Talk:Worldwatch Institute

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Nourishing the Planet was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 November 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Worldwatch Institute. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is now the fifth or sixth "article" (I use the word loosely) for whart should all have come under global warming or The Skeptical Environmentalist. I don't know what this scattergun approach is intended to achieve, but it sure as hell isn't "high quality encylopedia articles ".

To get to the bottom of a controversy, one must know what all the various parties are saying and who they are. The media and Democrats have hoodwinked the public into believing there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am providing evidence that there is no such consensus because the science is not settled. Perhaps this is foolish of me. If you think so, please feel free to persuade me that it is, and I will stop. Ed Poor

There IS a concensus. What disturb me is the number of edits and talks around for greenwashing and anti-ecologism bits like that, all around wikipedia.

Gareth, I'm interested in why you say this. I think it's great that people enter specific information under specific headings; why should someone interested in what the Worldwatch Institute is shouldn't have to look under an article called, e.g., global warming.

I think an article about this organization should clearly state what its biases are, eh? --LMS

Publications

I think Wikipedia is not the right place to put a list of 60+ Worldwatch publications. This list also becomes obsolete pretty soon when new reports are published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fturco (talk • contribs) 10:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody replied, I took the decision to remove them myself. Fturco (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]