time of publication of the book, to paint Mr. Christy in a bad light. He is also "overwhelming" the section with his text. See the Talk page.

What would you like to change about that?

William M. Connolley's text should be dropped or moved to a Criticism/Rebutal section.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Whichever way the mediator thinks best. You can contact me on frddch AT gmail.com.

Mediator response

I'll try this one. See talk page. --nkayesmith 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has this page been deleted? If so, can I close the case? --Ideogram 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been deleted. Closing. --Ideogram 10:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Note: Discussion is now taking place on the talk page of this article. --nkayesmith 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested compromise: Have Criticism section with William's text within Chapter 4 section. Fredrick indicates that he wishes the tone of the criticism to be more passive - can he please indicate how he thinks this should be done? Also, shouldn't the balance of the article be corrected by expanding the other sections, not *removing* information or disrupting the flow of the article? --nkayesmith 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question: do you want me to answer the above in this page or in the article talk page? I just saw this and your intervention in the talk page and wondered... Frederick Davies 22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my personal preference, if you don't mind. --nkayesmith 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this sound: Create a criticism section in Chapter 4, with the following text (as suggested by Fredrick Davies):

This chapter does not mention recent work on biases in the radiosonde network [1] and errors in the satellite temperature record [2]. Nor does it mention the recent CCSP report "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences" [3], on which Christy was an author, which concludes "Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.

with an understanding that future criticisms will be handled in the same manner, unless criticisms are similar enough to merge into one section, which will be decided when all or most sections have criticism sections. --nkayesmith 08:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've only just found this page. I'm surprised: both that this page exists, and that I wasn't notified. I don't see the arguments there are being nearly serious enough in dispute to hit mediation William M. Connolley 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did tell you on the talk page, a little belatedly I admit, perhaps you didn't notice. I don't know whether it is serious enough for the Mediation Cabal, but considering that I'm mediating a case involving ~ three words in a trivia section at the moment, I'd say it is, at least comparatively. :) --nkayesmith 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just seen that, so I take back the not-informed. I still think this isn't serious enough (not for the issue, but for the level of dispute) William M. Connolley 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Sorry for the delay in answering, but real life got in the way... -I have already offered Mr. Connolley the possibility of moving his criticism to a section so named, and I even edited the test to make it as neutral as I could (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shattered_Consensus:_The_True_State_of_Global_Warming&oldid=87114158). -Are we to have a criticism section for each chapter of the book? I have no problem in having a criticism section in chapter 4, as long as it is understood that should others be added to other chapters, they should be grouped together; if not the artcle is going to have too-many too-small sections to be readable. -As for the expansion of the other sections, I have already ordered the book and after reading it I will be thinking about it. At present only Sympa admits to reading the book and Mr. Connolley et al have scared him away, so there is not one with first-hand knowledge of the book to expand it.

Personally, I don't think all the criticisms should be put together - I haven't read the book, but I suspect that each essay would make different points, and therefore the criticisms for each chapter wouldn't be too similar. --nkayesmith 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my assertion above: that mediation is waaaaay premature in this case William M. Connolley 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but don't mind trying to help. --nkayesmith 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nkayesmith: Each chapter is written by a different author, and they address a separate detail of the argument; what binds them together is their divergence from the "Climate Change consensus", hence the title. On the other hand, the article on The Skeptical Environmentalist, for example, has a single Criticism section even though it addresses issues even more varied than Shattered Consensus does. And an article of another controversial book with a single theme, The Bell Curve, also has a single Criticism section.

Yes, but looking at the Skeptical Environmentalist article, the criticism is not very specific to one part of the book. But shouldn't the presence of one criticism section be decided when all the criticisms are present? --nkayesmith 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Connolley: It is too early; why? We clearly have a disagreement, are we to wait to ask for mediation until we have had a revert-war; is that what you consider grave enough to warrant mediation? Frederick Davies 20:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mr. Connolley does appear as one of the members of RealClimate [1], so his linking to it (even if he is linking to articles not written by himself) breaks point 11 of [2]. Frederick Davies 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point 11, but I'm assuming you are talking about Conflict of Interest? Well, in keeping with "let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it", I support the linking to RealClimate.--nkayesmith 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the initial proposal from nkayesmith not just for Ch.4 but for each of the other chapters as well (assuming any criticism of them is out there to be cited). I agree with his points that, as each chapter is a standalone article by a separate author, the criticisms should be similarly broken up.

At the moment, from a fresh reading of the article from someone who hasn't been involved in the conflict so far, Ch.4 sticks out noticeably from the rest as the only one that deviates from the pattern of simply summarizing the chapter's contents and listing the author's occupation/position. From that point alone, there's already a stylistic argument in favor of adding a subsection containing criticism (which I don't dispute the validity of) for any specific points made about that chapter, and it might even encourage someone to do the same for criticism of other chapters as well. This would ultimately result in a more complete and informative article. I really don't think confining criticism of an article's contents to a nearby section titled "Criticism" in any way either detracts from their force or gives them undue weight. What are the problems with this idea? It seems that the objections mentioned on the article's Talk page seem to stem from taking the proposer's "i.e." a bit too literally. --Arvedui 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am yet to find any other Wikipedia book article where there have been more than one "Criticism" section. Second, Mr. Connolley's "criticism" looks more like an attempt at rebuttal than a criticism; setting up a "Criticism" section per chapter is just going to encourage more of that, turning the article into a rerun of the Global Warming article, which is not the point. Third, though one "Criticism" section in chapter 4 is not much of a problem, having one per chapter is just going to make the article too top-heavy (Title followed by one or two sentences, then another title followed by another two sentences, ...), that is why I propose to have the one "Criticism" section in chapter 4 until others appear, when all the criticisms should be grouped together (and that is even before we start arguing about the wording of Mr. Connolley's section...). Frederick Davies 16:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one wants to have an idea of what this book is about, please revert to the original version of the article. Chapters 2 and 4 have been completely dismantled under the disguise of NPOV. But, it was more an exercise in censorship and POV on WMC's part. I have rewritten these two chapters in their entirety already twice. But, nothing short of scathing rebuttals or complete censorship of what these two respective authors stated would satisfy the mentioned editor. In view of the above, I certainly applaud the efforts of the mediators to redress this situation and instill any sort of NPOV back into this article. Only WMC thinks this is a premature effort on this regard. He has confused this article with his own soap box. For that he has his own blog that he shares with like-minded groupthink scientists on the subject. And, he should stick to that. I understand some of the mediators have ordered and will read this book. I am confident that their upcoming reading of this book will confirm in their respective minds my perspective. In other words, in the original article I did not make much up.Sympa 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]