Talk:Women in climate change

Untitled
Have added sectionsDianaliverman (talk)

Specific NPOV criticisms
I see that some editors have expressed concerns during the draft and review stages that this article has neutrality or tone issues. I'm going to ask that if you feel that way, please be specific about which comments and where. It seems to me that the author has taken great care to provide a reliable source for almost every statement in the article. While there are a few spots where it might be improved, overall it is significantly better than the average Wikipedia article on sourcing and notability. Let's absolutely focus on improving the article, but focus on what specifically needs improving. —Tim Pierce (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Article has only 93 instances of word "women". Not every word in this article is "women" yet, this it's not biased enough.


 * "Gender has become an issue because of women's essential roles in managing resources such as water, forests and energy and as women lead fights for environmental protection." From "Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experience". No wonder Onion has difficulty producing satire these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.37.10 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Feedback from women and the issues faced by women have been described as ... "critical" by the Population Reference Bureau.[2]". PRB is one of thousands of nonprofits in Washington, DC. Why is its opinion important?

Division into categories
Dividing the list into four categories (Women climate researchers with Wikipedia pages/Women climate change policy makers and activists in Wikipedia/IPCC Authors/International Scientific Committees) seems very odd, as there must be massive overlap between groups 1, 3 and 4 (the division into science and policy/activism makes more sense). Beyond this I seem to recall that listing people just because they are Wikipedians is deprecated? Finally some of the people listed as having Wiki pages don't! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed "with Wikipedia pages" from the section titles, which kills two of your birds. Paul Matthews (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My suggestion is to merge sections 3 and 4 into 1 and 2 as appropriate, but I thought it wise to seek wider opinion before doing so. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Earlier drafts of this page came under criticism for not clearly emphasizing notable researchers. I may be wrong, but it was my impression that the inclusion of sections for people "with Wikipedia pages" was in part an attempt to demonstrate the notability of many people working in this field.  I agree that the division is not useful in the long run.  Maybe  can comment about what was intended with those sections if I have this wrong. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was actually told at one point (by Wikipedia) that I could ONLY include women with Wikipedia pages and that the inclusion of other women should use measures of their notability and excellence. The highest accolades in climate science are to be a member of National Academy of Sciences, to be nominated or elected to the committees of the International Council of Science, and to be nominated by your country as an IPCC author (most of whom are included under the award of the Nobel Prize to IPCC). A final criteria is that they have a large number of cited papers in the peer reviewed literature. We selected these criteria to ensure only the very best and notable scientists were included. And yes there is overlap but it is noted for each woman if they are also an IPCC or NAS or ICSU member thus adding to their notability Thanks Dianaliverman (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two separate questions here. The first is whether having a Wikipedia article is evidence of notability.  In princple the answer to that question is an emphatic no: notability is determined solely by the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY, which for most of the people here means WP:ACADEMIC.  In practice, however, other editors are much less likely to question notability for somebody with an article, as that article has probably itself been assessed against these criteria.  The approach you have adopted is very good: most of the names have articles, the few that are red links look clearly notable, and you include a one sentence summary of notability with each name.


 * The second question is whether having a Wikipedia article is a notable fact about someone, and so worth drawing attention to. The answer here is pretty much no, unless you can find reliable sources which discuss the Wikipedia article.  But since Paul Matthews deleted the explicit references that point is moot. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have combined all the women scientists into one list and will just put IPCC and ICSU in the description of each woman to get rid of the Wikipedia criteria Dianaliverman (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Is the plan to put names in alphabetical order? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this weekend!Dianaliverman (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)