Talk:350.org/Archive 3

Straw poll

Straw polls are useful sometimes. Please vote for or against including the posters incident discussed above.

Votes

• Strong Delete — no relation to article topic and no notability. ► RATEL ◄ 07:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong include — appears in a reliable source in conjunction with 350.org. It would probably be WP:UNDUE to expand it much more, even if more information comes out, but there is no reason consistent with Wikipedia policies to exclude it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong include — Notable: Appeared in three reliable news sources (two print pubs in two different cities plus the local NBC station) and new stories keep coming out. The story is therefore developing. There is no reason to exclude it. The relation to a 350.org event is clear and factually stated. No one is saying that 350.org caused this to happen. It merely points out that this happened at one of their events. Nothing else is claimed. A true, verifiable, sourced statement is not a smear. The "undue weight" policy would prevent any of these individual events from being listed. You can't just pick out the negative ones and yell undue weight. Then the tree plantings, etc would have to go. Can't place undue weight on one of a few thousand events, right?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of news stories? Lol. I get one (obscure) story on GNEWS [1] ► RATEL ◄ 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL? I provided you with two other sources. It was reported in far more publications than any of the single events you listed. How many GNEWS hits do you get for people on bikes with armbands?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The armbands data (and other features if the "Day of Climate Action") was removed, along with this trivial and unrelated incident, until Rubin reverted it. So don't raise the armband stuff. Your other sources are so obscure that not even Google News covers them, and that's saying something, because Google News covers just about every news source on the planet. ► RATEL ◄ 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The two largest newspapers in the western part of Massachusetts covered it. So did an NBC affiliate. As did NECN, which is the largest regional news station in the country. GNEWs fails to pick up quite a large number of legitimate news sources. It doesn't work unless their CMS can be easily indexed. Just because something isn't covered nationally doesn't mean it isn't notable. You are being a bit snobbish about the coverage here, when you know full well that four independent/verifiable organizations have covered the story. Aren't you the one who wanted to use 350.org itself as a source? --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that supporting links in this article come from sources like www.caribbeanpressreleases.com (how's that for obscurity?), swva.org and oregonlive.com. MassLive.com is literally run by the exact same company as oregonlive.com. Some of the "legit" citations are for things like "Why I am Walking 350 miles." That's notable how? Non-notability was not introduced into this article by me.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and Move to ecoterrorism. The posters are an example of ecoterrorism, not of 350.org's activities. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is ecoterrorism. Then it appears that you are admitting that ecoterrorism happened at 350.org event. How is that not notable to the 350.org climate day?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The single GNEWS source does not mention ecoterrorism, so filing it under that would be wp:SYN The only sensible thing to do with this bagatelle is to remove it and review its inclusion in Wikipedia if and when there are substantive further developments in the case. ► RATEL ◄ 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good standard for the entire page. Could you also point me to the Wikipedia policy about only GNEWs-listed sources counting?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no such policy, but you may benefit from reading wp:NOTNEWS and wp:NEWSBRIEF, both of which would suggest that this is not the place for your bulletin on posters. ► RATEL ◄ 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Bulletin?" What's this 350.org article except a bulletin of current events? The organization itself doesn't seem notable beyond being in the headlines. They aren't the IPCC or Greenpeace or another organization with an established record of doing anything. Thus far (and this could change), they are a flash in the pan. They are (admittedly) just a marketing campaign. Your "we don't need your type here" attitude is tiresome as well. You post sarcastic edit comments with each of your edits. I may disagree with Dr.enh, but at least he/she keeps on topic.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, to quote you from another Talk page: "It was suggested by User:Ratel in reference to 350.org that articles should not mention unofficial signs that put the organizers in a negative light. I tend to agree with him/her/it at this point." So you clearly get what I am trying to say. And as another editor there commented: "350.org is about an organization not events of a very specific nature held on one specific date". I think you're editing to make a point here, and it's disruptive. ► RATEL ◄ 05:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That was disingeneous. His argument was quoting your argument to justify removal of the signage section from Taxpayer March on Washington. If your arguments were valid, they would apply to that article as well. I don't consider them valid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what Ratel is saying is that this organization doesn't actually do anything. They organize events (see first two paragraphs) but the actual events have no relation to the organization. It's a circular argument and really makes no sense. Either they can claim credit for thousands of events (and what happens at them, good or bad) or they can't. You can't have it both ways in this article. If the main organization itself is really so irrelevant to any actual events, why is the climate day mentioned? More importantly, how is the organization notable?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete along with all the other non-notable stuff. Per WP:NOT#NEWS -Atmoz (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTABLE. Also, it seems completely unclear if the poster incident is in any way related to 350, who did it and whether it was a joke or serious threat. The whole thing is very vague and I suspect will be soon forgotten... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Up to now we have three uninvolved editors who all say to delete the reference to the poster episode because WP:NOTNEWS. Though you might not agree, can everyone live with that result and avoid further edit warring? If so, I will unprotect the article. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll live with that. In addition, I've asked Atmoz, who has a talent for editing down articles, to help shorten this one too. I am not averse to condensing all the minutiae. A lot of it can be adjusted via précis without actually losing too much of the fine detail. Hopefully we can keep the better quality sources, if possible. ► RATEL ◄ 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with the result for the moment, provided that the intent is to remove all individual events not run by 350.org (if there are any), and to remove anything sourced only to 350.org or to 350.org press releases except for the intent or claims of the organisation. If there is anything about an affiliated event sourced only to 350.org and/or local news sources, that item should be there. Perhaps the {{cherrypicked}} tag is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be unprotected until the trimming approach to be taken is decided. I lean more toward MoonHoaxBat's version than Ratel's proposal, or even my proposal that general information about the events should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I support condensing the article to the version below. If that's not possible, then let's just stick with the overall number of events and not get drawn into the minutiae. Ratel wants to keep the "fine detail," yet remove the poster thing because it's too obscure. I happen to think that death threats are not minutiae or fine detail. Arthur is exactly right about the cherry picking issue here. Ratel was fine with including every positive event, even if not verifiable or in the future. Realistically, this organization's article should be two paragraphs. The founder-worship at the beginning is far in excess of the information found about Greenpeace or WWF's founders. No reason for there to be a picture of Bill McKibben.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my idea... slice the article down to size. If it really doesn't organize events, then most of the article is irrelevant.

