Talk:Climate crisis

Explanation regarding my readability edits

This is regarding RCraig's comment in the edit summary "PLEASE insert <ref.../> tags if you feel you must explode a sentence". Firstly, what do you mean by "exploding a sentence"? This sounds rather negative. I have broken some long sentences into two or three, yes. I think this is normal practice when trying to improve the article's readability. Have you looked at the readability tool for this article? I am currently going through it and tackling those paragraphs where all the sentences are in dark red (= hard to read).

When I break a long sentence into 3 shorter sentences, I think it is not necessary to add the same ref to the end of each sentence UNLESS it is not clear (logically) that the sentences belong together. For example take this case: "There are several examples to explain this phenomenon. One of them is the lack of XX. The other one is the abundance of XX." --> These three sentences can just have one ref at the end of the third sentence, rather than one ref for each sentence. This is also in line with the sourcing style. See WP:WHENNOTCITE ("Per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill."). To be safe one could repeat the source (if you insist I can do it) but I'd like to point out that it is not required, and can actually be distracting. Some of the sentences that I tackled were crazy long to start with. This makes them hard to read for those who don't have a university education or are not native English speakers. Please put yourself into their shoes. That's what I am trying to do.

I've completed my quick "once over" for readability improvements now. According to the Wikipedia readability tool (accessible from the tool bar on the right), the score for Readability (Flesch) is now 34.08 compared to only 22.53 for the 16 January version before I started (this is actually a higher improvement than I would have expected, after only 2-3 hours of editing). So I think it was generally a worthwhile exercise. EMsmile (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Blindly applying WP:WHENNOTCITE allows all future editors to inject content between exploded sentences, so that the original sentence's content is split and some will appear unsourced. Separately, original (longer) sentences join related ideas together with commas, hyphens, etc. However, breaking into separate sentences, separated by ".", makes the ideas disjointed--something a machine-based readability tool cannot comprehend or account for. "Progressive" is objectively descriptive, and not judgmental. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't "blindly apply" WP:WHENNOTCITE, I followed that guideline because I think it makes a lot of sense here. If other editors want to interject other content in future, they would have to add the references accordingly. This does not speak against usage of the guideline.

To me it seems that you are doing WP:OWN here and don't like that I've copy edited this article for readability improvements. You wrote 77% of the article so it's understandable that you think it's perfect and needs no further work. This is not how collaborative editing on Wikipedia works.

I pointed out how the formal guideline (superscripts) compromises the substantive issue (verifiability). This is another example of your valuing the formal over the substantive.

Now you're psychoanalyzing, telling me what I think. Look in the mirror: ownership issues arise when one editor's subjective opinions and formal preferences are imposed, either in articles or on Talk Pages. The "Formal>substantive" issue is just one example.

Is "progressive organisation" a neutral term?

(moved from above, this referring to this edit by RCraig09)

Also, the term "progressive organization" is ill-defined. What is your definition of "progressive"? Something that is left-leaning/liberal? If you want to use this term because the source used it then it should be put into quotation marks to indicate that it was their wording, not our judgement. This is referring to this edit. The sentence works equally well without "progressive organizations". EMsmile (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't know what your definition of "progressive" is here (there is no Wikipedia article on progressive organization either) and why you insist that it needs to be in the article. If it needs to stay there then it needs quotation marks to show that it's the wording that the source used! What one person calls "progressive" could be called "backward" by another person. It's subjective EMsmile (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It is 5,000,000% irrelevant what my definition of "progressive" is. It is a commonly used word. You're making someone else look up a word for you: see progressive adjective definition 3. The term is well defined. Especially in the context of the Grist reference—which gives explicit examples of progressive organizations that are included in this article—the term is well understood. The word is used in its normal manner, and doesn't require quotes any more than "environmental" or any other word from the reference. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you and a quick google search for the question "what is a progressive organisation?" or "is the term "progressive organization" subjective?" brings up relevant results. For example here: "The term "progressive" encompasses a wide range of viewpoints, and it is therefore difficult to pin down an exact definition of what a progressive organization might be." Chat-GPT explains it like this: "The term "progressive organization" can be subjective. The subjective nature arises from the fact that what is considered "progressive" can vary based on individual perspectives, cultural contexts, and political ideologies. Furthermore, what is considered progressive in one context or society may not be seen as such in another." - Anyway, not worth arguing further about it any further. Perhaps we can get a third opinion by someone or the WP:GOCE people that I2K has requested will pick it up. EMsmile (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, most words in the dictionary have multiple meanings. ("Environmental" has multiple meanings; should we remove it or place it in quotes?) "Multiple meanings" is no reason to exclude progressive from Wikipedia articles, or place quotes around it when, as here, it's used in the source in its ordinary way. Have you seen any other Wikipedia article that placed "progressive" in quotes? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph about Finnish newspaper font

