Talk:350.org/Archive 1

Expansion request/A few suggestions
Questions left unanswered by the piece, and by the only really reliable (ie non-blog) secondary source, include: Answering these would help flesh out the prose and tilt the focus to the organization itself rather than their mission statement, assuming we don't dwell too long on the tAop one. Happy editing, MrZaius  talk  18:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where'd the seemingly arbitrary 350ppm goal come from? A 0, 1, or 2 degree increase target, or was it just pulled out of a hat?
 * Why do the promoters matter? We obviously don't list every celeb that's ever come out in support of UNICEF or footballer in Portugal, but is this organization so truly limited in scope that the celebrity list warrants more than half the article space?
 * Anything to be said about the actual work the organization has done to point, or have they just made the 350 statement and walked away? (Expanding the cursory mention of August 24th would help, and might help shift some of the bunched up citations into a more natural flow.)
 * Likewise, is there anything else to be said about its founding other than the name of the founder?


 * Actually, I ran across the 350 ppm from another source; it's believed (although I can't credit the source as reliable) to be the point at which a runaway greenhouse effect would start. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with questions above, don't know the answers. Chopped the athlete list as pure promo, need to sift thru the other list also. Vsmith (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I ran across 350 somewhere else, but they apparently don't know where it came from. [1] in the lead only refers to 350 as the 1990 level, and [2][3][4] are all associated with this organisation or its founders.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * James Hansen quote used as reason for name. Found in McKibben article. Vsmith (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Enter References as per WP:CITE
I just reformatted each and every one of the references for this article. Please, it is not sufficient to enter just an Internet address. We must also enter the full citation as per WP:CITE. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove Template
I removed the Refimprove template that was located in the references section as I figure that it had been inserted before the addition of the references now contained within the article and the finding of information as per the discussion above. — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Stub Template
Is this article still a stub? Can the organization-stub template be removed and replaced by an expand template? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the relatively short prose and the numerous unanswered questions, I'd say it's still closer to a stub-class than start-class article. Nice to see such quick progress, though - Thanks for the attention in the sections above. MrZaius  talk  05:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

add info ...
"International effort to raise awareness of the need to decrease carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. Includes updates on activities, how to get involved, and frequently asked questions." 209.255.78.138 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to already be covered in the article. Precisely where do you believe that this sentence should be inserted? — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

* Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
< link to Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change ("largest and most widely known and discussed report of its kind").

The Review's executive summary states that "the Review first examines the evidence on the economic impacts of climate change itself, and explores the economics of stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The second half of the Review considers the complex policy challenges involved in managing the transition to a low-carbon economy and in ensuring that societies can adapt to the consequences of climate change that can no longer be avoided".[2]

Its main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change considerably outweigh the costs. It proposes that one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be. The Review[4] states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The Review provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. It states, "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth stragegy for the longer term and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries."[5][6] In June 2008 Stern increased the estimate to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.[7] ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We cannot cut and paste one entire wikiarticle, Stern Review, into another wikiarticle, 350 (organisation). The best that we can do is make reference to the Stern Review, where and if it applies to and fits in the 350.org article, and create appropriate wikilinks. — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. You should read WP:Linking, WP:LINK, and Help:Link to familiarize yourself with how to create wikilinks and external hyperlinks at Wikipedia. Also, please consider creating your own personal Wikipedia account so that you can have more functionality here at Wikipedia. It can be done in essentially an anonymous way since you do not have to provide any personal information. In fact, it is more anonymous than editing using anonymous IP addresses since anonymous IP addresses can be traced, courtesy of initial links provided here at WP. — SpikeToronto (talk)

