Talk:U.S. government report says climate change is human-made

Notes

Again, I don't have time to read the report itself myself right now, but I don't mind if anyone else does. If this article spends too much time in the hopper I may whip out the old "editing" tag and do so.

I think the title's okay but I still say it's up for grabs for improvement.

Regarding the "el N" phrasing, please observe the "...and other ocean currents..." immediately following. This contextual cue is meant to indicate that the preceding item, "El Niño," is an ocean current too.

So ... we all might be gonna die! Wohoo? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That report is 400 pages of text! (not counting the appendices, references, etc). That summary seems much more readable in comparison.

Title suggestion, "U.S. government report says climate change is mostly human-caused/man-made/anthropogenic". I don't know if "uncensored" is the right word for this article. Paragraph six (permalink) seems to contradict this in saying that the White House made no attempt to alter the report, nor did there seem to be an attempt to censor the paper. It's a bit unclear in the article that the White House released the report. The NPR piece said it was submitted to a White House office however. —mikemoral (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The title is a little clunky with "climate change" twice in there. —mikemoral (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it Wikinews who is saying it is uncensored? "White House" should be "US White House" since there are many notable White Houses in the world.
acagastya PING ME! 09:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding uncensored, there's a lot of material in the Washington Post article that mentions the White House altering or blocking other, similar reports, and I included one quote from a scientist describing how that didn't happen here. Do you still think that "uncensored by White House" is not appropriate for Wikinews' voice? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

so the scientist thinks it is uncensored. We don’t know for sure. It is possible US gov paid him to lie. However, this is personal opinion, and it is incorrect to say in such a tone that we are sure it is uncensored.
acagastya PING ME! 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

especially when things like this happened in the past.
acagastya PING ME! 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

An IP seems to have deleted my post, but Pi zero confirmed the deletion, so I will not repeat the text I copied here from the Washington Post for you to read. I must instruct you to go read the article yourself, the paragraphs surrounding the quote in question, if you still think that "Uncensored" is too much, then just change it.

On the chance that the IP was you, then remember that the reviewer must read the entire source article even if the draft is perfect, so no I am not making more work for anyone. At that point, the reviewer would see that these are not "endorsements, claims, speculation or opinions." If making more work is a concern, then remember that it is less work to make a one-word change to the title than to make a multi-line post on the talk page complaining about the title.

If you are writing these posts because you enjoy complaining, then I understand how that can be cathartic but please find another partner. I am not available to be anyone's emotional receptacle right now. I enjoy a spirited sparring match, but the subject matter has to be less personal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
do you realise what the problem is, @Darkfrog24: ? The headline suggests Wikinews is cent percent sure it is uncensored and we are the ones to claim it. Are we? No. We are not sure about that. And as the author, it is your duty to filter out these things. Why can’t I do it? I can. Pi zero can. Other reviewers will. Else it is not acceptable per the standards and journalism ethics. So why I did not do it? We can not keep on doing your work always. It is perfectly fine for doing it for a newbie, because they don’t know. But after spending so much time on Wikinews, don’t you think this should be something you automatically avoid, and your gut instincts should not permit it. You should do it. Because if I do it for now, it is likely that you would not do it the next time. (And you have not improved on this thing yet). Wikinews is different from Wikipedia. Since it is always open to all for editors, in theory, everything wrong with an article gets fixed. It is not the same on Wikinews. You need to be careful.
acagastya PING ME! 16:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, as mikemoral points out above, the article says there are known to have been some alterations. --Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: I believe that the term that I used, "Uncensored," is consistent with Wikinews' policies. If you think otherwise, just change it.

The problem is that you are acting as if it is my job to predict how you personally, not Wikinews but Acagastya, will react to things, to read your mind in advance and to supplant my judgment with that telepathic prognostication. Neither of those are reasonable expectations. For one, even attempting those things would require a Herculean effort on my part. For another, you have underestimated how complicated and unique you are as a person, and I just haven't seen that your judgment is generally better than mine to justify abasing myself before you like that. At this point, I'm not sure you do think "Uncensored" is inappropriate. It looks like you're complaining just to complain.

I have done my best to get along with you and not take the things you say personally (the latter of which hasn't been that hard; I can get into that if anyone wants), but I think you should know your demeanor has affected Wikinews in one concrete way: A few weeks ago, I decided to stop gnoming articles you had started (if I happened to notice who'd started it) because you became hostile about having your English corrected. That left more work for other people to do and almost certainly lower quality writing in the published articles. I really don't know how to stay any further out of your way. If the review team were larger, I would ask you to steer clear of me for a couple of months. Whether you're right or whether you're wrong, I just don't want to work with you.

Please mull over how you are affecting Wikinews' output, let some time pass, and then take appropriate action. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4362571 [Passed]

Revision 4362571 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm not entirely content with the headline we ended up with, because the relationship between the report and the administration is part of what's important and helps make this unique. The term "uncensored" is clearly not accurate here —the report was censored, according to this article, though there's a claim the science in it wasn't censored— and whatever claim anyone made about it not being censored, that would need to be attributed rather than reported as fact. (I'm aware there's been some acrimony peripheral to these points; as may be, there really is a problem with the headline as it was submitted.) Trying to imagine a fix that wouldn't feel like injecting content held me up in starting the review and ultimately defeated me. Similarities to source continue to crop up, at a far lower level than might be expected of a newbie who has no idea what they should be avoiding, but still more than ideal for a veteran Wikinewsie. There were other places where further attribution needed to be injected. There may of course be other things I encountered that are slipping my mind at this moment; this is a big part of the point of the carefully maintained edit history during review. The idea that the reporter might simply give up on looking at it is, I admit, demoralizing to me as a reviewer. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4362571 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm not entirely content with the headline we ended up with, because the relationship between the report and the administration is part of what's important and helps make this unique. The term "uncensored" is clearly not accurate here —the report was censored, according to this article, though there's a claim the science in it wasn't censored— and whatever claim anyone made about it not being censored, that would need to be attributed rather than reported as fact. (I'm aware there's been some acrimony peripheral to these points; as may be, there really is a problem with the headline as it was submitted.) Trying to imagine a fix that wouldn't feel like injecting content held me up in starting the review and ultimately defeated me. Similarities to source continue to crop up, at a far lower level than might be expected of a newbie who has no idea what they should be avoiding, but still more than ideal for a veteran Wikinewsie. There were other places where further attribution needed to be injected. There may of course be other things I encountered that are slipping my mind at this moment; this is a big part of the point of the carefully maintained edit history during review. The idea that the reporter might simply give up on looking at it is, I admit, demoralizing to me as a reviewer. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

I'm sorry if any of my actions made you feel bad. We'll work it out.

I did have time to look at all of your edit summaries this time, Pi zero, but it's not so much giving up on looking at them as I just never got that much out of them at any point. Until recently, I didn't know that you even meant them as instructive or that you were addressing them at any one person specifically. A two-word edit summary only tells the reader so much. "Source-check" can mean that you checked a source (but can also mean any of several other things) but doesn't say what you were looking for, whether you found it or whether or not it was important.

I don't think you should put more effort into your edit summaries than you are currently putting. There's only some extent to which that's either your job or your place. Wikinews doesn't have an editor in chief. It has a community.

If there's a solution, it's not more words. It's more people and more perspectives. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)