Talk:Climate crisis/Archive 1

todo
add article 2 of the UNFCCC (1991) and 2015 Paris Agreement "Recognizing the need for an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change..." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC) And 2011 UNFCCC statement at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page=2 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC) social science lit search for framing papers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)  Add Climate emergency declaration section NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you, the editors, consider adding a section somewhere under environment and or democracy for climate democracy? There are a number of initiatives for global democratic solutions to the climate crisis and these may be relevant to the Wikipedia community. One example is the work of the Center for United Nations Constitutional Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.195.35 (talk • contribs)
 * If you find missing info you can edit yourself, but first please read "how to edit" at Help:Contents, and the links cited there. And before you get started, please see Climate change mitigation, Politics of climate change, UNFCCC... we have lots of articles that might already cover what you have in mind.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does this topic exist?
It seems this topic was created* recently as some sort of POV fork. Is a topic about "climate crisis" the phrase even notable? Prior to late July this was just a redirect to the Global Warming article. Why change now? Why not just say this term is one of many to describe Climate Change or which ever article it redirects to? Springee (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who converted the redir to article. The original "gist" I was going for was to report on the climate hawk movement's effort to reframe the language.   Some editors are (obviously) embracing that language in wikivoice.  For now at least, I'd rather see us report on their effort rather than joining it outselves.  But to answer your question, there are plenty of RSs that report on the battle over language and this expression specifically.  I have to run right now, but if there is still serious claims that we lack notability RSs we can address them in due course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's fair. So long as there is enough RS material about it.  I can believe there is material about "framing the language".  Based on the above discussion I was worried the article would go in a different direction.  Springee (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for speedy understanding and in my view it is now an advocacy piece rather than neutral coverage of the reframing effort NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the two of you are even talking about. There are a ton of RS describing what is happening to the world as a climate crisis. Creating an article about climate crisis and linking to RS which cite it as a climate crisis is how WP operates. Thats how ALL articles on WP are built. It is NOT about reframing global warming as a climate crisis. Nor does it have anything to do with wikivoice. The article doesn't claim there is a climate crisis. It links to RS which say there is one. See new section: The severity of the crisis. Therefore wikivoice doesn't come into it. Notagainst (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is redundant if you change it from an article about the term, a perfectly valid article if RS'ed, to an article about climate change with just another title. Might as well merger it into one of the other existing articles if that is the scope. Springee (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Springee here. We can say why Mr/Ms X or Organization Y prefer the term, but we must not create a WP:POVFORK with any of the articles in the Global warming tree of sub articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is titled Climate crisis. If you want an article about the origins of the term climate crisis, you need a new article - one with a name such as Use of the term climate crisis or Reframing global warming as a climate crisis. But an article titled Climate Crisis has to be about an actual climate crisis as reported by multiple RS. Notagainst (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also I see on the Global warming article, there is already a fork to this Climate crisis page, which is totally appropriate. WP:Contentforking says "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Notagainst (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually this article was about the term until you changed the scope with a few large edits. You did that as a BOLD change but that means others are free to revert it back to it's previous scope.  The claim that "an article titled Climate Crisis has to be about an actual climate crisis" is not true (can you cite policy or guidelines that say that is the case)?  You noted the link from the GW article to this one.  It's under terminology and per the summary talks about the use of the term, not the scope you are creating.  Springee (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality vs POVFORK
The label at the top of the article suggests there are issues of neutrality. Recents edits have raised concerns about POVFORK. Which is it? I don't see any issues with either. Notagainst (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You really should try to get consensus before changing the scope of the article. Springee (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The article is titled Climate crisis. Consensus is not required to add material with RS documenting a climate crisis.


 * You wrote "This article is about the term/phrase, not changes in the climate itself." In that case you need to create a new article with a new title - one called Use of the term climate crisis.  Please see: WP:Title "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles..."


 * People will look for information about the climate crisis (or whether there is one) on WP. If they find the page called Climate crisis, but then all they get is a bunch of waffle about when the term Climate crisis has been used in the media, but no information from RS on whether the world is actually facing a crisis, then the page is seriously misleading - and unhelpful. I'm sure we can do better than that. Notagainst (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Bit of a catch 22 your in. See if there article is about the phrase, the current consensus scope, then it lives but you edits go away.  If you make the article about climate change that had been described as "crisis" then it's a POV fork and the article is up for deletion or more likely once again is a redirect.  Springee (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing the title
There seems to be a discussion going on about whether this article is about the phrase climate crisisor whether it's a POV-fork. Doesn't MOS:WAW imply that in the former the title should be italicized? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clearly about the reality of the climate crisis as documented by multiple RS - not about use of the phrase climate crisis. As such it is also clearly not a POV-fork. It may by a fork - not one that is POV. Notagainst (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I would like to propose this as a more accurate opening sentence:

"Climate crisis" is a phrase used by many (reliable sources) to describe the impact of global warming and the need for greater action to avert the multiple threats to the environment, to animals and to human life on planet earth posed by record high levels of greenhouse gases.Notagainst (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't say that because "Reliable sources" only means something in the wiki universe. It basically means used by many sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable....   See WP:Self-references to avoid. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If thats your only objection, the problem is easily solved. "Climate crisis" is a phrase used by many commentators... Notagainst (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please bring any discussions about the opening sentence to this section. Notagainst (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also please see The dictionary definition trap which states: An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. This means the article needs to report the "facts" about climate crisis (as documented by RS), rather than use of the lens with which those commentators view it. Notagainst (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Establishing scope article
The fundamental disagreement about the scope of this article needs to be solved. A lot of work is now being done on the article, before we even agree what this article is supposed to be about. I propose we stick to the initial scope (article about the term). The recent edits with as scope 'why climate change is considered a crisis' seem to me as a POV-fork, a concern that was aired before by others. Much of the article here now seems to expand on global warming in one particular direction.