Merge with Bill McKibben discussion

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I can only find one reliable(?) secondary source that features this organization as its subject. And even this article is still mostly about its founder Bill McKibben. There are various other places where this organization is mentioned, but the subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:ORG. And there is nothing that shows it is notable separate from its founder. -Atmoz (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on user This user, as can be seen from his lobbying and argumentation below, has a vested interest in seeing this article downgraded through merge. There is a clear lack of good faith from this user in regard to this article. He is not editing dispassionately but rather pushing a POV. Admins please take note of his edit history and long involvement in climate change articles, always editing to minimize the topic. ► RATEL ◄  00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vested? Oh righto buddy. Watch how vested I am. Ta ta. (Although a nice way to get rid of people from a discussion.) -Atmoz (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Predictably, your departure did not last long. Smiley green alien unhappy.svg ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The myriad citations available at this Google News search seems to adequately establish notability. WP:ORG doesn't say the article can't derive notability from sources that would also demonstrate notability for the founder, it just says that mention of the organization shouldn't be "trivial or incidental". Seems like a more reasonable place to draw the line. That said, there might be a stronger case to be made for shifting the focus of the piece temporarily to their PR stunt by moving the piece to International Day of Climate Action. The following seem to be reasonably promising sources for expansion whether the piece is moved or kept in place: iner.com/x-14333-Green-Transportation-Exam[blocked]iner~y2009m8d17-350org-day-of-climate-action]      MrZaius  talk  13:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How many of those are reliable third-party sources where 350.org or the day is the topic of the article? I count none. -Atmoz (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I believe you're misreading WP:ORG. The mention is not trivial or incidental in a handful of them, and nearly all of them are perfectly adequate to make a case for notability after a move to the name of the groups' sole tangible product. A much simpler fix than a merge, and it sidesteps the possibility that it would simply be lost and never split back out afterwards. MrZaius  talk  03:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no Wikipedia policy consistent with making International Day of Climate Action the main article, unless you expect the organization to do nothing else.  Temporary moves due to topical events are not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also make the question of "organization" vs. "organisation" moot. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Temporary" wasn't the key word. What I was pointing out was that a stronger case for notability could be made for the day than the organization at this point. Seems more appropriate than burying the lead within a WP:BIO piece. MrZaius  talk  04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Further support reason (my reasons just support an alternative): Few, if any (I couldn't find any) references other than the organisation's web site are about the organisation; most are about the founder, and some just have an incidental mention. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT. I prefer a merger with the article about the group’s founder, Bill McKibben. It can be a section within that article and this page made into a redirect. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose — I have heard of this organisation via podcasts from Global Public Media and now Energy Bulletin Report. This sort of movement can only accelerate in status, notability and support in coming years. Suggest the article be improved and kept. I can find enough RS from Google News to keep the page alive, having a quick look. ► RATEL ◄ 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I've added a few sources and some material to the article, it is clearly of decided notability and I think the suggestion to merge it is absurd and I note the proposal comes from one of the usual suspects. Bad form. ► RATEL ◄ 09:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one of the references you added is about the organization from an independent source. I have no idea if that publication is reliable, but I'll assume it is. Another source you added is about McKibben, not about the organization. All the others either are not about the organization or are written by McKibben. You have provided only one source that covers this organization. As such, it still has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, your comment is rubbish. There are numerous RSes on 350.org and I have only used a few. ► RATEL ◄ 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I should add that Alexa shows 350.org to have 662 inlinking sites, and a nearly 300% increase in traffic in the last 3 months. ► RATEL ◄ 00:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The organisation has become very notable. 350.0rg is not just about its founder. If merged with the McKibben article it will give the resulting article an "imbalance". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Claims of notability need to be justified, not asserted. Please provide evidence that this organization is notable. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does 14,800,000 ghits on the organisation website name count as notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I have been a little disingenuous. it is only 14,700,000 if do I a search without the actual URL.... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither the notablity guideline or the organization sub-guidelines mention anything about Google hits. In fact... WP:GHITS and WP:GNUM (essays, but still good reads). Please search through those 14 million hits and find several reliable, independent secondary sources where this organization is the subject. -Atmoz (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Give me a few years to check out all the links.... I am sure some of them are reliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any of the links are relevant. The search may be collecting web pages which have the nomber 350 somewhere on the page.  15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Particularly if International Day of Climate Action is merged in. The information will be on Wikipedia in any case and it should be organized in the way that best serves our readers. If they're interested in 350 they shouldn't have to wade through McKibben's bio and vice versa. The notability is close enough. --21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_comment.svg|15px]] COMMENT WP:ORG notability is not about “close enough.” If you read the reference analysis section below, you will see that almost none of the references intended to establish WP:ORG notability about this article is actually about the organization in question. Remember: Notability is not about the environmental issue, it is about the organization and adhering to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. As it stands, this aritcle either needs to be renamed to what it is actually about — 350ppm protocol, or International Day of Climate Action — or merged. The references/citations of this article do not support its title, 350 (organisation). Alternatively, because it does not support its title, perhaps this discussion should take the form of a discussion for deletion. N.B. I am not suggesting that this article be deleted. I am highlighting/underscoring that its title is not supported by its text and references/citations and should be renamed or merge. As it stands now it violates wikipolicies and wikiguidelines. See below. — Spike (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And remember how redirects work: Anyone looking for 350.org would still go straight to the article’s new location: one of the merger proposals, or an article on 350ppm or the International Day of Climate Change. No one is going to have to struggle to find information at Wikipedia on 350.org under any of these suggestions. — Spike (talk)


