Environment Project‑class

This environment-related page is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

No related Wikiportals have been named.

No related Collaborations have been named.

No related Regional notice boards have been named.

No related Wikipedians have been named.

• Commons:Environment
• Wikibooks:Environment
• Wikinews:Environment
• Wikiquote:Environment
• Wikisource:Environment
• Wikispecies:Environment
• Wiktionary:Environment
• meta:Environment

Sister Project Searches

• WikiBooks search
• Google WikiBooks search
• WikiQuote search
• Google WikiQuote search
• WikiSource search
• Google WikiSource search

--></nowiki>

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to have a look at INNOVAL, Retrofitting Building M: University of Reunion Island, France and The Groupe Omicrone, bioclimatic building In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article "Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary of the same name.

• Unacceptable Levels - Pollution just got personal: a new movie | Jennifer Sass's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC (June 18, 2013)
• About | Unacceptable Levels
• Unacceptable Levels

—Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new category, Category:Earthquakes by Richter magnitude (based on the Richter magnitude scale), with its subcategories. I do not know whether one decimal place in the upper bounds is sufficient.

• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 2.0 to 2.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 3.0 to 3.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 4.0 to 4.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 5.0 to 5.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 6.0 to 6.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 7.0 to 7.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 8.0 to 8.99
• Category:Earthquakes of Richter magnitude 9.0 to 9.99

—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed category is analogous to Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new category, Category:Earthquakes by moment magnitude (based on the moment magnitude scale), with its subcategories. I do not know whether one decimal place in the upper bounds is sufficient.

• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 2.0 to 2.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 3.0 to 3.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 4.0 to 4.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 5.0 to 5.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 6.0 to 6.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 7.0 to 7.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 8.0 to 8.99
• Category:Earthquakes of moment magnitude 9.0 to 9.99

—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed category is analogous to Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title which members of this project may be interested in. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Dumpster diving, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

I feel this is relevant here because of the environmental aspect. Important material relevant to protecting the environment of the Earth has been removed from wikipedia. It is a mainstream and not a fringe concern.

Origin of the concerns

Carl Sagan was concerned about back contamination of Earth, and all the official studies since then have confirmed his concerns.

The main concern is that in the worst case it could cause environmental disruption of the Earth. This is thought to be a very low probability possibility, but can't be ruled out. As a result the conclusions of studies by the European Space Foundation, and the National Research Council, is that a great deal of care should be taken for any Mars sample return.

Legal issues and need for public debate

Due to the international nature of the low probability worst case scenarios, there are also many legal issues including internationally and the domestic policies of countries other than the launching nation, and the need to involve the public in debate world wide.

Mainstream view

This is the mainstream view. There is an organization ICAMSR which is an advocacy group opposed to any return of a sample to Earth. They shouldn't be confused with this mainstream view that accepts the concern and says a return to Earth is possible but needs great care, changes of law and worldwide public consultation.

Some space colonization advocates such as Zubrin take the view that these concerns have no scientific validity but his is not a mainstream view.

All the material I contributed on this removed

An editor has removed all the material I contributed to wikipedia discussing these issues. My material was heavily cited and carefully researched. He did it on authority of an AfD of an article I wrote, which was improperly carried out in many ways.

He seems to have support of most of the other editors who have got involved in the debate so far, so am posting to other related projects, to see if I get more sympathy elsewhere where perhaps there will be editors with different views on it all.

Links to follow up more

This is a short summary of it from previous version of the back contamination issues page: Back contamination from Mars

Here is a longer treatment which I keep in my user page because I can't add this to the main space in wikipedia at present:

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment

This is about irregularities in the AfD. Previous AfD

This is WPs most recent proposal to remove everything on interplanetary contamination issues from wikipedia except for one article (plus a short page about the extreme views of the ICAMSR).

Merger Proposal III

Why I posted here

I'm not sure what to do, and am posting to any place I might get sympathy and help about what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain more - I posted this because just about all material in wikipedia on planetary contamination issues has been removed over the last few weeks or replaced with material biased towards the views of space colonization advocates that the issues are of little or no consequence. I wrote most of this material, summarizing numerous notable sources as best I could.

I feel it is wrong to remove it. I proposed to address issues of bias by collaborating with a friend with opposite views to do. But that was of no avail and it seems there is nothing I can do about it.

The admin who was helping me feels that I am ""whining" about this informal topic ban, that I can't seem to get the message of the other editors. Really no-one on wikipedia apart from me seems to think it matters at all if this material is removed, though many of my friends and colleagues outside of wikipedia think it is outrageous. Anyway it now seems to me unlikely anyone can help, but just in case anyone else feels as strongly about it as me, that the material is needed, leave this in place for now. Be aware if you do try to restore it or support my side, you will encounter fierce opposition and insults from editors totally opposed to its inclusion in wikipedia. What they particularly object to is any mention of possible issues of environmental disruption from the sample return. Though the sources state clearly that that is a possibility, low probability but possible. Robert Walker (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: user Robert Walker is a disruptive WP:SPA. Check his history and handle at your own discretion. Thank you, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a SPA. Recently all my talk page discussions have been on contamination issues because a single editor took on himself to remove everything I wrote on contamination issues from wikipedia. Also before that I was engaged in a long weeks long attempt to save an article I wrote from the same editor- eventually it got deleted in an AfD.

Normally I write on many different topics. Robert Walker (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA and a deleted article are irrelevant to the merits of this information. What reasons do some editors express in support of removing the information? Even if some editors consider it to be nonsense, Wikipedia has Category:Controversies and Category:Pseudoscience.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, They haven't given me any reasons. It is all ad hominem stuff. They just repeatedly insult me, and say I am not competent to write about it. You can see the quality of their criticism from the AfD .