 * Do we want the article to be about the phrase or the crisis

Survey

 * Phrase per above. Also open to the idea of renaming this article to something like Reframing global warming as a climate crisis Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the article is called Climate crisis, there is no choice. It has to be about the climate crisis - as currently documented by numerous RS. If you want to replace this article with one called "Reframing...", you will be turning the article into one which effectively denies there is a crisis. Since there are so many RS describing the situation as a crisis or as an emergency, a Reframing... page will, in effect, be a censoring of WP and as such will never achieve objectivity or neutrality.


 * I would argue that the page is capable of representing both perspectives. There is the reality of the crisis and then there is the slow reframing of it as a crisis by the media - in a process which non-scientists such as Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and the Guardian newspaper have made a significant impact. Notagainst (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Phrase Also per previous discussions. The current direction is more like "climate change at crises level". That might be true but it makes this article a POV fork of other articles.  Making this article about both wouldn't work as it would be a POV fork in sheep's clothing. Springee (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Malformed POV survey
 * (A)It's redundant. The earlier thread about Wikivoice attempts to ask the same question.  See WP:MULTI.
 * (B) It's a leading question (not neutral). The question presumes that we can describe global warming as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE even though that thread is still open and there is no consensus.  This is why our guideline on polls (WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) includes
 * 6. * * * every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll. (bold added)
 * and
 * 8. * * * If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.
 * See the earlier thread, Talk:Climate_crisis
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Phrase and agree that the article should be renamed, perhaps "Use of the term 'Climate Crisis'" and should be narrowly focused. That is, assuming debate on the specific issue of the term is a 'thing' (many RS can be found on both sides), the article should report on the RS that argue 'it's time to call it a crisis' and the RS that argue 'the term crisis is alarmist and counter-productive'.  Climate change denialism is fringe, but the latter opinion is not.  Just citing sources that use the term to show that the term is in increasing use comes perilously close to OR. NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of 6, and I'm sorry if my attempt to resolve this matter have actually made it worse. (I'll keep that one in mind for future discussion in which a big decision needs to be made). In terms of (B), I was trying to not lead the question to my way of thinking, but have inadvertently directed the question in the opposite direction. I'm aware of the previous discussion, hence my attempt to have a survey (much of the discussion has already taken place). I like the suggested title 'Use of the term "Climate crisis", which is more neutral then the 'reframing as climate crisis' title NotAgainst proposed (for possible a different article) and I copied. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except there are plenty of RSs that talk about the intentional effort to use language to drive results, i.e., an intentional effort to reframe this issue.  That's the problem here, as I see it.  Where the RSs say language reforming efforts are trying to reframe a thing, that's what we have to report, until a massive amount of RSs has unquestioanbly tipped the scales of WP:WEIGHT.  But we have to be bystanders, not activists, in this reframing effort. This is why we have guidelines about how to write articles about words and phrases.  WP:WORDISSUBJECT.  Under that guideline we do not need to change the article title. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The way I read WP:WORDISSUBJECT it's perfectly okay to change the title as several of us have suggested. An example it gives is the title "Macedonia (terminology)" that makes it clear that the article is not about Macedonia.  Retitling to "Use of the term 'climate crisis'" or simply "Climate crisis (terminology)" would comply with WP:WORDISSUBJECT. NightHeron (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading too much into the Macedonia (terminology) example. There is an article Macedonia, so the "(terminology)" part of the other one's title was added per WP:Disambiguation and is not really about WP:MOS standards for naming articles that are about words and phrases.  Also, see Global warming. Whatever we do, the different parts of different articles should be kept in sync so they work well together.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It does seem that the examples either have terminology explicit or are made italicized. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in the second paragraph. "Climate crisis" is a "lens" through which many are now viewing the issue.  The "lens" approach may provide guidance NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue of not confusing readers. As another editor already pointed out, a reader is likely to come to an article titled "Climate crisis" expecting the subject to be the climate crisis, not the use of the term. Readers can't be expected to know that Wikipedia editors have not (yet) decided to view "Climate crisis" as a standard consensus term, and so they should look at Climate change rather than Climate crisis for an article on the climate crisis. We should adhere to the spirit of WP:Disambiguation by making it easy for readers to go to the right article. NightHeron (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * NightHeron: actually readers have to look at global warming instead of climate change to find info about current climate change. Which is evidence that your point is valid, because this arbitrary distinction we made on Wikipedia causes a lot of confusion there.
 * @ NEAG: I find the lens approach quite difficult here (not saying I'm against it per se), as this opens the door to POV if not properly done. I think the guidelines are lacking, as they do not give any guidance when something can be considered a 'lens' and when a 'POV-fork'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with NEAG that this is a malformed survey and that under WP:WORDISSUBJECT "we do not need to change the article title".Notagainst (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact WP:WORDISSUBJECT does not say we need to change the title; nor does it say that we need to keep the title as it is. That WP reference doesn't say one way or the other what the title should be.  That's why I'm suggesting that we think about our readers.  A reader who searches for "climate crisis" should be redirected to Global warming (thanks, Femke Nijsse, for the correction; it seems that a reader who searches for "climate change" should also be redirected to Global warming).  Right now the reader who is seeking information about the climate crisis will end up on the page that discusses the term "climate crisis".  We should not make our readers jump through hoops to get to the article they want. NightHeron (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with NightHeron that we should not make our readers jump through hoops to get to the article they want. If the article is all about the facts of climate change (which is what the title implies), then no redirect is necessary. Global warming is not the same thing as a climate crisis, so a redirect would be totally inappropriate. Notagainst (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This may be a good case for looking at a new name per WP:NATURALDIS. In that case I would suggest that this article name is returned to being a pointer to the primary topic.  While an article on recasting "climate change to climate crisis" as a way to motivate people does seem notable in and of itself, there is no reason to separate the discussion of human caused climate change from instances that were arbitrarily labeled climate crisis.  Springee (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In what sense is there a primary topic? I presume you are referring to global warming. If readers are searching for info about the climate crisis, redirecting them to the global warming page is not helpful. Climate change is a notable topic. So is global warming. And so is climate crisis. Each has a different lens. I don't see any of these three articles taking primacy over the other two. Notagainst (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