 * Someone following a 350 redirect sees McKibben's bio. It's not ideal from the reader's perspective. As for WP:ORG, the scope is clearly international and there are articles in The Ecologist and Haaretz (one of the leading newspapers in Israel). McKibben has a piece he wrote about 350.org in the Washington Post and other papers. I think that's close enough and there will no doubt be more coverage after Oct. 24. --agr (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the redirect can go directly to the section and not to the top of the bio. See here. — Spike (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those links break all the time. And it's clear to us what is going on, but not necessarily to readers. Like I said, it's not ideal. And why bother if the notability is likely to be over the top in 6 weeks? There are much bigger fish to fry around here.--agr (talk)


 * I think you're right about the notability. My position is softening because I would be surprised if, before now and the International Day for Climate Action, there aren't finally some articles that are about this organization and not just its goals, etc. But, as it stands now, there are only one or two refs about it that are not self-published and all but the first six are not entered as per WP:CITE. See the analysis below. — Spike (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not averse to seeing the establishment of an article called 350ppm protocol. However, there is such a thing as the 350.org, a movement with thousands of supporters, that will make a big splash later this year, and that has many famous supporters including the IPCC's top guy. The 350.org site has hundreds of incoming links, many more than would be required to establish notability. The site's topic, the control of CO2 levels, may just be the most important topic in the world for decades to come. I think it is petty and short-sited to try to delete-rename-merge the page because of a technicality. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Ratel that you are misconstruing statements about notability as saying the the environmental issue or the 350ppm protocol is not notable. No one — other than the former Alaska governor — would suggest that. I do hope that as the International Day of Climate Action approaches, there may be articles written that are about this organization. Have you found anything that tells us where it’s located? Who runs it? How it is staffed? How it is funded? Everything one can find that answers those questions is self-published. As it stands, only one of the references/citations is about 350.org. Therefore, according to Wikipedia’s rules, it is correct that the WP:ORG Organizations template be put back on this article. It is not a deletion template. It can be removed when verifiable references/citations can be found that are about this organization and not about its causes/goals/objectives. — Spike (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They have an office at Suite 340, The David Brower Center in Berkeley, which is a good sign it's not just a drawer in McKibben's desk. This is a real entity with worldwide affiliates. As for staff, there's quite a few of them here all with xxxx@350.org email addresses, again a good sign that this is a staffed organisation. Of course this is self-published, but you would not expect a 3rd party to publish most of these details anyway (address, staff etc). You can yammer on all you like about Wikipedia's Rule 6 clause (ii) subclause (c) about what a .ORG requires for inclusion in wikipedia, but I prefer to use my common sense. I cannot read something like this and not know that this is definitely notable enough for inclusion. Please stop now. We know your view. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all about Bill, rather than about the organization. In fact, it doesn't mention 350.org directly.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I'm calling for the use of common sense. The website/organisation is implicit in all these activities, and that's where they are co-ordinated via logins. ► RATEL ◄ 05:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just from today's news, one of many links that says "Dedham is one of thousands of communities that have aligned with 350.org". This merge proposal should be closed as a time waster immediately. ► RATEL ◄  05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the first reference that has been produced which can be considered to be about 350.org, or possibly the Internation Day of Climate Change, rather than about Bill or published by Bill or 350. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Added Step It Up 2007, which has no sources other than Bill and 350. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Broom icon.svg|35px]] Request that this merge proposal be closed as unsuccessful by an uninvolved admin. ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with International Day of Climate Action discussion
Proposed by Arthur Rubin.