I propose to either delete this paragraph or to move it to "Society and culture > Trivia". In my opinion it is not WP:DUE and does not relate to the core topic of this article (the usage of the term) but just about a font type that happens to be called climate crisis: In 2021, Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat created a free variable font called "Climate Crisis" having eight different weights that correlate with Arctic sea ice decline, visualizing how ice melt has changed over the decades. The newspaper's art director posited that the font both evokes the aesthetics of environmentalism and inherently constitutes a data visualization graphic. EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The font design is relevant to the term climate change climate crisis. It shows the wide extent of usage of the term beyond science, news, etc. It is not trivial, and is arguably a form of data visualization. — 05:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Fixed at —RCraig09 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hard to understand sentences

Here are some hard to understand sentences which I think we need to simplify:
A. In September 2019, Bloomberg journalist Emma Vickers posited that crisis terminology—though the issue was one, literally, of semantics—may be "showing results", citing a 2019 poll by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation saying that 38% of U.S. adults termed climate change "a crisis" while an equal number called it "a major problem but not a crisis". Difficult words: "posited" (why not just "stated"); I don't understand this (sorry I am not a native speaker): "though the issue was one, literally, of semantics".

Update: This has now already been simplified by User:Chidgk1 in this edit. Thanks.EMsmile (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

B. Another example that I find hard to understand, very academic language here: Others have written that, whether "appeals to fear generate a sustained and constructive engagement" is clearly a highly complex issue but that the answer is "usually not", with psychologists noting that humans' responses to danger (fight, flight, or freeze) can be maladaptive. EMsmile (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
C. Another example which I don't understand: the characterization spreading from "the ironized hellscape of the internet" to books and film. Any edits to make this clearer would be appreciated. EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
D. I also don't understand this with the corresponding response among Republicans tripling. Overall, I think the section on "Psychological and neuroscientific studies" goes into too much depth on one small study (primary source) with just 120 participants and in the U.S. Also it doesn't come out clearly why there was a not to split the group along party lines. In any case, I think the sample size would be too small to draw conclusions about how the responses to the term differ by party. And it's U.S. centric. So I think it should be condensed. EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I don't think we need to mention the names of each and every journalist who has written about something. Can't we just make the statement and cite the source and if people want to see which journalist wrote it and where they can just look it up? Unless the author is very notable. EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Obviously you have much more time than other editors. Much of what you do on this website is entirely subjective, which places a burden on other editors to spend their time reviewing dozens of your edits, per article. Verbose Talk Page posts add to the burden. ... Briefly: I mention specific individual sources to give context, whether it's to give the weight of notability, or, conversely, to warn the reader of the source's limited notability. As wide use of the term climate crisis is fairly young, some studies are limited in scope but this may change in time. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words (not). Yes, I have more time than other editors. This is something that should be cherished, not criticised. I see no guidelines on Wikipedia that prohibit an editor from spending xxx amount of hours per day on Wikipedia. (you seem to have a lot of time on Wikipedia too, by the way) In general, I have been getting a lot of positive feedback for my work. The fact that you don't like my work (apparently) has been well established through various talk page discussions already and I just have to live with that. No need to revisit this each and every time that I edit an article that you feel strongly about. FYI, I've spent only 3 hours of my time to improve the readability of this article which I don't think is overly excessive.

If you don't have time to improve those difficult to understand sentences that I've mentioned above that's fine. I can try to do it in the next few days myself but I struggled with those sentences as I simply didn't understand them (chances are, I am not the only one). But there's no rush, we can improve them over time when someone has time.