350.org[1] is an international,[2] environmental[3] organization, headed by author Bill McKibben,[4] with the goal of cutting atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions to 80% by 2050,[5] from 2006 baseline emissions of 9,180 million tons of carbon.[6] 350.org takes its name from the research of NASA scientist James Hansen, who posited in a 2007 paper that 350 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere is a safe upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.[7][8][9][10][11] The current level is 389 ppm of CO2. The pre-industrial revolution level was 278 ppm.[12] In 1988 the earth's atmosphere surpassed the 350 ppm mark.[13]

Their largest action thus far was the 350 International Day of Climate Action, held on Saturday October 24, 2009. The organization reported 5245 actions in 181 countries.[14][15]

Short and sweet. Any takers?

P.S. I left out the polling and tree planting because those aren't really notable. Thousands of organizations plant trees and do polling. Those activities shouldn't be the basis of notability.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's absurd. There is no need to lose the flavor of the actions they've encouraged and help set up. I'll have a go at shortening it when it's unprotected. My approach would be to lose most of the subheads, contract individual events into general descriptions with a few cites for each, making it clear that the 350.org website is an organizational hub that conceives the format of the actions and events to be held in remote locations by people who register as organizers, helps these organizers in various ways, and co-ordinates the events. I think the page can be sensibly shortened without losing the essence of what they are all about and what they've accomplished. The proposal above is simply suppression of information and an attempt to censor. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold, on. Censor? I wanted to be an inclusionist like you, but then you said that the poster info was a slur. Now you're talking about preserving the "flavor" of the actions? That's POV. Your idea of the actions' "flavor" doesn't include anything negative. You are trying to leave a certain taste in the mouth of readers and want to take out any ingredients to the contrary. You don't need to wait until the article is unprotected to show us a draft right here of what you'd do.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said: If any specific actions, reported only by 350.org and local sources (as opposed to national newspapers, magazines, and news networks), are included in the article, then the posters should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman pointed out above that consensus was simply to remove the "posters" data. That seems to be the only thing for which there is consensus. So once again, I agree to the conditions Jehochman has set out for unprotecting the article, which is simply to remove that data. Now Rubin and MoonHoax must respond to Jehochman's question above: Will you abide by consensus? ► RATEL ◄ 07:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Atmoz and SPLETTE are in favor of removing all trivia, which makes as good a consensus as for removing the "posters" data. If we can establish consensus as to what is "trivia", we can go forward. In the absence of more clarification, I would interpret "trivia" as including all single events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. SPLETTE, Ratel and Dr.enh are all in favor of simple removal of the incident, Atmoz wants the incident and other non-notable stuff removed (to which I agreed along the lines I've proposed), and only you and MoonHoax want radical removals. That's 3-1-2 or even 4-2. ► RATEL ◄ 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That statement is not correct. SPLETTE and Atmoz want the non-notable stuff removed, including the incident. My statement is that WP:UNDUE requires that, as the incident is clearly more notable than a statement that "350.org and X planned an event" sourced only to 350.org, X, and local news media, that all such individual events be removed; but I'm willing to accept the fact that individual events are not notable.