 * Support - Seems sensible and uncontroversial. Change into a redirect here. ► RATEL ◄ 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — It is essentially a restatement of the relevant section of this article. So, why not redirect it here? — Spike (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Redirect — It's almost a word-for-word content reinstatement, therefore no merge needed. All three references are in the main article as well. So it's really just a Redirect. In this particular case, Merge and Redirect would have effectively the same outcome. — Becksguy (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable References/Citations & WP:ORG
As at 2009-09-16 3:00PM EDT, this is an analysis of the citations in this article.


 * 1) About the environmental problem. Not about the organization.
 * 2) Self-published
 * 3) About the founder and the environmental problem. Not about the organization.
 * 4) About the founder and the environmental problem. Not about the organization.
 * 5) About the environmental problem. Not about the organization.
 * 6) About the environmental problem. Not about the organization.
 * 7) About the environmental problem, the founder, and the organization.
 * 8) About the environmental problem, written by the founder, not about the organization, but for one mention by the founder.
 * 9) About the environmental problem, about Rajenda Pachauri’s support of 350ppm, a one sentence mention of founder and his organization.
 * 10) About the environmental problem and Rajenda Pachauri’s support of 350ppm. No mention of organizaton.
 * 11) Fails verification because rather than citing an article, an entire website is cited! Failure of editor to enter a precise citation to a book or article as per WP:CITE means that the entire citation has to be tagged with Fact template and the incorrectly cited reference removed. The statement it was meant to support is now unsupported.
 * 12) Primarily about the environmental problem and the 350ppm movement in general. There is a brief mention of the organization in the author’s conflict-of-interest disclosure and in the fourth last paragraph.
 * 13) About the environmental problem, the COP15, the special day, no mention of this organization.
 * 14) While being ostensibly about the organization (see third and sixth paragraphs), the bulk of the article is about the environmental issue, 350ppm, and the founder. However, it’s the closest verifiable reference/citation so far.
 * 15) About the environmental problem, 350ppm, and the founder. No mention of the organization other than a hyperlinked URL at the very end of the article.
 * 16) This is written by the founder and is virtually a self-published source.

The issue is not about the quantity of verifiable references/citations. The issue as relates to WP:ORG notability is that the verifiable references/citations be about the organization whose WP:ORG notability is being assessed. It is disingenuous to say that these references/citations are about this particular organization. It verges on dissembling. The vast majority of these references would support a wikiarticle about 350ppm and not an article about this organization. All of which begs the question:

"Wouldn’t this wikiaritcle be better turned into an article about 350ppm with all these references than being about the organization, specifically?"

Of course, the organization would still be a part of such an article.

Finally, other than the first six citations, very few of these references are cited as per WP:CITE, clearly stating the name of the author, article, periodical/journal/book, publication date, etc. If any of these URLs goes dead, the citation is no longer any good and would have to be removed. For instance, the article from the Jerusalem Post should be as follows:

"Waldoks, Ehud Zion. “350-degree turnabout needed in climate change talks,” The Jerusalem Post. September 8, 2009. (Retrieved 2009-09-16.)"

Alternatively, it can be cited as follows:

"Waldoks, Ehud Zion. “350-degree turnabout needed in climate change talks,” The Jerusalem Post. September 8, 2009.  (Retrieved 2009-09-16.)"

Without a full citation, a deadlink will result in the removal of the citation and its being tagged by a Fact template.

— Spike (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above analysis should suggest that this article be renamed and become either (a) about the 350ppm protocol, or (b) about the International Day of Climate Action. — Spike (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bianca Jagger? (Some Anon's Problem)
The addition of verifiable links is being blocked, Why? : http://www.350.org/messengers#bianca, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-jagger/yes-we-can_b_181542.html   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The first is self-published, the second is almost certainly not reliable, and the third is probably not notable. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE BITE : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Please do not bite the newcomers 99.24.248.37 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not a newcomer, and this is not a "bite". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

