Jump to content

Talk:Climate change portal/climate denial review

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ixocactus in topic FYI: Signpost article

Amusing Google mistranslates and even advertizing[edit]

Kurdish: "Excess marine acid affects organisms that produce shells and skeletons, organisms such as mice and pigs ..." Chidgk1 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Welsh: "Geographers use carbon radios (C14) to date the age of fossils ..." Chidgk1 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Azeri: "Climate change - caused by the emission of the people, that is caused by greenhouse gases in the action brought by the global warming up, but also as a result of changes in the weather models are showing the Chromebooks." Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Belarussian: "After the freezing of the polar ice caps, glaciers in the deep continents of the northern hemisphere, not getting enough food in the form of precipitation, begin to thaw." Femkemilene (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Amharic: "Some people often try to stop global warming by burning small fossils." Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

İloko: "In the late 20th century, the average temperature of the Earth's surface allowed women to grow to 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), which is about two-thirds of the time they grew up in 1980."

and "Tattooing is a way for tattoos to ensure the security of the world through the protection of the environment and the awakening of the people through the inundation." Chidgk1 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bashkir (courtesy of Bing Translator): "It is not surprising that the most interested in global warming is from Great Britain, since if the ocean of the world rises, the island will remain under water." Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tamil: "2005 was the hottest year since the availability of reliable widespread instrumental measurements of temperature in the late 1800s. This is a few hundred degrees higher than 1998"

and "Mugs also play an important role in the radioactive equilibrium, but since they are water in liquid or solid state, their heat shrinkage effect is predicted differently from steam." Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Deleting denial info from Chinese GW article[edit]