As to mentioning the source explicitly each time, I think this is not necessary in all cases. Sometimes it's useful but not all the time. For the same reason, we are not meant to explicitly mention IPCC every time in those sentences where we use the IPCC report as a source. I.e. not "The IPCC says that" but just state the fact and then add IPCC as the source. I guess newspaper articles and blog posts are weaker sources than IPCC and may contain more opinions than facts so perhaps it's different. EMsmile (talk) 11:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is making other editors spend their time (e.g., with numerous verbose essays); that is not to be cherished. Please don't occupy any more of other people's time by responding to this post. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed by the clearly hostile tone this discussion has taken, likely crossing the line into violating WP:NPA at times. I opted to request assistance from GOCE for this article, as I hope that their intervention will prove definitive. There are far too many other things that still need to be done that are altogether more important than this, so I hope no part of this and the immediately preceding discussions will be revived in the meantime. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Very disappointing indeed. And not the first time between me and that user. :-( Probably not the last time either. Anyhow, the article only gets around 100 pageviews per day so not worth losing too much sleep over. But it would be great if someone from the GOCE had time for improving this article. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary: From EMsmile's DOZENS of edits and verbose posts here, "That user" made three (3) changes:

• "That user" inserted <ref /> footnote superscripts for the substantive reason of ensuring future insertions won't render sentences unsourced. EMsmile reverted, with apparently the only reasoning being that her application of the formal WP:WHENNOTCITE guideline "makes a lot of sense here".
• "That user" removed a grossly editorial and, by reliably sourced descriptions, factually wrong insertion of "perhaps 1.5°C".
• "That user" replaced specific and well understood language from a source including the commonly used word "progressive"--which EMsmile removed on the apparent reasoning that it is supposedly not "neutral" and has more than one definition.

For arguing re these three changes, she insinuates it is I who violate WP:OWN. "Very disappointing indeed."

Of course, bringing in general copy editors will attract people with even less knowledge of the subject, and when formal changes will compromise substantive content. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the suggestion of I2K to bring in someone from WP:GOCE is actually spot on. This is a perfect article for an outsider to take a look at its readability as the article is not overly technical and should be rather easy to improve. I look forward to their contributions. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply to 22:18, 28 Feb post:
A. "Said" is like claimed and is therefore stronger than posited (synonyms=postulated, proposed). But at this point I won't argue.
B. I removed/rearranged some language to simplify.
C. The language "ironized hellscape of the internet" is unique, to show how the term's usage (important here) has spread. The language contrasts scrappy social media with more respected mainstream "books and film". The language can't be adequately replaced by Wikipedia editors' rephrasing, and now includes three links to Wiktionary to clarify.
D. Though it's really not clearer, I changed the simpler "tripling" to "increasing by 200%".
—RCraig09 (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not planning to get deeply involved in this again (and certainly want to keep it light hearted) so just very briefly about those sentences that I had identified as difficult in my post on 28 Feb 24:

A. "Said" is neutral (in my opinion), and an easier word for non-native speakers than "posited". "Stated that" would also work.

B. New wording of that sentence is now: "Researchers have written that "appeals to fear" usually do not generate "sustained and constructive engagement", noting how psychologists consider humans' responses to danger (fight, flight, or freeze) can be maladaptive if they do not reduce the danger". For sure better then before but I would still prefer to break this into 2 sentences. Also wondering if we really need "maladaptive" here or if a simpler word wouldn't work better. - Not feeling strongly about this though.

Still about B.: Oh and Chat-GPT made this proposal for a simplified version of the sentence: "Researchers have stated that "using fear to persuade" typically fails to foster "long-term and positive involvement," highlighting psychologists' view that human reactions to danger (fight, flight, or freeze) might not be helpful if they don't mitigate the danger." (I know you don't like chat-GPT. I am putting it here for inspiration only; note how the language model did not use "maladaptive" but "might not be helpful").

C. I still don't understand it and don't think that wiktionary links are a great way but never mind. The wording "ironized hellscape of the internet" might be insider knowledge for American readers, that's fine.