+/- 50 What? Where is your reference? Talk:2009 99.155.157.229 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A link to a source will be help full if you can not use your words. +/- ppm = 300 to 400ppm, is the right User:Arthur Rubin? 99.155.151.42 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughable sources
I said I was done with this talk page, but these "sources" added by Ratel attempting to show notability are hilarious. All three are exactly the same press release! Not only that, the only mention of 350.org is the team will also race for 350.org, an internet-driven campaign to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. That's it. Those are some great sources. So 350.org takes out an advertisement on some bikers. Whoop-de-do. -Atmoz (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification of deletions by User:Atmoz.
I have seen the notes style on Social network service usage on other wikipedia pages. Why such an emotionally appearing response (i.e deletion), you didn't even explain why User:Atmoz? 99.184.228.72 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Every edit had a summary explaining it. Mostly, the "sources" are absolute crap. But don't worry. Ratel is on the ball and has reinserted the PR. -Atmoz (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletions by you are "using words"? "Use your words" and explain your most recent deletions, per my hopefully polite and attempt at humble request, please. 99.190.91.235 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody can ready your mind. I removed those because comments like this are pointless. If you want to engage in discussion, that's fine, but you need to actually write in sentences. -Atmoz (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are "editors" driving away contributors? User:209.255.78.138 where are you?
User_talk:Mrzaius

excerpt below:

"It doesn't have to be just political, climate change (warming) denial is FUNDED for the short-term short-sighted benefit of individuals and corporations ... besides the links here, see the Union of Concerned Scientists for direct evidence. Goto the Source. Energy companies (coal & oil, i.e. big carbon emitters) used some of the same disinformation people and methods as the tobacco industry: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD). The mass media was significantly influenced. This evidence is now public record. Bureaucratic methods, bullying, bots, and loopholes are being used within wikipedia to suppress knowledge. It appears there are climate change denial "marketers" in Wikipedia; it appears that previously it was most of the "editors" of the 350 wikipedia page, and likely many many other pages: Beware. 209.255.78.138".

And be an appropriate Risk-taker. See Stern Review for starters. Notice Seal the Deal!. Maybe The Age of Stupid will be informative...

Sounds like an Anon someone is well informed, more than me, and thus able to contribute to the encyclopedic growth of international knowledge of Wikipedia. What is this BiteClub, Nero? Creators will always survive the trivially Notorious. 99.155.145.150 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if you were the same anon someone who is spamming links to 350.org to anyone whose web site contains the number "350", not even necessarily 350 ppm, and putting in links in this article to anyone or anything named as a supporter on the web site, without confirmation from the person named. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nxxxn & User:Mrzaius where are you? "It's cool to know nothing" Kaiser Chiefs, eh bullies? Sarcastically, Yours. Andrew Lih is on the mark. 99.54.137.148 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Never Miss a Beat 99.155.158.32 (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing climate change denial campaign, eh User:Atmoz aka? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing to accuse good faith doubters that you know what you're talking about of being in climate change denial. You're extreme, even among global warming believers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the range of doubt and affirm in the science of global warming, so as to gauge "extreme" actions? Just curious if you have a Reliable Source or just need a citation? 99.190.88.105 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot suggestion
Suggestion: A bot should unlink all 350 and 350 ppm links. Almost all of them are WP:EGG links, and should not be in Wikipedia. I just removed one from IPCC where it's a count of government officials, but even those referring to 350 ppm are suspect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A bot won't be needed. They can, and must, be checked by a human. There are only about 15 or so links to the page. See the "What links here" at . -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bot is no longer needed, after the 50 or so I reverted earlier this month. This doesn't mean that it won't happen again, nor that almost all of the links are inappropriate easter eggs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another was just added to Tipping point (climatology). If you guess the suspect without looking at this history, you win a free steak. -Atmoz (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a place to mention societal activism around the CO2 conc issue. Just because you personally disagree with the aims does not mean that this issue is banned from mention on other pages. ► RATEL ◄ 04:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete-ists: YOU need citations: RS only PLEASE! 99.39.185.133 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there may be a place to mention societal activism around the CO2 concentration issue. You haven't found it, even if there is a reliable source of such activism.  And unsourced "information" can be removed without comment, if the remover believes it to be unsourcable (or inaccurate), or if there are WP:BLP issues involved, or if the remover believes it to be inappropriate to the article.  Deletetion does not require sources; retaining content does.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletions are activism, and you Arthur Rubin are an activist. 99.29.185.1 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this make sense to anyone else? It doesn't to me.  I also don't relevance to editing Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia policy is that deletions of unsourced material doesn't need "sources". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Scienceapologist's edits
I appreciate your efforts, SA, but you have mangled the "examples" section, which is a subsection of the International Day section, with activities that are not specifically related to the International Day of Action. You also removed the heading levels, and made the whole structure flat, which loses the meaning. ► RATEL ◄ 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion topic: add some more endorsements of 350 ppm upper limit target. See references below ...
Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford economist who released on October 30, 2006 the Stern Review supports 350 ppm upper limit.

The Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso endorses the 350ppm CO2 target. (Suggest link to the official Letter too, as cosigners.)

Also suggest adding a link to List of environmental dates for the Day. 99.35.9.162 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There IS a link in List of environmental dates, although there probably shouldn't be.
 * At most one of Nicholas Stern and the Stern Review should be linked here, and only if they specifically support 350.org, rather than the 350 ppm limit. No reliable sources have been been given which clearly support even that claim.
 * The Dalai Lama should also be listed here, only if he supports 350.org, rather than the 350 ppm limit, there is a reliable source for that (which hasn't yet been supplied), and it is considered notable.
 * This is the first request you (= multiple IP addresses) have made which is suffiently comprehensible for a reply.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Be bold not Emphasis (typography) please, don't shout. We're here create, not Denigrate. What Wikipedia is not: BiteClub. Stepping off 99.37.87.55 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't comprehensible either, but at least it's not defamatory. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addtions
An IP-hopping anon has proposed the following be linked to this article.


 * Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford
 * Stern Review
 * Tenzin Gyatso
 * List of environmental dates
 * Power Shift
 * Seal the Deal!
 * UNEP

I don't see any rational support for this, but it seems reasonable to include the links here, to see if anyone has rational support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objections, but then, I am an inclusionist! <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 00:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on our purpose - is it encyclopedia writing or cause promotion? Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A few see alsos are not necessarily promotional. You may argue that these are proposed by an anon bent on promotion. Equally, we seem to have a number of editors here who are determined to bury or minimise the page. If it weren't for them, I'd not have bothered with this page. A few non-aligned editors would be welcome. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest including specific links like that in the body if there is a source to support that, but I don't think they are appropriate as see alsos. They are too specific and including them there gives them undue weight. I think broader related subjects that would be helpful to our readers are better. Are those subjects including in a broad article that would make a good see also? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition Discuss: The last time the atmosphere was 350 ppm was in the 1980's
Addition Discuss: The last time the atmosphere was 350 ppm was in the 1980's (1984). 99.155.158.32 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is almost incomprehensible, but it's not relevant to the organization, only to the movement toward returning to 350 ppm. That might be worthy of an article, even though the organization is clearly not notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

< in the 1980's our atmosphere surpassed the 350 ppm mark, per the U.S.A. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 99.155.146.156 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears to be false, as well — best guess as to CO2 level at the local climactic optimum is 380 ppm. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

add Partner per their own pages http://www.consumerplanetwatch.org/ & http://www.350.org/friends
add Partner per their own pages http://www.consumerplanetwatch.org/ & http://www.consumerplanetwatch.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.146.156 (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed and linked here http://www.350.org/friends appears to be the intention. 173.46.234.152 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

good quote to add "scientifically required" (350) "physics and chemistry don't negotiate" Tällberg Forum cite http://webbtv.compodium.se/tallberg09/ondemand/039/
good quote to add "scientifically required" (350) "physics and chemistry don't negotiate" Tällberg Forum cite http://webbtv.compodium.se/tallberg09/ondemand/039/   99.54.143.44 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't add quotes from videos. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

350's goal addition: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions James Hansen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions per James Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.126.13 (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Does not mention 350.org <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Letter 300+ Groups Ask Senate for Stronger Climate Bill, including 350.org.
Add Letter 300+ Groups Ask Senate for Stronger Climate Bill, including 350.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.88.30 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Add groups limited focus, counter-point ... Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter, in Foreign Affairs
Add groups limited focus, counter-point ... Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter, in Foreign Affairs [Add groups limited focus, counter-point ... Why Black Carbon and Ozone Also Matter, in Foreign Affairs] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65238/jessica-seddon-wallack-and-veerabhadran-ramanathan/the-other-climate-changers ; by Jessica Seddon Wallack and Veerabhadran Ramanathan 99.190.88.30 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Add explanation of Tipping point (climatology), 350's goal to avoid.
Add explanation of Tipping point (climatology), 350's goal to avoid. 99.155.148.104 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Details for review for potential inclusion http://carbondowntozero.org/media/uploads/WakeUpScreenerCinemaDVD.pdf and references http://wakeupfreakout.org/wakeup.html   99.39.184.158 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * None of those are even plausible as external links, per WP:ELNO. They certainly cannot be used as references.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Negative Feedback Loops Spinning Out of Control 99.39.184.158 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That one is possible as an external link, although it probably should only be in Bill's article. Still not plausible as a reference.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The group Beyond Zero Emissions has "280ppm (pre-industrial level) and 325ppm" as the non-dangerous pro-civilization range. 99.155.149.239 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