I have been working on editing the Chinese GW article. Among other issues, it has one section, 3.2 that is somewhat similar to the Croatian text that Femke deleted. I was planning on deleting portions of that section, and spent a little time today working with a friend to create an edit summary in Chinese to explain the deletion. But I noticed that the page is locked. Sadads or Femke - could either of you help me figure out what this lock icon means? On thes page: https://zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Wikipedia:保護方針?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US#半保护, and https://zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Wikipedia:用户权限级别?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US#自動確認用戶, it seems to be saying that I need to be an automatically confirmed user to be able to edit, with a 7 day/50 edit hurdle (similar to the English CC page). I’m guessing my experience on English wikipedia doesn’t count towards meeting that criterion for Chinese wikipedia - do you read it the same way? Any idea if there is someone I could apply to for an exemption based on my experience with EN Wikipedia? Dtetta (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary I would suggest for replacing that section is: 我删除了描述其他气候变化理论的部分。当前的科学文献不支持此类信息, 并且这种类型的全球暖化否定说不属于维基百科。Dtetta (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In addition, section 3.2.1 (solar change theory), which was mentioned in the BBC podcast, functions as a sort of distraction. Although the end of the section seems to conclude that solar activity is not a major factor, the amount of coverage it is given gives the impression that it is. Dtetta (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's is a bigger hurdle than semi-protection on enwiki (which is 4 days/10 edits). Global permissions can be asked at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions. There is no separate heading for requesting to be globally confirmed, but we can use the last section. Alternatively, we should be able to ask a local admin to give use the 'confirmed' right. But then, this problem is likely to be elsewhere too, and haven't been able to find the place to ask for local permissions.
In the mean-time, there is likely some equivalent of a edit request function to post on the talk page. Femkemilene (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
When Wikipedia was blocked here in Turkey all I had to request to use a VPN was "ip block exemption" which I still have - so I guess all editors in mainland China also have that. Don't know if that is anything to do with what you are talking about but if I can help let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
A global 'confirmed' right apparently does not exist. The global rollbacker includes global auto-confirmed, but requires a lot of experience. I'll ask for it anyway, promising not to use the rollback function. I'd estimate my chances at 50/50, considering my limited experience fighting vandals. Dtetta, that probably only leaves 'ask a local admin' as an option for you. Femkemilene (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Femke - I seem to be finding it hard to even identify the local admin for this article. Are you able to determine who it is? Dtetta (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, there won't be a local admin specifically for this article. Finding English-speaking admins can be done (unreliably / using skills I don't have) using the Petscan link below. A list of admins can be found with the local equivalent of [[1]] (example for simple Wikipedia), don't know how to generalise this. Wikidata has [list of Administrators Noticeboards] accross wikis. Maybe @Vermont: can help us find a better way. Femkemilene (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's generally easiest to go to Special:ListAdmins on the given project, click on a few userpages, and see if any of them list English language knowledge on their userpage. Alternatively, you can use the Stewardry tool ([https://meta.toolforge.org/stewardry/simplewiki?sysop=1 example for the Simple English Wikipedia) to list admins in order of most recent edit, and from there click on those and see if any of them mention English language knowledge on their user page. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ah I see what you mean - even though I have edited half a dozen articles on Chinese Wikipedia today (quite easy to find out of date external links on places from my native land and improve them) on the climate change article it only allows me to make a change request (bottom left blue button after clicking "edit") which goes through to the talk page. And now I feel homesick! Chidgk1 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have dropped them a note in English to tell them this discussion is going on Chidgk1 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Femke and Chidgk1 - thanks for that info. I will look into the ‘ask a local admin’ option. Dtetta (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Chidgk1 - Are fluent in writing Chinese characters? If I made some suggestions, as well as a request to edit, would you be willing to translate and put them on the talk page? Dtetta (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dtetta No sorry I wrote in English because I don't know any Chinese, and I don't have any Chinese contacts. I see that 3 years ago a user wrote on the talk page that he hoped to do a big update. But now he seems to be active on Wikipedia only every few months (mention of being a father on his profile page might be a clue to why). Anyway his profile also says he has intermediate English and loves the USA - but no mention of my country :-( so you had better make an edit request on the climate change article and write him a message on his talk page Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
The page is semi-protected (半保护) and only auto-confirmed users (自動確認用戶) could edit it. Your experience in English Wikipedia does not count towards Chinese Wikipedia. The auto-confirm threshold is 7 days and 50 edits. And if you are using Tor, the threshold raises to 30 days and 100 edits. --Milky·Defer 17:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dtetta You may explicitly request confirmed right at zh:Wikipedia:權限申請/申請確認用戶權 (roughly translated as "Wikipedia:Request for Rights/Request comfirmed right"), click the "增加新请求" link, fill in your username at "申请的用戶名" template field and your reason at "申请的理由" field. Then submit your request. Requesting in English would be Okay since a good number of users in Chinese Wikipedia are capable of English. This discussion thread has been acknowdged by the local community and I think they would be glad to help you. --Milky·Defer 17:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
If it is about the wrong information about the article "Global Warming", there have been relevant discussions and have been archived (w:zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/消息/存档/2021年11月#BBC对维基百科气候变化内容的报道), it seems that some of the content considered to be incorrect in source or description has been removed. If you just apply for the permissions of Confirmed User, you can apply here(w:zh:Wikipedia:權限申請/申請確認用戶權). Clearly state the reason for requesting permissions, and the administrator should be happy to provide permissions. --Cwek (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
MilkyDefer and Cwek - thank you both very much for you help with this. I will follow your suggestions. Dtetta (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sanmosa I also see that on the talk page for the global warming article you have asked me to clarify my request regarding edits to sections 3.2 and 3.2.1. Thanks for following this discussion and posting that request. I will clarify my request as a response to your post on that talk page. I do have a question: is it better to attempt a translation in Chinese characters when I am posting to that page? Or is English generally acceptable and understandable to other editors? Dtetta (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dtetta: It differs. Some of the users are from former British colonies, so English is generally understandable for them. However, other users who are not from former British colonies may not receive compulsory English education and do not learn English, that English may not be generally understandable for them. Machine translations from any languages to Chinese are usually inaccurate and not so understandable, so even in terms of rules that English is not generally acceptable in comments and discussions in Chinese Wikipedia, I still suggest you to write in English directly for accuracy if you do not really know Chinese, and there must be someone who would try to translate your comment to Chinese or directly process your request. Sanmosa Outdia 06:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sanmosa: Thanks for that suggestion - I will work with someone here to provide comments/suggestions in Chinese. Dtetta (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
After inspecting the article, I do not believe BBC's accuse of spreading "conspiracy theory" is an accurate description for the Wikipedia article.
  • Solar variability is considered as a factor of climate change by several notable experts in relevant research areas (en:Sallie_Baliunas#Global_warming_and_solar_variability and en:Global_warming_controversy#Solar_variation). It belongs to "a significant scientific minority" as referred to by w:zh:WP:UNDUE and Jimmy Wales's email. The Chinese Wikipedia page states solar as a possible contributing factor, instead of "explanation" of global warming.
  • The suspicion about using this section as distraction is unnecessary, as the majority view has been stated throughout the whole article and repeatedly stated in Section 3.2 and 3.2.1.
I believe hiding the arguments cannot "push back on disinformation" as stated by Mr Stinson. --Yangwenbo99 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi Yangwenbo99! Thanks for contributing.
This may have been true 10 or 20 years ago, but the human cause of climate change is now beyond doubt. The 2021 IPCC report says "It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land." Page 7 shows there is barely any uncertainty left about solar + volcanic forcing, and that their net effect is basically zero. There is no scientific minority of climate scientists anymore that say something different. There may be some scientists from other fields without expertise in climatology that still solar as a significant contributing factor. Claims that solar impact is significant are now fringe/pseudoscience, whereas 20 years ago they were valid minority opinions. The two Wikipedia links you provide are similarly in need of updating. Femke (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply. I understand the conclusion in the IPCC report. However, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why the age of publication can be used as a reason to void the credibility of studies in environmental studies. In my field of studies, which is irrelevant to environments, differences in conclusion usually indicate different research approaches or different ways of interpreting data. Hence, in my field of studies, a newer conclusion does not automatically disprove older researches.
BTW, Even in recent years, a few peer-reviewed, though strongly criticized, papers are published, supporting some far more aggressive arguments, e.g. en:Willie_Soon#January_2015_Monckton_et_al._paper. --Yangwenbo99 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have read Dtetta's suggestion on editing. While I agree that Section 3 needs editing, proof-reading and better citations, I don't think it is necessary to reemove or rewrite the whole Section 3.2.1. The 18-36% of influence comes from a peer-reviewed journal paper. --Yangwenbo99 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
BTW, if you need translations from English to Chinese, please ping me. I will offer help whenever time permits. --Yangwenbo99 (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
It is true that newer research isn't always better than older research. In the case of the 2003 Stott paper, we're talking about very old research in terms of climate science. Since 2003, we've gained immensely more data about current and past climate, and have improvement models by orders of magnitude. We don't know even know if Stott still supports the claim of 18-36% solar influence (knowing him personally, I doubt it). The sentence says something like "They estimate that solar activity contributes 16% or 36% of the recent greenhouse effect", even though it is far from recent, missing the last 20 years of temperature data.
More importantly, Stott (2003) is a primary source. To find out if these conclusions are still supported (even by a minority), we need to look at secondary sources. The IPCC gives a good overview of minority opinions in topics where debate still exists. A 2018 review paper on attribution does not even mention the word solar (instead grouping natural forcings together), further evidence that this debate is over. Femke (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
As a person with experience in data science, I believe some models are more accurate in magnitude and significantly (or even overwhelmingly) more convening compared to other models. Still, I personally don't believe there are empirical models that are strong enough to disprove other models totally. All numeric models are based on assumptions, some of which can cause unsolvable debates.
From a statistics POV, while the figure on page 7 of the 2021 IPCC report can be used to fully support the report's claim that "human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land", it is not strong enough to refute "any uncertainty left about solar + volcanic forcing". The "likely range" (perhaps the confidence interval) of the column "solar + volcanic forcing" still covers -0.1 - +0.1 ºC, which may take -10% - +10% of the overall temperature change. If more data is collected in the future, the updated figure may be used to support the argument, if the likely range become smaller.
In terms of secondary sources, in a preface for an edited book published in 2019, a workshop focusing on "anthropogenic and solar effects" is mentioned, and the preface, "long-term changes in the ionosphere, thermosphere, and mesosphere (ITM) system have been shown to vary with geophysical conditions such as locations, local times, and solar activity levels".
From a general Wikipedia editor's POV, although climatology studies should generally be preferred, publications from non-climatology researchers are comparably reliable, as long as the publication is related to their research interests, as climate change is a topic that interests researchers in different fields and interdisciplinary studies. While I understand your intention to prevent misunderstandings of the general public, erasing contents from theories that had been significant in the past decades looks like "hiding facts" for a portion of the population and may provoke conspiracy theory.
Even if there were deterministic evidence that disprove a scientific theory or hypothesis, such evidence will not turn the theory into pseudoscience; instead, it will remain as a historically significant scientific process. As an example, in en:Optics, Newton's corpuscular theory of light is introduced, though it has been proved to be wrong by convincing experiments. --Yangwenbo99 (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