4-2 does not constitute consensus. The only reason J sees consensus is that SPLETTE and Atmoz are seen as previously uninvolved editors; even if that's the case, the consensus is WP:NOT#NEWS. And, for both you and MoonBat, let me quote a note from WP:News article#Criteria:

• Note: Where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent of each other and can not be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets do independent reporting on a single event, this is independent coverage.

The report on the incident does seem to fall in the latter group, but so do the tree plantings and almost all of the other events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubin claims that "SPLETTE and Atmoz want the non-notable stuff removed, including the incident." I ask jehochman to review the straw poll question and SPLETTE's answer, and see if Rubin is correct or not. It seems to me that Rubin is deliberately misrepresenting the views of other editors in a manner that is non-collegiate and wilfully disruptive. ► RATEL ◄ 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable question for a neutral review. You'd misrepresented my statement that all individual events should be removed as an agreement to remove only the individual IDCA events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem illogical that we would remove one incident for "undue weight among thousands" but then leave several others in. The consensus here seems to be removing the non-notable information. Nearly everything past the first two paragraphs is non-notable. A picture of Bill McKibben is totally unneeded. Show me another environmental group (especially the more renowned) that have any pictures of their founder in their articles. Frankly, the organization seems like a vehicle to push his book and the article follows in that vein. The logical problem that Ratel keeps hitting up against is that each of his arguments (UNDUE, NOTNEWS, etc.) for removing the posters incident apply equally as well to removing all the positive events listed. So Ratel is left arguing for CHERRYPICKING. Either you get into the weeds or you don't, but once you're there, you don't argue over what's a weed and what isn't.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) There is no relevance or notability of the posters to article and do not belong here. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. That makes 5 for removal, two for retention. ► RATEL ◄ 04:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When will AR be blocked too, for its destructive behavior? 99.155.155.43 (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When will 99.155.* be blocked for destructive behavior? He/she/it has specified that he/she/it believes that "getting the mssage out" is more important than Wikipedia policy; this is probably true, but indicates that the anon shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, MoonHoaxBat was blocked for an improper user name misinterpreted as sockpuppeting, not for destructive behavior. Please note the block logs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Balanced proposal

I propose that no individual events be listed, and that all information sourced primarily to 350.org be noted as claims. Individual events could be summarized, as long as no single event not reported by a national news service gets as much as a full sentence.

This should apply to both events associated with the IDCA, and other 350.org-associated events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being more reasonable, Arthur. When the page is unblocked, I'll attempt an edit along those lines. ► RATEL ◄ 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I made clear earlier, I will not be participating further in this discussion for at least some weeks. I am also not making edits to articles in general at the moment until the issue regarding my username is resolved. I trust that you can come up with a consistent, NPOV, and defensible standard for what is in this article. Good luck!--FredUnavailable (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do these various "80%" carbon reductions by 2050 for the Copenhagen meeting reach 350ppm?

Do these various "80%" carbon reductions by 2050 for the Copenhagen meeting reach 350ppm? 173.206.40.83 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not by the current "Copenhagen Accord" COP-15 results ... insufficient improvement in the situation leading to 770 ppm, over the Tipping point (climatology). By February 2010, we'll see if there is greater awareness (enlightenment). i.e. a vector away from self-extinction. 99.24.251.89 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference Retreat of glaciers since 1850 (a featured article), as an impact of increased carbon dioxide?