D. I've proposed different wording and put this in the edit summary: trying again to make this clearer (200% is no better than "tripled" was). The sentence in the news article was just "Among Democrats, the study found a 60% greater emotional response to the term "climate crisis" than to "climate change," and a tripling in emotional response among Republicans.". I would actually prefer to delete this - overly detailed and unexplained. - Not feeling strongly about it though. EMsmile (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Small follow up questions on recent copy edits

Hi User:Baffle gab1978, thanks for your recent copy edits to this article, much appreciated! I have a few small follow-up questions. (If you don't have time for this, I understand; some of my questions might go slightly beyond pure copy editing issues)

1. Regarding this sentence: According to researchers Susan C. Moser and Lisa Dilling of University of Colorado, appeals to fear usually do not create sustained, constructive engagement; they noted psychologists consider human responses to danger—fight, flight or freeze—can be maladaptive if they do not reduce the danger.. 1a. I find this hard to understand. Firstly, is it necessary to mention the two names of the researchers and their university? Could we shorten it to "researchers of the University of Colorado", or even just "academics"? If someone wants to know who said that they can find it in the ref provided.

@EMsmile:, I'm happy to reply but please note my copy-edit is done and I've no interest in doing further work on this article. I consider attribution important; not all readers will check citations (though they should). I have no difficulty understanding this sentence; it's perfectly straightforward. Baffle☿gab 01:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

1b. Secondly can we explain better to layperson readers what "appeals to fear" and "can be maladaptive" means?

If you wish but there's no need; these are standard English terms and are perfectly clear to most readers. If readers don't understand a word or a phrase, they can look it up in a dictionary. Baffle☿gab 01:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

2. The next sentence that follows also starts with "According to" and mentions the name of that researcher three times even though he is not a very notable person. In fact, the term "according to" appears six times in the article. I looked at WP:WIKIVOICE which says "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." So I am just wondering if it's necessary to name those persons there who said that, unless they are very notable like Guterres. Or do we think this is all highly contested and hence the name and affiliation of each person who said something needs to be spelled out?

See WP:VERIFY; it is important to attribute quotations to their sources. The notability of the quoted person doesn't matter; if the cleaner said something that's important to the article, it should be attributed. I take your point about the overuse of "According to..." constructions; you can change some of these to "Xyz said / noted / commented: "blah blah blah" if you wish. Baffle☿gab 01:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

3. I find this difficult to understand, can it be explained better and in simpler terms?: In 2022, The New York Times journalist Amanda Hess said "end of the world" characterizations of the future, such as climate apocalypse, are often used to refer to the current climate crisis, and that the characterization is spreading from "the ironized hellscape of the internet" to books and film.. The wording "the ironized hellscape of the internet" is unclear to me.

"the ironized hellscape..." is part of a direct quotation, which was already in the article. "Ironized" = "to use or indulge in irony or "to make ironic or use ironically". (Collins). "Hellscape" = "a hellish landscape". Baffle☿gab 01:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

4. And what's your take on the term "progressive" in this sentence: The Sierra Club, the Sunrise Movement, Greenpeace, and other environmental and progressive organizations joined in the group's letter to major U.S. media on June 6, 2019, which said. I have argued above on this talk page in conversation with RCraig09 that "progressive" is not neutral and ought to be omitted from this sentence. The sentence would not lose anything if the word was omitted. I suspect it's a native-English speaker thing where "progressive" is used in different ways than the (translated) word would be used in other languages. In German for example, "progressive" translates to "fortschrittlich" which is for sure a term that is not neutral but which contains a form of praise; so any organisation would like to be called "fortschrittlich", not just the left/liberal ones... EMsmile (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion; "progressive" was present in that passage when I copy-edited so I left it alone. In this context, it probably refers to organizations with a politically left-wing stance (see Progressive politics). Baffle☿gab 01:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A few responses:

1. A clear citation is generally preferable to a blanket "researchers".
2. If the Guterres work is an uncontroversial WP:SKYBLUE statement that would be fine. Could you please provide a direct quotation of the sentence in question?
3. It's referring to the internet as a hellscape infused with an overriding affect of irony. It's certainly flowery language - may be room to improve with a paraphrase.
4. I disagree - Progressive is a specific political ideology and one that is somewhat relevant to discussions of climate change. Would suggest wikilink to Progressivism if that would be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

— Re Item #3: the language is indeed flowery, but in English it brilliantly captures the author's description of the Internet. Paraphrasing would eviscerate the intended meaning.