One possible solution is to create a dedicated page for historical debate for climate change and its cause (or expand zh:地球暖化爭議), move section 3.2 to the new page and summerize all (historically) significant scientific theories in the main article. Yangwenbo99 (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Creating an article about the historical debate is close to the solution I opted for on nl-wiki. I think that works well. Writing about solar summarised and in the past tense may make sense too. I'll leave further discussion for Dtetta, and he has somebody to translate for him :). Femke (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yangwenbo99 - Thanks you for your contributions here. I think this has been a good discussion about the issue. I agree with Femke, and I note that on: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:可靠来源 there are a couple of statements, which in my my translation read as: “ Each source must be measured over and over again to determine whether it can reliably support the content used for annotation in the article and is the appropriate source of this content.”, and “The conclusions of individual studies are usually considered temporary and may be changed in subsequent academic studies.” To me this represents the concept that academic papers get out of date, and that this guidance page supports using more recent studies rather than old ones where appropriate. Femke has provided some excellent points on why that is appropriate in this case. I do appreciate your offer to help with future translations!
I will add a link to this discussion in the translation I post at: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:全球变暖#Discussion_on_Meta-wiki Dtetta (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dtetta, what is the lastest here? I see we still have the paragraph comparing Al Gore to Hitler...
To make sure they local community isn't overwhelmed, I'm not editing directly (max 1 person per language should do anything which might be controversial).
  • Have you been able to get a confirmed rights on the Chinese Wikipedia? So that you can at least do some uncontroversial edits, like replacing the misleading figure of temperature in the last 2000 years.
  • Alternatively, you should be able to ask for the page protection to be (temporarily) lowered to pending changes (policy: zh:维基百科:修訂巡查, request changes zh:维基百科:请求保护页面). That way, you can remove denial and other unsavory text. It still allows the local community to have the final say.
  • Thirdly, you could ask English-speaking admins to review your changes. See tips and recommendations how to find one. Femke (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've trimmed down Section 3 of the Chinese Wikipedia article zh:全球暖化. I agree with Dtetta and Femke that the solar variation issue does not merit so much coverage. As for the Al Gore comparison, it's in a relatively short "conspiracy theory" section so I'll let someone else make that judgement... Deryck C. 10:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I now have access (English Tourist Board should pay me for the number of external links I have fixed!) and have removed the Al Gore comparison. Is there anything else needs removing? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks. Before deleting further denial, I would wait a week to give the local community a chance to look at the edits. In the meantime, you could change two of the figures (the one that shows a medieval warm period, and the one with CO2 concentrations over 400,000 years. There is more denial in the article
  • Imo the whole 'conspiracy theories' section should be deleted. It's already discussed in the 'Moral, Social and Political Controversy' section with better sources
  • There are various denialist websites in the related works/ external links section (great global warming swindle, and that report by the competitive enterprise institute is likely full of misinformation, knowing what they usually produce). Femke (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Best practices[edit]