No consensus of editors has been reached about using the word "crisis" in Wikipedia's voice; nor has a consensus been reached about changing the scope of the article from the phrase to the crisis. Nevertheless, extensive recent editing of this article has led to the use of that word in Wikipedia's voice and a change in scope to where the article could plausibly be proposed for deletion as a POV fork. That would be a shame, since a balanced treatment of use of the term "crisis" could be a useful article to have on Wikipedia. Many people, especially among scientists, although they believe that climate change is a huge problem that urgently needs changes in policy, nevertheless also believe (as stated in the very short section of "criticism") that it's probably counter-productive to use alarmist-sounding language. To see the problem with such language, look at the statement from Paramount that's approvingly quoted in the section on Al Gore. It says that "we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction." Well, that was in 2007, and more than ten years have passed. So should the reader conclude that it's pretty hopeless (let's "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we all die")? NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Since he made that statement, the IPCC which is the most authoritative voice on the subject, now says we have only 12 years to avoid climate change catastrophe. So while waiting to die, at the very least, we could help produce an informative article on WP about the crisis the world is facing. Notagainst (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The full sentence that's approvingly quoted in the section on Al Gore is: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction" (emphasis added). That's from 2007. Eleven years later the IPCC statement you're referring to says "the 2020s could be one of humanity’s last chances to avert devastating impacts."  (In other words, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" in 2007 were wrong??)  To many the juxtaposition of these two statements in the article will sound like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  As I wrote earlier, most scientists seem to prefer to use strong facts rather than strong language to educate the public, in part because that way they don't lose credibility.  The same goes for an encyclopedia.  There should be only one article (currently Global warming) on anthropogenic climate change.  Not two articles -- one saying "this is what it is" and another saying "and it's really really bad". NightHeron (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What it is depends entirely on the lens through which you view it. The WP article on global warming contains the same constraints as reports by the IPCC - the language is so conservative, it doesn't even mention the possibility that mankind faces a crisis (other than as an issue of terminology). If the Global Warming page acknowledged that we face a crisis, then this page could become a fork - similar to The effects of Global Warming - which also does not mention the possibility that mankind faces a crisis. If we ignore the multiple sources that say we are facing a crisis, the article is incomplete. Notagainst (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you that the article Global warming is not very effective in conveying the urgency of the problem. It comes off as being rather technical and far removed from everyday experience.  The solution is not to write a new article, but to edit Global warming.  There are clearly editors (not me) who have expertise and/or experience looking for RS in this area and so can improve Global warming.   What I mean by "strong facts rather than strong language" is the following.  Give specific examples of impact on ordinary people's daily lives that has already occurred or, according to scientific consensus, will occur in the very near future.  For example, there are effects on availability of drinking water for millions of people (in India, the Andes, etc.).  Mention polar bears, maybe with a picture of one.  Just facts.  I'm sure there are RS that discuss the fact that the most immediate impact is on people, generally poor people, living in the tropics or in the far north, whereas the causes of anthropogenic climate change are disproportionately in the wealthy countries.  But there are also serious impacts in other latitudes that can be documented with RS.  The Global warming article doesn't even mention that the U.S. under Trump withdrew from the Paris accords.  There's no need for alarmist language about an impending "tail-spin of epic destruction", no need to turn the Climate crisis article into a POV fok, and no need to use the term "crisis" in Wikipedia's voice. NightHeron (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As the main contributor to GW as of late (it didn't even mention the Paris agreement half a year ago, and was also completely out of date in terms of research), thanks for your input! One of the considerations to not add Trump's (& Bolsonaro's) intention to withdraw from Paris is that it's not happened yet and there is already another quote of a U.S. president. My understanding is that, if Trump loses the next election, the US will only have been out of the agreement for a couple of months. I'm always wary of recentisms, but this might indeed stay important, now that other countries seem to follow :(. I'm trying to get a better figure for how big our challenge is to stop this dangerous interference, but so far copyright holders are not that keen on replying (will send another email or letter next week). If we're done with making all the citation look nice, I will put the article up for review and really keen on input from different people who've not contributed much lately. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't mean to criticize the content of Global warming. It has a huge amount of high-quality information.  There's even a picture of a polar bear!  (But it's not until subsection 5.2.)  The trouble is that most readers read only the lead, and they are especially unlikely to reader farther if the lead sounds academic and technical, as in this case.  Even when impact on animals and humans is discussed in detail -- far down in the article -- for the most part the effects are listed in a dry, scientific fashion.  I would suggest moving the technical-looking visual material out of the lead to a place far later in the article and frontloading into the lead a few examples of the effects of global warming, accompanied with striking pictures -- the polar bear and California fire are fine.  Maybe also a picture of parched land and ruined crops in a drought, a picture of people clamoring for bottles of drinking water, a picture of the Andes with no snow, a picture of the recent destruction of part of the Bahamas.  Here I'm assuming that you can find RS that link all of these effects to climate change.  The pictures and examples that don't fit in the lead could go into the first sections.  The examples early in the article should not be listed, but rather could each have a couple of sentences and, if possible, a picture.  The scientific explanations and any dry listings could be postponed to the latter sections of the article, which the general non-scientific reader can choose to ignore.  Much could be accomplished by rearranging the sections so that the more technical material comes after the more broadly accessible material.  The challenge to editors is to convey the facts in a dramatic and unforgettable way without violating NPOV or using alarmist language. NightHeron (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In general your comments about the lead at GW are Right On. However, there is a move afoot to push for a rename of the main articles "climate change" and "global warming".  Its probably premature to put in tons of effort until that dust settles.  Some of us are draftin a presentation of these issues in userspace. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely these problems with the Global Warming article make it all the more important to have a separate article for Climate Crisis. If we meld these two topics into one article, the result is likely to be a confusing mess. The GW article can have a small section on climate crisis (with a fork to the main article on Climate Crisis), but people looking for information about the climate crisis need a specific page to go to. Why would anyone object to that? Notagainst (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Because several editors on this talk page have raised the question of whether or not
 * using the term "climate crisis" in Wikipedia's voice, and
 * turning the Climate crisis article into an advocacy piece with the purpose of convincing readers to use crisis language rather than the "conservative language" of the IPCC and many others
 * are in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. If there were a consensus of editors that the answer is "no", then there'd be no objection to what you want to do.  However, even a cursory glance at this talk page shows that there's no such consensus. NightHeron (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @NotAgainst, that's not actually what IPCC said. To read the original source doc everyone is misrepresenting see, well, the full report.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The right direction
Hooray for this edit NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you approve - but we could have got there a lot quicker if you had picked out specific examples as Femke Nijsse has done. Or you could have made this amendment yourself instead of expressing vague, global concerns about wikivoice for weeks on end. I am happy to co-operate - but I am not a mind reader. Notagainst (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you completely change the entire article, subvert the original scope, and the whole time inject bias into the wording on every sentence it becomes very difficult to address specifically. Perhaps consult the talk page next time and read that since there are ongoing discussions about problems with the article, you should hold off making significant changes to it until those discussions are resolved. Zortwort (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, most of the complaints are far too vague to address. Editors need to get down to specifics. Notagainst (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing title of heading
How does anyone feel about changing the section currently titled The severity of global warming to Differing descriptions. Would that be a step in the right direction? Notagainst (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Can this article be saved?
The opinions of the majority of editors commenting on this page have been that "climate crisis" should not be used in Wikipedia's voice and that the article should be a balanced article about terminology. Nevertheless, an editor (who I acknowledge is well-intentioned and editing in good faith) has put in multiple long edits that change the article essentially to an advocacy piece and POV fork of the global warming article. Perhaps a more experienced editor than I am can suggest what can be done now. AfD? That would be a shame. The discussion in RS about framing and choice of terminology is a "thing" and is important and interesting. Revert back to a much earlier form of the article, and ask for DS that include a prohibition against major editing without consensus first? Some form of dispute resolution? NightHeron (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been (tentatively) convinced by NEAG that the article should be about the lens climate crisis instead solely about the terminology. That notwithstanding, I do think we need some resolution mechanism. Gtg now! Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and, can you explain what you mean by the "lens approach," and how it is different from a summary and history of the debate over terminology and framing? Thanks. NightHeron (talk)