Reference Retreat of glaciers since 1850 (a featured article), as an impact of increased carbon dioxide? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Note: Global warming is also in Category:FA-Class Environment articles; but also see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for other's disruptive, anti-progressive behavior. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate to reference in this article; it's only relevant to global warming, not to 350 stuff. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For some of the "messengers" and some of the diverse supporters, would Evangelical environmentalism be an appropriate link?

For some of the "messengers" and some of the diverse supporters, would Evangelical environmentalism be an appropriate link? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not referring to that article. If you refer to the tendency of those environmentalists to spread the gospel according to Hansen all over Wikipedia the world, the same way evangelical religions do, I think you may have a point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is 350.org on Google Buzz?

Is 350.org on Google Buzz? 99.155.146.85 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone care? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications + biosequestration?

"Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications" by Adam Corner and Nick Pidgeon, in Environment Magazine print edition now, states biosequestration is the safest least-costly way to address global warming, useful reference? 99.88.230.130 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said when you proposed this yesterday, not on this article. If it's a reliable source, it might be added to biosequestration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ("Arthur Rubin") state the link is so good, why don't you add it? 99.29.184.129 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't verify that the magazine is credible or reliable, nor do I wish to put in the time to verify it. If it's reliable, and the quoted text is actually in the article, then it could be placed somewhere in biosequestration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Too busy contributing to Stern Review? 99.29.186.68 (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Bill Gates declared at the TED Conference that his top priority was achieving zero global emissions. Portal:Current events

Add "Bill Gates declared at the TED Conference that his top priority was achieving zero global emissions. (350.org)"? See Portal:Current events 16 February 2010 (Tuesday). 99.39.187.74 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this important to 350.org? It seems, even if he said "350" (which is not in a real source, yet), it's referring to the goal, rather than the organisation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.350.org is used as a reliable source in various places in Wikipedia, didn't you spend the time to even look at the Current Events Portal, or too dogmatic? 99.35.8.39 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.350.org is not considered a WP:RS anywhere where it's been brought to the attention of regular editors, as you should well know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for pointing it out. Oddly enough, I can't find a real news source for the material, although the TED Conference web site has a note about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears that the real focus of the speech was reduction of world population, rather than specifically a reduction of emissions. That may deserve coverage, at that, but we need a real news source saying what the focus of his speech was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html "Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!" ... is this it? Or did you find more, or too busy Flamebaiting than to be one of the Category:Sustainability advocates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk • contribs) 16:47, March 10, 2010

We would probably have to say "according to TED"; not clear they're reliable, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TED maybe called Category:Propaganda, like a Brand Upon the Brain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.230.29 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Propaganda is appropriate for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tastes like chicken to me. Was that previous link correct, because you act like you believe you can read minds ... ? 99.35.11.2 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you ... or maybe have Wikipedia:Boston Tea Party? 99.39.187.225 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful to get the Wikipedia:The Last Word, really ? 99.54.140.159 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. What the organization is doing is clearly distributing propaganda, whether or not accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"It can hard to decipher the often-subtle clues that indicate sarcasm on the printed page" MaximumPC magazine April 2010. 99.88.230.1 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The same can be said of any lobby group. But this group, unlike most lobby groups, seems to have a selfless goal. ► RATEL ◄ 07:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AR, What is with all the Italics, bold, capitalization across wp-land? Do you know ALL CAPS is screaming? 99.52.151.76 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Will 350 be involved with 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference as they were for COP-15?

Will 350 be involved with 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference as they were for COP-15? 99.190.91.251 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How would Public nuisance laws relate to current Climate change and continued Global warming effects, in the U.S.A.?

How would Public nuisance laws relate to current Climate change and continued Global warming effects, as related to Global commons and "The commons" in the United States, since this is a Category:Climate change organizations based in the United States? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this group work on Climate change mitigation, or chiefly awareness?

Does this group work on Climate change mitigation, or chiefly awareness? 99.29.186.157 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd have to say "awareness" (although the Wikilink is misleading). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Add Climate change mitigation scenarios .