— Re Item #4: "progressive" is neutral and commonly used in English, and is used in the reference literally and therefore the sentence would lose something without it. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Simonm223, regarding Point 2, I was referring to this sentence: According to Sander van der Linden, director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, fear is a "paralyzing emotion"; van der Lindern favors climate crisis over other terms because it conveys a sense of both urgency and optimism, and not a sense of doom. Van der Linden said: "people know that crises can be avoided and that they can be resolved". I find it a bit baffling that Sander van der Lindern has to be mentioned so many (three) times. Is this content so controversial that it has to be attributed to one particular person? If so, shouldn't we then also present other points of view in the same section? I am not used to having the name of a person who said something so prominently. I am more used to WP:Wikivoice ("Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice"). EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@EMsmile agree that second instance could be replaced with the word "he". Simonm223 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Quote boxes

@Baffle gab1978: Your edit comments in edits in which you dissolved quote boxes to inline text, refer vaguely to WP:MOS. Please explain specifically. . . . It is my strong opinion that Wikipedia's quote boxes provide needed emphasis for important statements, essential summaries, especially from notable individuals or organizations. Would you object to my returning the quote-box presentation to the article? Keep in mind that many viewers "only look at the pictures"—and quoteboxes function similar to pictures in their function to emphasize important points. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09:, please see MOS:PULLQUOTES:

Pull quotes do not belong in Wikipedia articles. [my emphasis] These are the news and magazine style of "pulling" material already in the article to reuse it in attention-grabbing decorative quotations. This unencyclopedic approach is a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material.

It's my strong opinion quote boxes are a functional equivalent of pull quotes (disabled in the mainspace) and shouldn't be used in articles, per above. Also, if viewers only look at pictures, that's their lookout, not ours; we don't pander to the hard of thinking here. But do as you wish: I've finished my copy-edit and I'm moving on. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting about the pullquotes. I think I agree with your removal of those pullquotes. I once had a similar discussion at Climate justice where I also felt the use of quotes was excessive. I guess those were also "pullquotes" then (still quite a few there). EMsmile (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These quote boxes are simply not "pull quotes", and not even the "functional equivalent" of pull quotes: they were not "pulled" from the article, they are not "out of context", they do not place undue emphasis on that content, and they are not attention-grabbing "decorations". They are intended to summarize important points or statements from notable individuals or organizations regarding use of the term climate crisis. They do not "pander to the hard of thinking"; they acknowledge readers' time constraints.

Both Climate crisis and Climate justice are abstractions, and therefore not capable of being represented by images, hence quote boxes are particularly appropriate. I clearly noted this fact at Talk:Climate justice. In some respects, quote boxes are similar to images and charts, to which I've seen no general objection in fifteen years of editing. If quote boxes are (supposedly) "unencyclopedic", it is highly peculiar that Wikipedia software would support them.

This objection is yet another example of how editors with less knowledge of article substance and armed with a general knowledge of out-of-context "rules", elevate a subjective interpretation of a formal guideline over article substance. I will be re-converting into quote boxes. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice for you to seek consensus first. So far, two people have argued against quote boxes. How about we give people a bit more time to react before re-instating them all? It could also be interesting to invite more people to the discussion as it probably applies to more articles, not just this one and climate justice. I find the points by User:Baffle gab1978 interesting and worth discussing and thinking about, not just dismissing them so quickly (although they did say "But do as you wish: I've finished my copy-edit and I'm moving on" but there could be other page watchers with an opinion on this). EMsmile (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, we can wait to see what supplements (1) a copy editor's personal opinion that quote boxes are inherently the "functional equivalent" of pull quotes that should be universally banished on WP regardless of content or context, and (2) another editor's personal opinion that the copy editor's personal opinion is "interesting", and (3) fact-based reasoning supporting specific quote boxes here. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see the arguments for either side - quote boxes are useful, but the decision about what to emphasize with them is inherently highly subjective, and so you could argue it falls under the aforementioned policy.

I brought this up over at WP:VPP, since it seems like a conclusive answer would be relevant across Wikipedia, and not just for this article. Now, we wait (and hopefully work on the other articles in the meantime). InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, InformationToKnowledge, great initiative! I wouldn't have known where to place a query on this, and I value the opportunity (that you have now created for us) to hear from other editors about this question. EMsmile (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So: there are zero editors at WP:VPP who explicitly agree with a copy editor's blanket condemnation of quote boxes as being "functional equivalents" of pull quotes—constituting his personal interpretation and extension of what he admits is a guideline in the Manual of Style. How much time has been invested exploring an already-resolved issue because the argument is "interesting" to someone? I have replaced the quote boxes, with neutral-color backgrounds. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)