They also say that I am unable to write in a NPOV way. Since the AFD I found a friend who is keen to collaborate with me, who is also a friend of Zubrin and who I have had lively discussions with, as he is pretty much opposite to me in the debate, to deal with any POV slant, but this was of no interest to them. WP also repeatedly challenges me on facts that you can easily check by reading the source material, saying I report it inaccurately but you just need to read the sources to see that I report it accurately, and that his paraphrases are simply incorrect. Robert Walker (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wavelength: Read his crap first before commenting here, here, and e.g., here, and here. Losing an AfD is not an invitation to cut 'n' paste the deleted content rightly described as editorial BS to other articles. He has also spammed his published opinion pieces in at least one place here. His POV-pushing walls o' text have proved to be extremely disruptive. He cares NOTHING for wasting other people's time. Go ahead and step in it if you got nothing to do. He is extremely self-absorbed and paranoid, making absurd allegations of sock puppetry in multiple places: but one example here. After you've done that, come back and make a substantive comment. Thanks. Warren Platts (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Walker, I have read partway through your very long article in Science 2.0, and I found it to present a balance of points of view in regard to back contamination, as well as a list of 56 references under "References". (I recommend that you read that article slowly in order to find and correct mistakes in spelling and grammar and punctuation.)

Likewise, I found that the information removed from the Wikipedia article had a balanced presentation of views about back contamination. If some editors describe you as incompetent at writing articles, then I question their competence at assessing competence. However, if they have their hearts set on preventing readers from learning about a potential risk, then perhaps there is little that I can do to dissuade them.

I believe that this information deserves to have its own article (possibly called "Back contamination from early Mars sample return"). I suggest that you wait for 12 months before starting that article, meanwhile continuing your research on the topic and communicating with experts and accumulating more material in support of the validity of publishing the information on Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, thanks, yes I am in communication with professionals on the topic and will continue this. One of my friends is an exobiologist who helped with design of science instruments for detecting life on Mars and has written many papers on exobiology - I am in regular communication with him, and he helps correct any mistakes in my microbiology. Have been in communication with some of the other authors who write on the subject checking my understanding of their papers, for instance, exchanged many emails recently with Chris McKay who is one of the top authors in the field of interplanetary contamination issues, and will continue with this. I've been coming to a similar conclusion that there is probably nothing I can do on wikipedia. As you say, they have a heart felt opposition to the material. I don't take the insults personally, or try not to, as I expect on other topics we could have perfectly amicable conversations, it is just the material that is the issue for them.

As you say, yes things can change. The science can change too.

It wouldn't be too extra-ordinary if in the not too distance future unambiguous detection of present day life on Mars, many scientists think it is quite likely there is life there, I'd say personally maybe 50% probability (ask me 10 years ago and I'd say maybe 0.1% probability on the surface and maybe 20% below- I mean of course not an exact probability, just to give an idea.). Reanalysis of the Phoenix lander isotopic observations already came up with strong evidence that there has been interaction of the atmosphere with significant quantities of water in the geologically recent past and part of the reason I put the prob. of life there so high.

Something like that could change people's attitudes to the validity of including this material in wikipedia. Meanwhile I can be patient and write on science20 where my content is valued. Robert Walker (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thanks for pointing out that the article still has spelling and grammatical and punctuation errors in it. Is my big bugbear, and I put it through a spell checker just now and found and fixed some errors I'd somehow missed before. Will check the grammar and punctuation too and I like to be corrected on this, am not a great proof reader myself, and know that (I think I might be mildly dislexic though not been tested for it, I know I do have a defect in my right eye that causes the letters to dance around on the page slightly when I read it). Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, I've taken your advice and am going to stop writing about contamination issues for wikipedia. I considered filing an admin incident report but it is not yet extreme enough to be plain for anyone to see. You have to read the official studies to see how revisionist WPs editing of these topics on wikipedia has been, and no-one here has the time to read hundred page studies to verify sources. Surely if I post to an admin incident desk, no-one there would have the time to read the sources. It would just be another opportunity for WP and BI to insult me some more, and I would lose the incident and most likely be sanctioned for raising it at all.

So instead I am reusing the content I wrote for wikipedia under CC by SA on other sites on the web. There is more to the web than wikipedia and some other places are more than happy to host well cited scientific material such as this.

I still have the wish to improve the coverage by wikipedia on Interplanetary contamination issues, and would return to the topic again if anyone here wants my contributions, and if there is at least a reasonable chance that it won't be removed by editors opposed to including material on this topic. Robert Walker (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wavelength, what do you mean by "early" MSR? Honestly, what is "early" supposed to mean? Can you please explain it? Cuz we don unerstand... Unbelievable.... lol! Amateurs... Warren Platts (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize: you are a true professional! I like your link you put on Wikipedia here as well! I guess I now unerstan what you mean by early: if life only originated 6,000 years ago here on Earth, what can we really expect for frackin' Mars?!? Warren Platts (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP - there is a place on wikipedia for authors with any belief system. I see you link to some pages on Jehovah's witness pages. It doesn't mean that he is a Jehovah's witness because he has material on them, might just be that he writes extensively about the Jehovah's witnesses on wikipedia, a notable and valid subject for an encyclopedia. But if he is a JW that is also absolutely fine, if a creationist that is also fine.

A creationist can contribute to evolutionist pages too, e.g. there would be nothing wrong at all with a knowledgeable creationist helping to edit pages on Darwin and evolutionary theory, by putting forward the evolutionist arguments, using "writing for the enemy". There is no problem at all having any belief you like, all that matters for NPOV is that when you report on the material in wikipedia that you present the POV of the source rather than inject your own POV into it. Robert Walker (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]