mention some scientists think 350 ppm is not low enough ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions Roll back time to safeguard climate, expert warns 2008]
Roll back time to safeguard climate, expert warns 15 September 2008 ... "It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe," he said. "Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms." 99.190.91.81 (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he's not a scientist or a climate expert, but I can see your point. What I don't see is what it has to do with this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/john/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/director/cv "Fellow of the Heisenberg Programme of the German Science Foundation" means "Scientist" and "Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), in conjunction with a Chair for Theoretical Physics at the University of Potsdam, Germany " would qualify him as a "Climate expert". 99.155.151.214 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't see what it has to do with this article. It might have something to do with a separate article on the proposed 350 ppm target, but I question notability, even so.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"This" article is about an organization that promotes awareness of 350 (ppm as the upper limit of sustainable carbon dioxide in our atmosphere). Maybe their purpose of the group is in error, in that The Most Important Number in the World is actually below 350 as an upper limit? Ross Gelbspan appears to believe 350 is too high also from his Official website [http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7203&method=full Beyond the Point of No Return, It's too late to stop climate change -- so what do we do now? (Dec. 2008)] 99.155.149.108 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant to the group; if there were an article on the 350 ppm limit, he might be relevant. In fact, I think there should be, with this group listed as one of the supporters, as it's not really that notable a group.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

350 is an moderate average group, another "go lower" group is "Carbon Down to Zero.Org" http://carbondowntozero.org/home/ with links to END:CIV http://endciv.com/  and its angry undercurrent video parody "Star Wars – The Environmentalists Version". 350.org is mainstream. Maybe checkout http://www.rep.org/ Republicans for Environmental Protection ... is there an equivalent Libertarian's sustaining where we all live? (Just curious) 99.155.150.169 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Category:Global warming, as a related article or effort
Add Category:Global warming, as a related article or effort 99.155.151.214 (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That almost makes sense. But it's in Category:Climate change organizations, Category:Action on climate change, and Category: Climate change organizations based in the United States, so we'd need to adjust those categories, as well.  Perhaps most of the "climate change" categories should be moved to Global warming?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate change is general geological time scale, but global warming is the current average event; so it depends if you look on the planetary scale ("change") or the human scale (on average, "warming"). 99.155.150.169 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to suggest that categories such as Category:Climate change organizations and Category:Action on climate change be — changed — to reflect their global warming association. I find it hard to believe that there are any sites in Category:Action on climate change  which aren't primarily related to global warming.  If you need help setting up the request, let me know (on my talk page would be best), and I'll post the nominations in WP:CFD as appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another example Treeplanting ... Because trees remove carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, tree planting can be used as a geoengineering technique to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
... }} ... Another example of treeplanting will be held in Guam. Guam joins Global Day of Climate Action guampdn.com Pacific Daily News 2009-10-07 ... --- ... Because trees remove carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, tree planting can be used as a geoengineering technique to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. 99.184.228.181 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one tree planting example sponsored by 350 might be appropriate, but that was the second one in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the 5th. The treeplanting section needs to be — trimmed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

potential addition ... Category:Stop climate chaos
potential addition ... Category:Stop climate chaos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.10.73 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Add link to be moved from Mr. McKibben ... * 350 parts per million: We Can Meet It, Or We Can Fail by Bill McKibben on The 350 Journal August 2009
Add link to be moved from Mr. McKibben ...