 * What I understand of this lens approach is that it's a (tiny?) bit broader than only discussing the term. One given example is the homosexual agenda, where not only the word is described, but the ideology behind the use. (This in contrast to our current article, which is actively using the lens in sentences like: Other authorities also describe the crisis., which could be rephrased as other authorities have described climate change as a crisis as well or smth.). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (A) TIMING Whatever happens here in the short term is just going to get rehashed when we propose some overhauls to Climate change and Global warming. If I controlled the timing of that I would wait until January (because I need to use the remaining weather to do other things) but Femke do you think you'll be ready sooner?
 * (B) CONSENSUS MECHANISM We could start drafting proposed question(s) for a Not-Voting poll and do a formal RFC to the broader community, then seek a semi-formal closing from an uninvolved editor.  If I had time to work to implement the result I would in fact push for this, even if we haven't proposed the changes under (A) above.   But I lack that time, so .... that's my thoughts at this time, which I now have less of! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this discussion is easier once we have improved the climate change/global warming terminology (f.i. renamed global warming to climate change). I'm ready in terms of argumentation, but do want your input on two questions still (see your talk page). I'd like to have some uninvolved administrator to go over the proposed procedure as well, making sure it all follows our guidelines (we're proposing a rescoping and renaming at the same time, which complicates things).
 * I'm okay with parking the work on this article for a bit. @NotAgainst, do you recognize there is no consensus for having this be an article about the climate crisis, as people feel that that is a POV fork of climate change (now called global warming). If so, would you be willing to stop developing the article in that direction? It would be a waste of your time if no consensus can be found for the hard work you're putting into this article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure you've seen this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