Add Climate change mitigation scenarios ~~. 99.52.150.98 (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not, Climate change mitigation scenarios lists 350, and it the organization is called "350" for which the scenarios is a goal? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

List of "messengers"

Why should any list of "messengers" be in the article? Perhaps those who are separately notable might be, provided that they also confirm that they are "messengers". (The 350.org web site is not a reliable source for anything other than the organization's own beliefs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you have deleted references by the people themselves in the past, you are not uninvolved, for deleting the paragraph: "Currently the 350 Messengers are: Bill McKibben, Rajendra Pachauri, Vandana Shiva, Abp. Desmond Tutu, Dr. James Hansen, Liz Thomson of the Small Island Developing States, Pres. Mohamed Nasheed, David Suzuki, Van Jones, Lester R. Brown, George Monbiot, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Will Steger, Barbara Kingsolver, Hermann Scheer, Alex Steffen, Mathis Wackernagel, Colin Beavan, Dr. Karl-Henrik Robèrt, Homero Aridjis, Paul Rogat Loeb, Deepa Gupta of Indian Youth Climate Network, Ross Gelbspan, Keibo Oiwa of the Slow Movement, Claudio Angelo of the Folha de S. Paulo, Bulu Imam, Thomas Homer-Dixon, José María Figueres, and Bo Ekman of the Tällberg Foundation (supporters of the Tällberg Forum)."

Maybe you should get one of your friends to delete it instead, as your POV is showing again. 99.155.159.175 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable? Not only are they linked within Wikipedia already (Are you implying all things WP are non-notable, if so why do you edit, to self-promote?), the list is filled with awards and recognition, scholarly and practical, inventors, scientists, and explorers, even easily definable as Good works.

Its is easy to destroy, that is why the Creators are great.

All these people are big-picture proven leaders; showing bold courage, while pro-life in the widest sense of the word, as selfless acts can go (related word Biocentrism (ethics)), such as Heroes of the Environment. Not just Ecosystem management, but Global commons scale, attempting to avoid the Tragedy of the commons and the Tragedy of the anticommons simultaniously. Not only have these some people run for office, they have lead nations (examples: President of Costa Rica, President of the Maldives, Parliament members), positively engaging a diverse range of people.

The limited list of examples ("Messengers") is in itself a evidence for the international span of this organization, i.e. beyond the English language, worthy of the Encyclopedic goal of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.231.229 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You have still provided no reason for inclusion of the list of messengers. I'm waiting.

I am implying that, even if the individuals are notable, their association with 350 may not be notable either to 350 or to the individuals. You have provided no evidence for that.

Also, we only have 350.org's word that they are "messengers"; unless there's a reliable source that they are "messengers" (which does not include either 350.org or the individual), it must be removed, under WP:BLP. (Last year, I had thought that BLP only applied to derogratory information, but it's been demonstrated to me that it applies to any controversial information; and 350.org is nothing, if not controversial.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial how? They seem bland in the world, mainstream even. "Controversial" and nothing else to you only? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial yes. If I were a reputable environmentalist, I wouldn't want to be associated with 350.org's antics. If I were a disruptuable environmentalist.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How is adding the word "antics" credible evidence to be dismissive: much innuendo on your part. Science stands on its own do to its process. Politics of global warming or just politics on your part? 99.102.176.255 (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your antics are incompatible with Wikipedia policies. And most of 350.org's actions qualify as symbolic protests, if not "antics". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, how do you know "most" of their actions? Have been in meetings? If you find their actions to be antics (amusing, frivolous, or eccentric behavior), what do you see as more effective (cost, and otherwise) for Climate change mitigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.185.104 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said their antics. I should have said your antics in creating spamlinks in Wikipedia to this organization whereever the number "350" appears in Wikipedia, although I consider some of the events formerly listed in this article to be "antics" (eccentric) and completely unrelated to CO₂ mitigation or climate change mitigation (which are not identical). However, the section is still about living persons, and sourced only to 350.org, making it a BLP violation if controversial. As the organization is controversial, so is membership or "messengership". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Reported on WP:BLPN#350.org. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also leave the names out, unless the person has been widely reported as being associated with this group, and their notablility/work with this group has risen to the level that warrants inclusion, ect. --Tom (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree not equal to User:Tom, Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.228.206 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Related? [3] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Second_round_of_Bonn_UN_Climate_Change_negotiations_continue

Related? [4] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Second_round_of_Bonn_UN_Climate_Change_negotiations_continue 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.152.96 (talk)