Hello @Vermont:. Commenting on your remark "I would recommend you prioritize working with local editors and native speakers over making removals yourself". Would you recommend this because you think the chance of errors is too large? I'm not too worried about this myself, as a lot of this climate denial is very similar globally, citing the same fringe people.

Or also because it is not done to "barge into" a different Wikipedia and make significant changes? One of the strategies we could chose instead is update a few figures (to attract page watchers), leave a message on talk, and come back two weeks later to see if the climate denial has been removed by the local community. If not, we could always do it later. This will take more resources, but I wouldn't want to break any etiquette here. (fix ping @Vermont:) Femkemilene (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A mix of both. If there's a section or two that's clearly bad content, I don't see any issue in removing it, but trying to fill it in with good content would be the difficult bit without a local editor. In my experience, with problems like this on small projects, I tend to leave a comment on an English-speaking admin's talk page before taking any action. And if they don't respond, I'll find someone else or see if there's anything I can do myself. For example, this is a good example of that working. If there's anything I can help with, please let me know. Best, Vermont (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply :). A lot of the time there is a false balance in the article, with the climate denial in separate sections, which is relatively easy to remove. We'll definitely need local editors to balance the rest of the text. Is there an easy way to find admins by language on most Wikipedias? Femkemilene (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I found https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=20827024 for English admins that speak some Spanish, but I can't get it to work for other Wikipedias. I'm certain most admins on nl-wiki speak English, but no results. Femkemilene (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think other language wikis are not used to editors with terrible grammar whereas on enwiki we see it all the time. For some reason on tr-wiki apparently some native speakers used to create or expand articles with Google Translate from English without correcting the mistakes. So of course the admins got fed up with rubbish Turkish and now they won't whitelist me even though I tell them I just got such and such text from a native speaker and did not use Google Translate myself. I couldn't get that to work on nl-wiki either but it works fine on tr-wiki Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Additions to the table[edit]