, you are turning this article into a serious POV fork and it's likely to get changed. It also is not good form to ignore talk page discussions. Per ONUS, it would be reasonable to roll back your changes since they aren't supported by consensus. Please engage with the talk page. I'm not heavily involved in the climate change topics but I would support this as either a topic about how people are recasting the topic to, in effect scare the public into action, or to redirect. Is it possible to simply demote the article to something pre-release/sandbox while the final disposition is decided? Springee (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to engage in a discussion about something, which as far as I can see, does not exist - wikivoice. Entering wikivoice in the search box brings the reader to section on neutrality. Neutrality is one of the key principles of articles on WP. Wikivoice is not a principle - it doesn't exist. Unless you conduct this discussion using terminology that I can understand, it is difficult to engage. Notagainst (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will make the assumption that your concerns are in fact about neutrality. Femkemilene writes that "I've been (tentatively) convinced by NEAG that the article should be about the lens climate crisis." That's what the article is about, the climate crisis lens - so what's the problem? Notagainst (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nightheron wrote: "The solution is not to write a new article, but to edit Global warming." I tried to edit global warming by making Climate Crisis a heading on that page. NEAG (and others) reverted it - with no reason given. One assumes that this is because these editors are stuck on this undefined, mythical notion of wikivoice. Unless, editors can demonstrate that wikivoice is a real thing, I think we are at an impasse. Notagainst (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the above thread "Wikivoice and 'climate crisis'", NAEG clearly and carefully explained to you what "Wikivoice" means. It means the editorial voice of Wikipedia, which must be neutral. Of course we can quote RS who state strong opinions, but always with accurate inline citations.  This distinction is fundamental in WP.  Anyone who just reads the lead to the climate crisis article as you've rewritten it can see that the editorial tone is not neutral.  Another core principle of WP is consensus, which you also seem to have ignored. NightHeron (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry - he has not explained what wikivoice is. He has not provided a single link to a WP policy which explains wikivoice - other than the need for articles to be neutral. So can we all agree that what we are discussing is neutrality - not wikivoice. I'm relatively new to WP. Let's keep it simple so I can understand your concerns. Notagainst (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "Anyone who just reads the lead to the climate crisis article as you've rewritten it can see that the editorial tone is not neutral." The sentence reads: "Climate crisis" or "climate emergency" is a description of climate change and global warming used by scientists, governments and other organisations to describe how the anthropogenic effects of humans on the climate are proceeding so quickly that the world is facing a global crisis." Please explain what you think is inaccurate, biased or not neutral about that sentence - without referring to wikivoice.
 * It omits "some" and "they think".  I tried to fix it but you reverted  with the explict wikivoice edit summary in which you declare, with the force of God Almighty himself, what the current situation is.  This is not (yet) a SKYISBLUE fact, and so you have stubbornly insisted on your viewpoint.  See your revert and edit sum here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If that's all you're worried about, why didn't you say so? You have not suggested this before. What you did suggest was to change the sentence entirely. Your version described the crisis as a disparity. Notagainst (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that I have already tried to get editors to engage on the opening sentence here, but got no significant objections. Notagainst (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because its a hugely unfun and an energy sucking drain to deal with WP:Tendentious editing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should stop encouraging me to discuss everything on the TalkPage? I'm trying to be co-operative but you keep taking cheap shots at me. Notagainst (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

, the lead is now written so as to give the impression that virtually everyone except for denialists use "crisis" and equivalent expressions. Not a word about alternative opinions. The rest of the article is largely a long listing of people and organizations that have adopted that terminology. Readers are being bombarded with a barrage of citations aimed at convincing them that they should speak about climate change in that way. The only exceptions are one lonely "social scientist" in the small "criticism" section -- and the IPCC. But the IPCC is cited in order to disparage their choice of language; the article says that a study confirmed (this word is not in quotes, and so is presented as Wikipedia's editorial viewpoint) that the IPCC was being "remarkably conservative".

