Talk:Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates

==Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 340E Global Innovations Spring 2022== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skippytheturtle, Hawaiiandiamond, Delwattar (article contribs).

Proof?

Its funded, the motivation is clear, its ongoing.. but does it do anything (that would not happen anyway)? For a topic this easy to scientifically prove or rule out any significant change in outcome, the article has very little information on what distinguishes the operation from other modern dowsing scams. 2A01:C22:B197:BE00:7CB9:A5DE:44D8:581C (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You saw the TikTok

Reading may help. Friederike Otto says, suggesting any effect of cloud seeding in the April 2024 rainstorm is considered some kind of treason on anthropogenic climate change.[1] Or something like that. So you better roll with it. Alexpl (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed rerevert: April 2024 floods

I was reverted by an IP account:

21:16, 18 April 2024 79.155.203.120diff hist −815‎  Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates ‎ 1) References like The Guardian is not a scientific journal. Please, rigor. 2) Science cannot get the answer the next day (your cites were published yesterday). 3) Scientists could be discussing right now if this comes from artificial raining or not. Cite good articles based on scientist method or write that scientists are talking. We don't wanna read your personal opinions. Don't induce thoughts. Publish conclusions when conclusions are reached, not before current.

I strongly disagree with this revert. It is clear that my edit states current expert consensus, not my personal opinions. I am not pro-cloud seeding, I am pro-fact. If the expert consensus on this changes I would happily support a revision to reflect this.

The sources I referenced are acceptable in this instance, unlike WP:MEDRS there are no no fixed requirements for citations in general scientific topics. The references come from reputable news sources and there are many other news sources stating the same thing. There is no equivalent scientific publication to reference in this instance as it would take months for such a publication to be produced after these recent events.

To add to the comment in the previous Talk topic, there seems to be much uncertainty about the efficacy and effects of cloud seeding. I'd support edits to this article to capture this nuance, as I would support the addition of any PROVEN link between flooding and cloud seeding. Given that cloud seeding is a popular topic with conspiracy theorists, we need to be careful about speculation and attributing linkages without evidence.

I do plan to rerevert this edit in a few hours, given the current visability of this topic in the news. TatjanaClimate (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 The sheer amount of these missions, with a conservative average of at least one mission every two days, is none the less staggering. So the original formulation with "Experts are doubtful" seems appropriate. Alexpl (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been reverted again by the same IP address for the same reason, without engagement on here on the Talk page.

For context, here is the text I have been trying to add:

Experts are doubtful that cloud seeding played a role in the UAE's April 2024 floods, suggesting that the heavy rainfall was more likely caused by anthropogenic climate change. TatjanaClimate (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please re-add something along these lines if they think it should be included? TatjanaClimate (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. IP user should be out, since not participating in discussion. Alexpl (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this revert. It is clear that my edit states current expert consensus, not my personal opinions. I am not pro-cloud seeding, I am pro-fact. If the expert consensus on this changes I would happily support a revision to reflect this.

I strongly disagree with you. You are the one who has to write the expert consensus. If there's, I'm the one who wants to see this reference. With reference, you know what I mean. Put it here. If the consensus exists is gonna be easy, you don't need to go to New York Times. Later, I would happily support your sentence.

On the other hand, I really don't care if you're pro-fact or not, that's the point. I don't know you. You should probe these facts with rigour. You should be able to introduce here facts by scientific resolutions with peer reviews, not magazines or newspaper neither. I don't care the political position of the newspaper, you and I know that these news have introduced subjective opinions and may induce to errors. You also know that BBC, The Guardian or others examples are not scientific sources and has been object of criticism and controversies.

The sources I referenced are acceptable in this instance, unlike WP:MEDRS there are no no fixed requirements for citations in general scientific topics. The references come from reputable news sources and there are many other news sources stating the same thing. There is no equivalent scientific publication to reference in this instance as it would take months for such a publication to be produced after these recent events.

I do plan to rerevert this edit in a few hours, given the current visability of this topic in the news. TatjanaClimate (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

True. That's another point I told you. Take time (months) to conclude a scientific publication so please, you don't publish the conclusion. I read in a reputable news source that this flooding came to the cloud seeding (wrongly, but in a reputable news source). Again, periodists could know a lot, but they're not scientists. If takes time to get a scientific paper, takes time. So if takes time, I really don't care the volume of people who come to see the explanation in this page. I understand that something pushes you to publish things and the visability is something that worries you, but not me.

To add to the comment in the previous Talk topic, there seems to be much uncertainty about the efficacy and effects of cloud seeding. I'd support edits to this article to capture this nuance, as I would support the addition of any PROVEN link between flooding and cloud seeding. Given that cloud seeding is a popular topic with conspiracy theorists, we need to be careful about speculation and attributing linkages without evidence.

True. That's what you should put here. There's a lot of publications (peer reviews, in Sciencedirect is easy to obtain some of them) that affirm the uncertainty about the efficacy and effects of cloud seeding. Put them here. In fact, the main article in Wikipedia is well-written and let people understand the point we're now. Scientists are concluding interesting things. Put them here. Introduce here what we know about the field and controversies among scientists but not publish moved just because people are watching this article and wonder if the Earth is flat, square or a diamond.

Experts are doubtful that cloud seeding played a role in the UAE's April 2024 floods, suggesting that the heavy rainfall was more likely caused by anthropogenic climate change. TatjanaClimate (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please re-add something along these lines if they think it should be included? TatjanaClimate (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Experts are doubtfull so they cannot suggest anything at this moment. If you publish this 2 days after the flooding and are worried of volume of visits maybe you're not as pro-fact as you say. Create a section talking about conspiranocy for going people out away from stupid ideas and say whatever you want but don't use incorrect media to conclude scientific resolutions. 79.155.203.120 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've already said, the current expert scientific consensus is accurately reflected in the edit I made that you have been reverting. The sources referenced are perfectly acceptable as this is an evolving issue and there is no published scientific literature on the April 2024 floods as of yet. If Wikipedia wasn't able to reference news sources like the ones I have used, then there would be no articles on current events (in fact there are many, and many cite reputable news platforms like the BBC).

My pro-fact comment is a reponse to your edit summary in your first reversion stating my edit reflects a personal opinion (it clearly does not).

Re: your recent edits, you appear to have added notes / comments about the article directly into the text of the article itself. I'm going to go ahead and revert these as notes should only be included using the correct templates. TatjanaClimate (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We all would like to quote the best experts, based on the most credible sources. But those are usually not available at the time a topic is in the news. Insisting on having them anyway and reverting the article is Wikipedia:Edit warring. Short-cut climate scientists, like Friederike Otto (see above), made it into reliable publications (Guardian) first and discarded cloud-seeding as cause. This can´t be ignored. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "(...) reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." You can add other views when they become available in reliable publications. Alexpl (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)