 * 350 parts per million: We Can Meet It, Or We Can Fail by Bill McKibben on The 350 Journal August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Potential deletion from both? (And why has 350.org gathered up the 350 .org for all values of ?  Is that relevant to this article?)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

add reference to Permaculture i.e sustainability?
add reference to Permaculture i.e sustainability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly irrelevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More direct connection Global commons, as in The Tragedy of the global Commons; as seen on http://Permaculture.TV/    See related Tragedy of the commons...Tragedy of the anticommons    Just a side note, Urban example:   Hopefully Category:Market failure isn't made relevant ... Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor 99.190.88.105 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Associated Elinor Ostrom's analysis of economic governance, especially the commons (Common-pool resource) maybe, with Common good (economics) ... win win in "Category:Game theory"? For my sidenote, checkout Earthship with the Garbage Warrior Mike Reynolds (architect), avoiding Rewilding (anarchism) ? 99.155.150.88 (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting topic but not directly related to 350.org and its activities. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Add cyclist support of 350.org http://www.350.org/people  http://www.350.org/riders
"As part of the team`s green initiatives, Brighter Planet, an environmental consulting firm, has agreed to sponsor the team by offsetting the riders` collective carbon footprint as they travel to races throughout the season. To help brand the fight against global warming, the team will also race for 350.org, an internet-driven campaign to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere."

example citations ... http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS121270+17-Apr-2009+BW20090417 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=ah3oaNsR56Ms 

http://www.metlife.com/about/press-room/us-press-releases/index.html?compID=12765 

Cross-referenced with org site ... http://www.350.org/people 

http://www.350.org/riders 

There is also sections for Faith, Athletes, Artists, Food & Farms, Youth, Islanders (especially those to dround soon), Businesses, Musicians, Photographers, and it is expected the groups will grow ... note: the site states "Faith" groups are adding the fastest support currently, but the also note the "Businesses" group is the newest support ... maybe defectors from the USA Chamber of Commerce? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you see that this is already in the article?<span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Add info ... <350 partners with 1Sky http://local.1sky.org/
Add info ... <350 partners with [1Sky]] http://local.1sky.org/   99.37.84.188 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem a notable comment about either organization, even if accurate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Of potential addition: Climate refugee Climate ethics Category:Global_warming Fossil fuel phase out Category:Climate crisis, and what about Arctic methane release ?
Of potential addition: Climate refugee Climate ethics Category:Global_warming Fossil fuel phase out Category:Climate crisis, and what about Arctic methane release ? 99.52.151.181 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of those are indirectly relevant, but only through action on global warming, and the last isn't even relevant to that. My suggestions is that you (thousands of anons) create an article on the 350 ppm target, both in scientific terms (which isn't yet on Wikipedia), and in terms of proposed actions.  Then most of the articles on the organizations could be merged into that one, as there is little than can be said about even this organization other than its goals (which should, as I said, be a separate article) and its actions.  Its "friends" are only relevant in terms of their goals and actions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Add "<350 Global Movement" per example partner Tällberg Forum
Add "<350 Global Movement" per example partner Tällberg Forum  http://www.350.org/friends  including Bo Ekman  http://www.350.org/350-messengers#Bo_Ekman  99.54.141.216 (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove anything references as http://www.350.org ; not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Add "Jamie Henn, 350.org co-founder" per http://understory.ran.org/tag/activism/ partner http://www.350.org/friends Rainforest Action Network
Add "Jamie Henn, 350.org co-founder" per http://understory.ran.org/tag/activism/ partner http://www.350.org/friends Rainforest Action Network  99.54.141.216 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Faith groups are partners, suggest adding Category:Religious action on climate change
Since Faith groups are partners, suggest adding Category:Religious action on climate change 99.54.141.216 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the goal is below "350 ppm" isn't this Category:Climate change policy, add ?
Since the goal is below "350 ppm" isn't this Category:Climate change policy, add ? Energy policy ? Category:Energy policy ? Why isn't this listed in the Index of climate change articles ? 99.54.141.216 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Or more accurately (currently), why isn't this article on List of Global warming-related articles ? Or the Portal:Global_Warming P:GW? 99.54.141.216 (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be linked to Category:global warming and P:GW | Portal:Global Warming ?
Shouldn't this be linked to Category:global warming and P:GW | Portal:Global Warming ? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not directly linked to scientific cats, but the portal may link here, eventually. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to anonymous editors on this page
Please register an account to make your edits to the 350 page better. This allows us to communicate with you via a specific talk page. I'll help you fix mistakes when editing. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)