We all understand that you feel passionately that climate change should be framed using "crisis" language, and you apparently believe that this should be the official position of Wikipedia. However, vast numbers of climatologists and others don't see the framing issue this way. For example, some people don't think that it was helpful for the promoters of Al Gore's book to announce in 2007 that if major actions weren't taken within 10 years (that is, by 2017) we'd have "a tail-spin of epic destruction". The framing question is interesting, complicated, and controversial. Your rewriting of the article turned it into an advocacy piece for one particular viewpoint on this question. The majority of editors who've discussed this on the talk page have disagreed with you, and have explained that your tendentious editing violates WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you think the article is supposed to present global warming through the climate crisis lens (NEAG and Femkemilene seem to agree on that), then the bulk of the article will be a presentation of RS stating that we are facing a crisis. That's what the article currently does. That does not mean that Wikipedia has a stance on the issue.


 * If you think that the "criticism" section should be expanded, in order to provide balance to the article, then editors should say exactly that. The need for balance is a WP policy that I can read and understand. But if you describe the article as an advocacy piece, but don't say why (other than by making obscure references to wiki voice), then it is hard for me to understand what you're getting at.


 * In fact I have been intending to add more to the "criticism" section but have not yet got around to it. I can only do one thing at once - and just getting RS saying there is a crisis is hard enough without frequent reverts by editors who seem to object to RS saying anything about this. You seem to have completely misinterpreted my editing if you think that I'm trying to make the term climate crisis the official position of Wikipedia. It's all about the climate crisis lens, not about whether or not there actually is a crisis. Notagainst (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In regard to your concern that "a study 'confirmed'..." what say we change that to a study 'agreed'. Would that satisfy you on this point? I'm trying to hear what you're saying. Notagainst (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, "agreed" also implies Wikipedia's approval of the criticism of IPCC. The rewritten article is unbalanced and biased throughout on the question of framing, except for a short quote in the "criticism" section.  This cannot be fixed by a few word changes. NightHeron (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So we could say the study "found that the tone of the IPCC's probabilistic language is remarkably conservative". That's what the study actually says - so this particular point can be fixed by changing one word that you don't seem to be happy with. The article (Climate Crisis) does not say or imply that wikipedia found the tone of the language conservative. No offence, but your imagination seems to be running away with you if that's how you interpret what it actually says.Notagainst (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Some concrete examples
Notagainst has been asking for a few concrete examples of problems with this article, and it's true we've been using policies to describe them, that are sometimes difficult to understand for newer users.
 * Other authorities also describe the crisis. -> Here we use the word crisis in WikiVoice. Could be written as: other authorities have described climate change as a crisis as well.
 * to reflect the growing urgency of the problem -> Here we say there is growing urgency in WikiVoice, instead of attributing this to the source
 * There is an entire section about The severity of global warming. The first subsection does not discuss the terminology at all, and it feels like there is undue weight on this therefore. I think there might be No_original_research here.
 * Furthermore, there are some problematic words to link different sources, such as Even in 2014, which probably breaks our rules about WP:EDITORIAL.
 * Further in this section, the words points out are used, which is one of the 'forbidden' synonyms for said WP:SAID.

It would help tremendously if you read these policies in detail before making any further contributions to this article. Please don't add new material before vetting and improving previously added material with these policies in mind. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is helpful. I will take a look at your suggestions in the next day or two.Notagainst (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have now amended four of the minor language issues you have identified above. I am still thinking about the undue weight issue you have raised. Notagainst (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In regard to your concerns about Synth and OR. The essence of this guideline is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. "


 * SYNTH: In this article, "A" is a description of the Language used by the IPCC. "B" is Criticism of language used by the IPCC - specifically that it is 'quite conservative' - as stated by various RS in that section. There is no deduction "C" made by combining A and B together. As far as I can see, this does not meet the definition of Synth or OR. Notagainst (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about it not meeting the requirement for SYNTH. The reason I thought it might be is that B is tangential to the framing of climate crisis (one scientific assessment does NOT describe CC as a crisis), and that the only reason A is in the article, is because B was added. My mistake was to assume that including off-topic paragraphs based on sources that do mention the topic at hand, would be a form of synthesis. Instead it is probably more to do with WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Neutral point of view. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Scope of article
@Zortwort has expressed concerns that the article has changed in scope. I don't want to open Pandora's box but I wonder if this will help.

Can anyone say in two or three sentences what they think this article should be saying (and why).

What they think it should not say (and why). Notagainst (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , here's my view. The article should not be about the nature of climate change and its impacts, because that's covered in another article.  Rather, it should treat the topic of debates on how best to frame the issue of climate change for the public, because that is interesting, important, and controversial, and it is not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Specifically, as I said above, an appropriate article would explain why the term "climate change" has replaced "global warming" in most (not all) RS and why some RS (not all) think that the term "climate crisis" can lead to public misunderstanding (presumably because most people think of words like "warming" and "crisis" as short- or medium-term events, not as something that will affect their grandchildren much much more than themselves). Another issue is that "crisis" to many people has the connotation that one should basically drop everything else, that is, that climate activism is the only form of activism that really matters now. Of course, the opposing view that terms like "crisis" and "tail-spin of epic destruction" are necessary in order to mobilize people for action should also be covered in proper balance. NightHeron (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Other editors (I believe Springee and NewsAndEventsGuy) already told you in earlier threads what the original scope was and how you were changing it without consensus. Maybe review earlier iterations (ex 13 August 2019) to recall what the original scope of the article was, or read the many threads that have gone on discussing what is appropriate for inclusion in this article. Zortwort (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I had a look. Prior to 13 August, there was no scope - there was only a stub. Notagainst (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Another thing to consider is that this article has gotten to be far longer than it needs to be. There must be a balance of only providing relevant content, and the scope must be kept sufficiently specific for it not to intrude on other articles. Nearly all of your edits have been on content which is better suited to more general Global Warming articles, this is what people are meaning when they call it a POV-fork. Zortwort (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * NEAG says "the article used to be mainly about the framing or lens". As far as I can see, it still is - global warming through the lens of climate crisis. And he now says he is happy the article is moving in the right direction. Notagainst (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Just saying I think the text that Zortwort is removing should indeed be removed. Maybe some of it deserves a one-line summary. (No time for further explanation now, sorry). Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop speaking for me by trying to tell each other what I said. Instead, if its really necessary to refer to my comments, please just link to my comments. When I have something new to say, I will say it. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't recall I did, if you're talking to me. All I said was essentially that the matter has been discussed before. Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. Zortwort (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that this "Climate crisis" article should have a narrow focus on the meaning, history, use, and influence of the term "Climate crisis" itself. Substantive facts and reliably sourced arguments of whether there is a crisis belong in the GW article. We should avoid having multiple articles that argue the same issues in parallel or divergent directions. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "severity of global warming" section
As consensus seems to be that the article is about reframing of global warming as a "crisis", the "severity of global warming section" that was in the article before I removed it is not relevant to the scope. Its inclusion implies that the severity of global warming warrants description as a crisis. Further, there are several errors within it which invalidate the section's content. It quoted a CNN article which described 64 percent of a polled population as saying that climate change was a "crisis/serious problem". If you look at the original CBS poll, there were in fact two separate answers, one where respondents could call climate change a "crisis", and another where they could call it a "serious problem". To lump these respondents together is dishonest reporting and invalidates the reliability of that source and claim. Further, the UN section was essentially trivia. Not *every* usage of the term "crisis" warrants inclusion at this point, only notable ones which have been reported on as being part of an effort of reframing. Zortwort (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Scrap this Page
It's my opinion that due to NotAgainst's zealous editing of this page which has not only completely altered the scope of the article, but which has also been unequivocally non-neutral, that it is unfixable and should be deleted. I'd be curious to see what others think: I've been watching from the sidelines here for some time, and it seems that long after a majority of editors seem to have agreed that "Climate Crisis" may be unsuitable language for Wikipedia, the situation with this page has only become dramatically worse. Zortwort (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The term Climate Crisis cannot possibly be unsuitable for wikipedia when there are so many RS which use it. That's akin to pretending the elephant in the room is just a mouse - or doesn't even exist. That's very unbalanced. Notagainst (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposed  no article is "unfixable".  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree to some extent with that, but I also think the situation is out of hand. I started on some basic fixes to sourcing last night, but I don't think that the problematic wording can be fixed at a pace which is faster than it is being added. Currently I think the page is a bit of an embarrassment of non-neutrality and should at least be moved to draft until it is fixed, or reverted back to a much earlier revision as someone suggested before. Zortwort (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Semi-opposed I think this article is notable. I wouldn't be against putting a lot of the material in draft-space and leaving only a stub behind. When NotAgainst has learned about policies around writing contentious articles, they can then request the draft to be published. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support this idea Femke Nijsse. I agree to some extent with NewsAndEventsGuy saying that no article is unfixable, but I have also seen articles deleted for that very reason and currently I think that fixing this article would require such a complete overhaul that it may as well be restarted from scratch. I understand that some editors here developed the article when it was mostly neutral, but I also think that the nature of this article, specifically as it's named and constructed, makes it inevitable that it will be developed into a POV-fork. Perhaps some of the original content from this article (when it was still in a decent state) could be moved to a new page with a clearer scope if we don't go the way of draft-space. Certainly I think that the current page with the current scope and content is not sufficiently neutral for inclusion. Zortwort (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that the present article does not belong in article namespace per OP, but not opposed to Femke Nijsse's suggestion. An article about framing/terminology/lens through which anthropogenic climate change is viewed would be good to have, but the present article is almost entirely devoted to the nature of climate change rather than to the debate over framing. An appropriate article would explain why the term "climate change" has replaced "global warming" in most (not all) RS and why some RS (not all) think that the term "climate crisis" can lead to public misunderstanding (presumably because most people think of words like "warming" and "crisis" as short- or medium-term events, not as something that will affect their grandchildren much much more than themselves).  