I am copying below some comments for various languages which were provided in an e-mail by the BCC journalist to User:sadads. I just added the info about Chinese to the table but I am not sure I did it right and perhaps it was already corrected. So better to put it all here and someone who is closer to it all could add it to the table:

  1. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8F%98%E6%9A%96#%E6%88%90%E5%9B%A0 – Chinese/mentioning solar activity as possible explanation to global warming
  2. https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Enc%C4%83lzirea_global%C4%83 – Romanian/paragraph at the top stating anthropogenic global warming is still challenged by politicians and scientists
  3. https://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupanda_kwa_halijoto_duniani - Swahili/more than once, it is suggested that there are alternative explanations to global warming today;
  4. https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalno_zato pljenje – Croatian/when I first accessed it, more than one third of the article was devoted to questioning climate science and to pushing conspiratorial views (including that climate action is somehow dictated by financial interests)
  5. https://mn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%8D%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD_%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB – Mongolian/again, it suggests there are still some divisions over anthropogenic causes of climate change
  6. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9C%B0%E7%90%83%E6%B8%A9%E6%9A%96%E5%8C%96#%E6%87%90%E7%96%91%E8%AB%96 – Japanese/lists “objections” to climate change (I thought this wasn’t an especially strong example though)
  7. https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%8F%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B5#%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%82%D1%8D%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%96_%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%8F%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F – Belarusian/outlines how “some researchers” still believe global warming is a myth, and that it is caused by human activity;
  8. https://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D2%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B4%D1%8B%D2%9B_%D0%B6%D1%8B%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%83 – Kazakh/ lists a number of other possible causes for global warming today (solar activity, volcanic eruptions) without singling out human activity as the leading cause. Also suggests “some researchers” still see global warming as a myth.
  9. https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalno_zatopljenje - Bosnian/more than one third of the article is devoted to conspiracy theories. Suggests “global governance” conspiracy theory (New World Order, Great Reset nonsense) is already happening. EMsmile (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply


@Chidgk1: do you want a hand with Romanian? Quite a lot of more subtle climate denial in there. Don't want to step on your toes though. Femke (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Quite possibly it would be best for you to continue on the talk page as I maybe messed up relationship with Turbojet whereas you would be starting afresh. Probably best to see if we can persuade them via the talk page first before changing anything else ourselves. Turbojet maybe amenable to your reasoning as they seem to have removed some vandalism in the past, but perhaps they did a lot of work years ago on article so maybe if you butter them up (if you "butterboxes" know the phrase "butter them up" - ha ha) on the talk page it would be good Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Proposing language for replacing solar theories sections on non-EN pages[edit]

Just wondering if we want to collaborate on some language here that would be a good replacement for the solar fluctuations language and graphics that seems to be on several pages. I know we’ve posted suggestions on a few pages, but the language is still there. I’m thinking the next step might be more specific language replacement on those pages (ideally translated first). Not sure if the lack of response there reflects editors not wanting to state their opinions, or whether it’s just a lack of activity by editors on these pages. Either way, it seems like proposing specific replacement language on these talk pages might be a good next step, with replacing the language on the actual page happening a few days after that if there are no significant arguments against doing so. Dtetta (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the enwiki text is quite good, and could be the basis for translation. Probably only worth trying for languages with >250 page views a day, as getting a translation is a hassle. I think a lack of response typically means that a lack of activity. Femke (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree. I think I will work with Li Kui, who translated by comments into Chinese on that talk page, and propose a translation of the text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_and_volcanic_activity to replace section 3.2.1 of the GW article in Chinese. I also have a colleague and a neighbor who could help with the current article in Japanese. Working with the owner of my favorite Indian restaurant to find an interested volunteer who speaks Hindi. Those pages would be my priorities. Dtetta (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Those are the important languages! I was a bit afraid of Japanese, where there is a native speaker needed, but no response to my suggested edits. I'll see if I can ask for help with Tamil. Femke (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
For Hindi, it may be better to look over the list of Wikimedians for sustainable development. It's always better if we can engage the local community at an early stage. I believe i found around 4 native speakers in that list (compared to 0 Japanese iirc). Femke (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
OK - I will work with my two Japanese contacts, but wait to hear from you before doing any more to find a Hindi speaker. I can work with my daughter-in-law to try and find a Korean translator, if you’d like. As you point out in your comments, that site seems to have the same type of solar theory text as some of the others. Dtetta (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oops - I guess the Italian page needs some work as well, with similar alternative theories + solar cycles language. I imagine there must be someone in Wikimedians for sustainable development who could handle that translation.Dtetta (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
A lot of the Italian WMSD are librarians, so I've been hesitant to ask them to review the proposed edits. They should be able to translate the section though. It should be sufficiently easy. Femke (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having just trimmed the Chinese Wikipedia section about this, I can suggest something like the following:

