Talk:Gateway belief model

Notice

This article was once a redirect to scientific consensus but was restored after a discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard. It was considered useful but written like an essay by someone close to the topic and needing improvements. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, ජපස, and PaleoNeonate: The article was redirected due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Maasuni/Archive. Somebody when on a spamming and socking spree to put references to Sander van der Linden in loads of articles. Jytdog's decision to blank this was perhaps extreme, but there is not a great deal of coverage of the concept outside of van der Linden's publications and I guess he thought that WP:TNT applied regardless. It's very hard to judge whether an article on a cutting edge concept is neutral without review articles, but I am fairly sure the current text is not WP:NPOV compliant since it doesn't mention negative findings: [1] [2] beyond Kahan has a notable on-going scholarly debate in the literature with van der Linden and Lewandowsky on the role of perceived consensus and cultural cognition. Personally, I am not sure the concept is sufficiently notable to merit an article, and if there is WP:SCIRS compliant coverage (i.e. reviews) anything would be best included in Sander van der Linden with a redirect from here to there. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

These needs to be deleted, it is totally promotional. 2603:7000:9340:8BDD:9132:25DB:D14A:969 (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sander van der Linden with Gateway belief model

Not notable enough for a standalone article, also see talk page. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Smartse, PaleoNeonate, and ජපස: I was about to work on the Gateway article before it was merged. It does seem Jytdog's decision was extreme. The decision to now once again re-direct after revisiting the first decision seems hasty. For example, a quick Google Scholar search does return a number of major reviews on the model not written by van der Linden, the article just needs some work especially in terms of WP:NPOV. I don't mean to step out of line here as I'm fairly new but I am not sure if Jytdog & previous editors are entirely neutral in this debate given heavy extreme editing and deletion of content (it seems Jytdog has left Wikipedia for issues related to harassment if I understand correctly). I do like Smartse's suggestion that maybe it is easier to integrate the Gateway model in the biography as a scientific contribution (though other notable scholars also appear to work on it). Anyway, it could probably use a fresh look. Youshallnotpass001 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For reference

Bayes, R., Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2020). A Research Agenda for Climate Change Communication and Public Opinion: The Role of Scientific Consensus Messaging and Beyond. Environmental Communication, 1-19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2020.1805343

Landrum, A. R., & Slater, M. H. (2020). Open Questions in Scientific Consensus Messaging Research. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2020.1776746

There are also independent investigations of this model tracking what appear to be at least 37 papers: https://skepticalscience.com/consensus-consensus-messaging.html

Discussion of the model, including controversy, in the popular media may have been deleted by previous editors:

Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/can-this-gateway-belief-get-people-to-accept-climate-change/

Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/10/consensus-and-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming

New York Times

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/why-misleading-americans-about-climate-change-is-dangerous/?_r=0

Notable, personal page should remain

Being recognized as a significant authority and a research pioneer by international news organizations and scientifically focused media makes Sander van der Linden notable so the page should remain as a personal page.

Suggest the tag be removed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say ok, but I'm concerned that his article has been heavily edited by someone using multiple accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maasuni/Archive and at least on Cambridge University IP. So I'm not confident about his article. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Understandable then. Sorry, did not read the first entry here before commenting. Just took a look at the history and on that basis, I agree with you about the tag. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the edits have to do with establishing notability of this individual. Notability can be be established independently. The guy has hundreds of media articles on his work, easily passes WP:NPROF on multiple criteria. It seems Jytdog already re-wrote and removed the sock edits years ago. Perhaps part of the Gateway Belief Model article can be moved into the personal page to expand the stub. Youshallnotpass001 — Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: it seems the onus is on me to make these changes. Following the original suggestions from the prior editors, I have now attempted to condense and re-write the Gateway Belief Model page (using some of the original material) into one paragraph and included it under "Research Contributions" in his personal biography. See what you think. I don't have time right now to re-write the whole GBM page but can work on it if the consensus is to leave them as separate pages. Otherwise a re-direct could be implemented now. Youshallnotpass001 (talk)