Another issue is that "crisis" to many people has the connotation that one should basically drop everything else, that is, that climate activism is the only form of activism that really matters now (whereas Naomi Klein, a leading writer on climate change, argues that climate change must not be divorced from other issues that people organize around, such as growing economic inequality, racism, and the excesses of capitalism -- none of which is typically described with the word "crisis" -- but I don't know what her view is on the actual use of the term "climate crisis").  Of course, the opposing view that terms like "crisis" and "tail-spin of epic destruction" are necessary in order to mobilize people for action should also be covered in proper balance.  Putting together a good article on framing requires a lot of work, and in the meantime it's probably best not to have a tendentious POV fork in article namespace. NightHeron (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but open to options. If there is a way to take the current article out of article space and into a sandbox while it develops I would support that.  I think it makes sense to take the live article back to a redirect for the time being while the original article scope/intent is worked out/created.  The current POV fork article really should go.    Springee (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No Just because denialists like to pretend the climate crisis is all just ticketyboo doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be mute on the crisis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is proposing to delete this article because of any denialist reasoning. Climate deniers and their 'viewpoints' have largely disappeared from Wikipedia. There is widespread concern the article doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for neutrality and because climate change is an important topic, we can't have an article like this being non-neutral. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This page does not meet the criteria for WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there are no specific criteria for WP:TNT except consensus that an article is irreparable. If you think it's fixable, go ahead and fix it. In my opinion taking it back to a far earlier revision is acceptable as well, but that's about tantamount to scrapping the current article as it is, and NotAgainst will undoubtedly be unhappy about that. Zortwort (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * supplemental Above I stated opposition to "scrapping" this article. I'd like to add a note why I don't think we should userfy this and start over (per WP:BLOWITUP). If this were userfied, next week someone else would fire it up again making the same sorts of arguments. I think we have to deal with it head on and directly.  Plus there are useful edits in the archive, when the article used to be mainly about the framing or lens. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to this idea, what specific revision would you suggest we revert to, if there is one, or would you be willing to make a draft that includes only the useful material that we can then replace this article with? Zortwort (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, back when the article was a mere redirect, it was I who started the article about the efforts to reframe the issue in this manner. There is probably good material and sources added since then, but given the passions over this and real life demands on my time I haven't followed the play by play closely NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Having looked through the article history, I believe the last neutral revision was 13 August 2019. I would support reverting to this version of the page, though I'm unsure how to prevent the scope from being co-opted again. You mentioned "If this were userfied, next week someone else would fire it up again making the same sorts of arguments." That may be true, but if the article was deleted then a new article with a new scope would be a much clearer POV-fork, with the current situation the fact that it's been built up and skewed from a legitimate article is obscuring that fact. Zortwort (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the comments above are critical but very vague and so fundamentally unhelpful. Can I suggest that if you have concerns, you copy Femke Nijsse's approach in the preceeding section and provide Some concrete examples of your concerns. She posted four or five issues which have now all been addressed. In my opinion, editors need to be much more specific in expressing their concerns rather than making generalised complaints which are so vague, no one knows what to do about them. Since Femke Nijsse posted specific concerns, according to NEAG the article is now Heading in the right direction.  Notagainst (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Other editors do not need to be more specific with their concerns, you need to ensure that your edits are quality and make use of accurate and impartial wording before you put them up. We're not here to clean up after you on every sentence, that's why we're discussing reverting to before you added a lot of this content. If you disagree on the scope of the article or have a different opinion on content and direction you need to engage with the talk page rather than just adding in a bunch of stuff which is ultimately against consensus. Zortwort (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a roll back to Aug 13th but I think we would run the risk that Notagainst would simply undo the revert or make similar edits. Absent some editing restriction I'm not sure how to prevent what could be come a slow edit war.  So if we have a clear and strong consensus I would do it but it's probably best to take a wait and see since currently we just have a few involved/semi-involved editors.  Springee (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we all feel like we've been repeating ourselves, and Notagainst is refusing to see the basic flaw in what he/she/they has been doing. What's the best way to bring this to a conclusion, that is, how do we get more editors to comment?  An RfC?  Bringing it to a noticeboard?  Something else? NightHeron (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking now at the increasingly aggressive edit-warring by Notagainst in response to Zortwort's well-justified edits, I wonder if it's time for a formal warning? It's good that everyone is assiduously observing WP:BITE, but at some point this has got to stop. NightHeron (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, at this point he's completely ignoring everything the talk page discusses and edit-warring his own view into the article. Zortwort (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose scrapping, but support a very narrow focus. I've looked at recent edit skirmishes, and I think that a narrow focus should be our goal. Substantive facts and reliably sourced arguments of whether there is a crisis belongs belong in the GW article; but this "Climate crisis" article should have a narrow focus on the meaning, history, use, and influence of the term "Climate crisis" itself. If that goal is pursued, we will avoid multiple articles that argue in divergent directions. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As suggested in this thread today I restored the lead from August 13. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)