2007 or winter 2008

When did Hansen make his "350" pronoucment? The lede says 2007, while the "Origins" section says "winter 2008". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in the wp article already: "Hansen has reams of paleo-climatic data to support his statements (as do other scientists who presented papers at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco this month)" dated December 28, 2007 in the Washington Post. 99.54.136.82 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Scientific opinion on climate change per reasons left by previous contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=350.org&limit=500&action=history

Add Scientific opinion on climate change per reasons left by previous contributors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=350.org&limit=500&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.186.135 (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I challenge the assertion; both that it's relevant, and that reasons were left by previous (anon) contributor(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal. 99.155.155.38 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

About 25% of Anglophone Wikipedia is "IP users" edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_of_percentage_of_edit_number_-_IP_user_and_registered_user.png from Japanese Wikipedia. A user with a "name" is still Anonymous (group), obviously. PS, Here is ja:地球温暖化に対する懐疑論 Climate change denial in Nihongo. 99.35.9.173 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:Dudenfreund/Dudenfreund’s Law may be of interest too ... the more edits under a "name" the less valuable, with an IP User "EC-0" the most believable, or is it beliefable?.  ;-) 99.102.177.234 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Obamas Go Solar at Home, the White House and October 10th ...

Add Obamas Go Solar at Home ... "President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House roof in 1979. The Carter panels, which cost about $30,000, heated water but were removed under President Ronald Reagan when they needed repairs in 1986. President George W. Bush in 2003 installed solar panels on the White House grounds to heat the White House pool and a maintenance building." ... "Environmental activist Bill McKibben and his group 350.org brought one of the solar panels installed by Mr. Carter to the White House last month as part of a campaign to get world leaders to embrace renewable energy technology." Also Dina Cappiello's 5.Oct.2010 Here comes the sun: White House to go solar (AP) Steven Chu "...to be installed by spring 2011...", Juliet Eilperin's 5.Oct.2010 White House goes solar (Washington Post) "and White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Nancy Sutley ..." GreenGov symposium ... 99.155.158.29 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cascadiancanadian, 28 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Two related corrections: 1. Correct the URL for the last link in external references: "Atmospheric CO2 for June 2010" from "http://co2now.org/:") to < ref > http://co2now.org < / ref >. 2. Also, the text should not be date-specific. Suggested alternative: "Current level of CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere" proox (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Done and Done. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Any results?

I read McKibbon's book. He mentions Obama and Clinton changed their policies? Did they actually implement any of these policies? I think we need a 'criticism of' section because the organizers seem to be tooting their own horn a lot without any results being documented. Besides those 350 trees planted in Cameroon, was anything concrete done? I'm not talking about politicians signing promises.TurtleMelody (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be a start: 10.10.10 Global Work Party [5]? Also of interest might be Foreign Policy [6] ... And a wp article that needs work: 350 ppm Climate change mitigation scenarios ... awareness and action versus delay and deny. 99.181.140.27 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For awareness, what about: Effects of global warming ? 99.181.148.166 (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Mitigation seems the best article to reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Being aware is done before action, i.e. "mitigation" ... First things first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.128.233 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not if done by Truthiness ... Zombie argument. 99.181.151.180 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Add 350.org has combined with 1Sky?

Add 350.org has combined with 1Sky? 99.181.142.47 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have references? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this: http://www.1sky.org/blog/2011/04/joining-350org-the-next-phase ? 99.181.140.154 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is one from 350.org http://www.350.org/en/new350-announcement 99.181.135.38 (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Sustainability }} ?

Add {{Sustainability}} ? 99.181.156.30 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Template:Political campaigning or Template:Politics ?

Add {{Political campaigning}} or {{Politics}} ? 99.181.132.99 (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Add "small scale Geoengineering" for projects such as tree planting?

Add "small scale Geoengineering" for projects such as tree planting? 99.56.120.243 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Rockefellers' 1Sky Unveils the New 350.org: More $ ?

Add Rockefellers' 1Sky Unveils the New 350.org: More $ ? 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Why We're Merging to Form a Climate Change Supergroup ?

Add Why We're Merging to Form a Climate Change Supergroup ? 99.19.44.207 (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, but perhaps the merger is relevant, if such a source could be found. 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is Good (magazine)'s website not wp:rs, or is that just your opinion? 99.19.43.74 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Add

1Sky merged into 350.org in 2011.

99.35.14.29 (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is just Art's admittedly biased "opinion". 99.190.86.162 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have evidence that Good is reliable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)