"Some people suggest that other phenomena also contribute to climate change, for example volcanic activity and solar variation. However, the 3rd IPCC report concluded that these phenomena contribute much less to climate change than man-made greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution."

--Deryck C. 14:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot!
The 3rd IPCC report is very old.. Better to refer to the 6th report, out since last August.
"Some people" may give the impression that it's a significant minority, or that these people's opinion as maybe half as valid as the assessment of the IPCC, so I wouldn't quite put it that way. I see two ways to treat this
  • Put it in the past tense. In the 1980s/1990s this was a valid minority view of scientists
  • Put it in the context of misinformation / oil lobby.
Femke (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

All European languages checked[edit]

For those working from the list of languages by continent (there is also a purely alphabetical list, depending on the skin you use). I may have skipped one of the cyrillic script ones, as I got a bit lost. Femke (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

And all Middle-Eastern ones as well. Three more continents to go (Africa, Pacific Ocean, Asia) Femke (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
And African languages also finished. Almost there. Femke (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

About the initiative[edit]

From the perspective of one sr.WP sysop, I'd just like to emphasize that this is one of the phenomenal initiatives. Unfortunately, we live in a time when misinformation and conspiracy theories are widespread and very common in many media. Since Wikipedia is a user-generated project, some users can insert misinformation and all sorts of nonsense without being noticed. This situation occurs especially on the smaller and mid-sized projects that cannot cope with such a serious problem. When it comes to the Serbian Wikipedia, I edited the article and expanded it with relevant information. Absolute support for this and similar projects! -- Aca (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Aca for your work on this too! I think the advantage of this project is that we're past the peak of misinformation on climate change. Still, there are a few small Wikipedia projects that insist on giving the same amount of space to pseudo-science / outdated science, as to the current understanding of climate change. Femke (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A couple of languages say that cited info should not be deleted[edit]

I have occasionally come across this before. To take an example outside this review - like when attempting to delete old info from the electric car article in Turkish. It is pretty annoying because I think that having a load of old details in an article (like details of individual electric car fires in the electric car article in Turkish) makes it hard for the reader to find the info they want (like that firefighters need access to huge amounts of water when called to electric car fires). Chidgk1 (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A lot of newer editors vandalise by removing cited information. I think that's why there is a bias against carefully pruning information. If you get into a discussion, you can find local policies by going to the English policy, and clicking the language icon. A lot of the core policies have equivalents in all the mid and large sized projects. Femke (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

jawp has Further readings section now[edit]

Reading the above posts and as I am not into Climate issues, I have supplied Further readings section. Utilized The Wikipedia Library, so links are usable if users register on TWL. -- Omotecho (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Femke, hi, just to drop a update note: Another jawp contributor has engaged and two articles were updated:

149 languages...[edit]

...and still counting. Just a passer-by with my 2 cent, but you guys are absolutely wonderful. Keep up the good work! NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! The problem is that there are only 144 languages that have an article about the topic. We have apparently duplicated our some of our efforts. Halfway done with the languages with some denial :). Femke (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is some really good work and hopefully can be an example for similar projects in the future. Vermont (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Signpost article[edit]

I've written an opinion piece for the Signpost about our work and what can be learned from it. It's being copyedited now: en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed. Femke (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great piece @Femke! I didn't see this paper about pt-wiki discussed here, but I think that it's can useful. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply