The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Amidst all the noise emitted during this discussion, there is a quite clear consensus that the topic is both notable and documented enough to justify an article; and that sufficiently reliable sources do exist. At the same time, at least a few people agree the article requires editorial attention. This close neither endorses nor opposes the rather widespread idea that the nomination of this article was made in bad faith. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks. JohnWBarber (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: It appears that numerous editors only read the very top of the AfDs they vote on, because !votes are being added below that indicate they didn't look much at the discussion. I didn't realize the importance of detailing my reasons at the very top when I started this AfD (mostly because I thought this article was such an obvious case for deletion), but I'll lay out my reasons more clearly in this spot, summarizing what I've said below. Overall, it should be obvious what a WP:POVFORK is when you look at it: Either it can't be WP:NPOV because of the nature of it or it's very difficult to maintain as NPOV. I've shown below how the article is stuffed full of any rhetorical weapon or smear that can be used against one POV area in the debate (one I don't happen to agree with). Its sourcing, especially its most prominent sourcing, comes from op-ed articles that use "denialism" as a simple club to beat people whom the partisan commentators disagree with. This is combined with large, baggy sections (taking up most of the article) implying that most of the denialists are either shills for special-interest groups or are fooled by them. I agree that these machinations by special interests exists and have some influence, but the article covers that out of all proportion to their influence. Various other factors, ignored or downplayed by the article, also contribute to denialism: conspiracy theories, the past cold winter and the various embarassments of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Various reliable sources recently have discussed most of these influences (links are lower in this post).

Although all of these problems with the article are technically fixable, in practice, according to WP:POVFORK, it's a bad idea to have an article based on one segment of a controversy. It automatically implies that there is no reasonable case to be made against Anthropogenic Global Warming, when, in fact, skeptics (as distinct from denialists) have made (various) reasonable cases that global warming is uncertain, may not be caused by human behavior, may not be as severe as some say, etc. etc. (My own POV: I'm neither a denialist nor a skeptic; I'm an uncertain believer in AGW who doesn't pretend to understand the whole thing.) An article on denialism taints all opposition to global warming, since Category:Denialism is basically a subcategory for Category:Insanity. If Wikipedia did a great job keeping contentious topics in NPOV form, then this article would be a good idea, but this article is proof we don't do that kind of thing well at all. Everything worth having in it can be fit into the already existing Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans, which already covers the important topics of this article. Covering fringe elements of a debate we already cover is best done in other articles, partly because they help us and the reader to get a better perspective by considering context.

Reliable sources tell us [1] that the embarassing conduct of scientific organizations associated with the controversy has lowered support for AGW and increased the numbers of both denialists and skeptics. [2] [3] [4] So has the recent cold winter, they say. If special interests were so important (they take up two thirds of this article) then denialist opinion wouldn't vary so much over the past few months due to the weather or the recent revelations (I agree we should cover the influence of those special interests, but in some rough proportion to their importance.) The article doesn't adequately reflect that, I assume for POV-pushing reasons -- which is precisely why WP:POVFORK suggests we avoid these kinds of articles. This entire subject can be adequately incorporated into Global warming controversy. Now don't tell me this is a WP:POINTy nomination. Please feel free to respond to my points, and I'll adjust my opinion if you can convince me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here aren't "votes" exactly; whoever closes the discussion is charged to consider the merits more than the number of the arguments. But you're right in that Strong is unhelpful. PhGustaf (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just an expression of the user's feelings. Snow Keep is not generally considered acceptable anymore :) Polargeo (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alphascript publishing just reprints wikipedia articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the first three AFDs for an explanation. Simply repeating claims against which there has demonstrably been a consensus is not a valid AFD argument.— DroEsperanto (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses at 19:47 and 20:15, below. My "stated intention" is at the top of this page and doesn't conflict with my statement about enjoying watching hypocrisy revealed. And of course inconsistent reasons for supporting one article and deleting the other is something that a closing admin should find useful in considering whether good-faith encyclopedia-building was behind some comments or squalid POV pushing was all that backed them up. It is extremely useful for this AfD in particular and for Wikipedia in general that editors who can't separate their POV from their editorial judgment start thinking seriously about that flawed thinking.
There is no prohibition against bringing up for consideration an AfD after some time has passed, especially when the climate-change controversy has changed so much. For instance, we now have (1) this statement from the UK government's top science adviser on why so many are skeptical: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed. [...] Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. [10] (2) plummeting support in public opinion polls in recent months, none of it attributable to industry machinations but instead to the series of revelations about bad science and bad practices (and probably a cold winter)[11] [12] -- and yet, despite the power of public facts to change public opinion (a power that hasn't been demonstrated with the industry machinations, which I believe exist), the article doesn't reflect this reality. And in fact, this article isn't the best spot for Wikipedia to report on any of this -- the main controversy article is the spot, because skepticism has increased just as support for AGW theory has decreased and there is no reason to concentrate on one side of that equation more than the other side. Here's what an article in yesterday's New York Times had to say: [13]
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
This -- the set of facts before the public -- seems to be what counts. The point of this Wikipedia article is that irrational factors or conspiracies to propagandize are what count. It's probably a mixture of many things, and that indicates the subject is best addressed in the overall controversy article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate skepticism and denialism are not mutually exclusive (both exist), nor does this article support that notion (and if it does, it can be fixed), so neither (1) nor (2) are really issues. My question for you now is: what POV do you this topic promoting in an unfair and irreparable way? — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit like WP:BURDEN. I don't see a legitimate need or purpose for this as a separate article, but there are all sorts of inevitable problems and temptations because we have it. What NPOV-compliant purpose do you see this article serving that wouldn't just as well be served in the overall controversy article or other AGW-related articles? Why do we need a special article to examine this particular part of the spectrum of opinion? (And why not other parts of the spectrum of opinion? And how do you split up the spectrum in an NPOV way? And frankly, why bother to cover segments of the spectrum anyway?) The news articles I've linked to above give several sources for denialism (and skepticism), but the existence of the article tempts too many editors to add to the evil-business-machinations aspect, despite the fact that it appears other factors are at least as important. But POV-pushing editors will always want to emphasize the most nefarious aspects of the other side, so there will always be pressure to keep expanding the business aspect until it reaches the grotesque size it does in this article. The article is a natural battleground (or worse, a POV haven). The overall AGW controversy is better covered in other ways -- particular reports or particular controversies, for instance. It's easier to monitor and counter POV pushing that way. You say: nor does this article support that notion (and if it does, it can be fixed) You're kidding, right? Are you familiar with the POV conflicts at the AGW articles? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine, Newsweek.
Resisting Change: Global Warming Deniers, Newsweek.
The Psychology of Climate Change Denial, Wired.
Now climate change denial is a psychological condition, The Australian.
Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right, The Guardian.
Denying Climate Change, Outlook India.
Etc. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is not an adequate answer to objections based on WP:POVFORK. Probably almost all POV forks have reliable sourcing. I mention near the top where there are reliable sources essentially calling climate scientists political campaigners. Is that worth an article? Do we create articles on all POV-based subjects if we can find reliable sources -- especially ones with their own bias? If you allow it in one case, you'll find it cropping up in some other, very uncomfortable cases. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I did read it. Here's your evidence:
  1. WP:POVFORK: Lead paragraph: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts Examples from the article: (a) First eight words: Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative (b) Second sentence emphasizes the pejorative nature of the term (which is essential to it, or the title would replace that word with "opposition") by quoting only left-wing opinion columnists: Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[5][6] This is reliable sourcing? This is NPOV treatment? (c) First sentence of second paragraph emphasizes corrupt motives of those who are "denialists": activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests. If that were the common understanding of the term, then we'd be committing WP:BLP violations left and right by calling almost anyone a "climate change denier", and yet this is how the second paragraph of the article opens. There's more, but this shows how the article highlight[s] negative ... viewpoints. It could be edited out, but you wouldn't have much to replace it with -- it really is the nature of the term to be pejorative in one way or another. The rest of the second paragraph is a vague comment with a bunch of footnotes attached.
  2. From the first sentence in the section you link to: Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork – only that it is not necessarily a content fork.
  3. I think this is what you're getting at: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. (a) No. 1, above, shows the subject is not presented neutrally. (b) Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate. That's kind of like saying, Some say that Barack Obama is "The Anti-Christ". Others have decried the claim. With a bunch of footnotes after each. Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial. It's a smear with footnotes. (c) The three longest sections of the article are about industry efforts. The longest section in the article is titled "Connections to the tobacco lobby". Something tells me that the subject of that section isn't quite so important in the overall picture of the denialist POV. In fact, all this emphasis on industry machinations is an effort to prove that denialism is mostly not a POV but simply a special interest. There is something about the business interests for Wikipedia to cover, but not that much.
You wanted evidence of how WP:POVFORK applies to the article. Now you've got it. Removing the offending parts would get you a section-sized stub that belongs in another article (and probably is already there, I haven't looked). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article may have some WP:NPOV-related issues but I believe they all can be addressed through regular editing. I also wouldn't mind renaming the article as long as the new, more neutral title won't make it a soapbox for propagandists of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE views. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Rename would be a good compromise --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - Also, as others have pointed out, the same argument has been the primary reason for no less than THREE other deletion discussions. While consensus can certainly change, this is beginning to look like a piñata party featuring everyone's favorite dead ungulate. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've ignored everything I've said, here's the argument in a nutshell: My arguments at 19:47, 20:15 and in the thread ending with 02:59 above were not covered by the previous AfDs. Much of the article is years old, and doesn't take into account recent developments affecting the denial types and the skeptics. The news articles I've linked to in the 02:59 thread show varying reasons for the recent changing poll numbers and the dramatic changes in the AGW controversy, none involving the business machinations that take up most of the article. It's incredibly hard to keep POV-fork articles in an NPOV state. This article is an excellent example of that problem. It's Wik-op-ed-opedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument you made above is an argument to avoid at AfD. You say the article is out of date, but this is NEVER a reason to delete. If an article needs improvement, then improve it; don't delete it. Also, you seem to think that just because an argument is no longer prevalent in the news, it is no longer notable; a widespread claim is still encyclopedic even if people no longer use it. Lastly, to all those voting keep because they believe the nomination is pointy: while JohnWBarber should probably not have mentioned his interest in seeing the dichotomy of votes in the two debates, he also consistently espouses the view that this article is POV, and THAT is the reason it should be deleted. Even if I disagree with his reasoning, I completely believe he acted in good faith. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your points have already been addressed, many by my post at 02:59. The only reason I pointed out that the article is out of date is because I believe updating it would be opposed by some editors on the side supporting AGW -- in other words, it's a POV problem for active reasons, not passive ones. It's impossible to think anybody actually believes this article reflects the subject, and yet ... there it sits. Thanks for the AGF. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once again, just because you believe that this article is troubled beyond repair, does not mean that it is. If an article needs work, it is fixed, not deleted. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They raise the level of the discussion. The suitable candidate you're looking for is Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans where the most important content of this article is already summarized (or could easily be summarized). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is headed for a clear, overwhelming keep, perhaps an invocation of the snowball clause would be in order at this point. --TS 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the situations at Wikipedia:Speedy keep really fit here unfortunately. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The snowball clause is most closely related to Ignore all rules, so whether or not we invoke it does not depend on other policies. I do grant your point that such a close would be irregular--to the extent that such things matter. --TS 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's more important to let normal processes work so that more editors actually think about what they're supporting or rejecting. Perhaps that's healthier for Wikipedia in general and for our coverage of this subject in particular. Perhaps we should respect facts and ideas more and our own comfortable opinions less. It's one way of building a better encyclopedia. That's what we want, right? To build a better encyclopedia regardless of whether or not it promotes our own, personal points of view? How would you do that other than by encouraging examination of the facts? Why the urge to shut down discussion, even if it's going your way? What's the harm? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because, of course, the discussion is not free. It saps time from all involved. The purpose of the AfD is to determine if an article should be deleted or not. If that aim has been achieved, its unproductive to spend further resources on it. Any minute spent monitoring or arguing this AfD is a minute not spend in some other, probably more worthwhile, endeavor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring evidence is what saps time from all involved. Discussion of actual evidence (see the links at my "Further comment" now at the very top of this page), actual facts (see my dissection of the POV problems with the article at 20:15, 3 March), actual polices (WP:POVFORK, which has been ignored) and actual reasoning (see the top of the page, for more see the 19:47 3 March comment and the thread ending at 02:59, 4 March) is a timewaster only to POV diehards. If editors either can't or won't address reasonable points made reasonably, it isn't the fault of the one bringing them up. Feel free to point out to me where I'm wrong, though. I am listening. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This misses the point. You asked an abstract question and I answered it in the abstract. If you want to get concrete, I understand that you know the truth and are therefore right. However, I, and about 95% of the editors commenting here, seem to think that you are wrong. Of course this means that we all ignore evidence and fail to respond to reasonable points reasonably, while you are still right. Too bad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've missed the point. Consensus doesn't decide AfDs, "rough consensus" decides it. Rough consensus depends on strength of argument. See WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. That's policy. I didn't say I have the truth, so please don't exaggerate: I said I have what you're supposed to have in a deletion discussion, or any WP:TALK page: facts, reasonable argument, policy. If you can counter it, it would be better for the article, for Wikipedia and for the rest of the editors to counter it. If you don't, and if I'm continuing to discuss the merits of the article with others, then please step aside. It's only wasting your time if you're spending time at it unproductively. The value of the article isn't so certain that a snowball close is proper. Feel free to take it to A/N. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you know WP:OTHERSTUFF. I participated in both discussions and I think there is a world of difference between the two. For example, this article doesn't seem to quote (actual) 9-year-olds. — Rankiri (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change denial, whether pejorative or nor, is an independently notable topic with 120 Google Scholar hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it independent of the climate change controversy in general? Note there are about 120 google scholar hits for climate change hoax and 65 for climategate. Climategate has over 2 million hits on vanilla Google. So what? We should have one NPOV article on the controversy, not separate articles on every pejorative term each side manages to popularize.--agr (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you authored the WP:Advocacy articles essay and added Climate change denial as the only example into the essay (which I removed, and you'll no doubt replace), don't you think you should state that here? Your whole essay seems to be a coatrack to attack the climate change denial article. Someone should propose that essay for deletion. ► RATEL ◄ 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your rather unhelpful comments seem to be irrelevant here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

random convenience break[edit]

Have you read Wikipedia:POVFORK recently - especially the part that goes "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it."? You feel there is no information in the article in question that should be merged back to Global warming controversy? None at all? You feel there's no topic that could be written neutrally about? Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any information in this article that is not already in Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans section, it's trivial. I wouldn't move it anywhere. Any editor can go through the sources and pick out any bits of information that might be worth saving, and that can be done by getting a copy of it from an admin, even after it's been deleted. It would be better than simply moving anything from this article, because the other article already covers the valuable aspects of this one. Potentially, Politics of global warming might cover some subjects. Other things should be removed whether or not this article stays, including these whole sections of minutia: "Connections to the tobacco lobby" -- trivial; "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" -- pointless ("The suit was dismissed"); "Effect of climate change denial" -- unencyclopedic blather; "Public sector", I do like the second paragraph, but I wonder how important it is five years later; "Overview" -- worthless. I think that covers the entire article. Even the "Private sector" part, which I kind of like, is a summary of Business action on climate change. You haven't addressed any of my comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The views of a particular group on a controversial subject generally deserve an article, the controversy deserves another, and the generally accepted view (if there is one) deserves a third. For example, Anabaptism, Mormonism and Catholicism are examples of articles about particular beliefs, Eastern Schism and Protestant Reformation are examples of articles about arguments and Christianity as an example of a discussion of a broader body of opinion.
As it stands, this is a poor quality article, far from an objective and impartial description of the viewpoints and perhaps motives of people who deny that climate change is happening. That does not mean the article should not exist, just that it needs improvement. The topic is legitimate and clearly notable. The whole theory of Wikipedia is that over time editors will improve all articles. If not, there is no point to the project. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point to the project when it comes to big, hot political controversies. There are too few editors willing to set aside their own POV and too many who aren't. When you remove the rotten pulp from this article, you're left with a kernel of about two, maybe three short paragraphs that partly replicate information in other articles. And before you get to the kernel, you'll have a POV fight on your hands. And lose. And nobody should attempt to edit it without being aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. It isn't edible and we shouldn't put up with the smell. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has articles on many controversial subjects from Abkhazia to the Woodward effect that require constant patrolling. Articles on subjects that do not seem controversial at all, such as Cactus, are repeatedly vandalized. But over time the quality of the encyclopedia does steadily improve. With a complex and important topic like climate change where there are many different opinions, it is best to have separate articles on each aspect. This is one. It will be difficult to bring it up to a good level of quality and to maintain it at that level, but not impossible. "Difficult" is not a reason to delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another random break[edit]

  • Comment: This is the 4th attempt on this article, no doubt by heavily conflicted editors. User:JBsupreme has already committed that If this deletion nom fails [he] will happily re-list it shortly.. At which point do we get to WP:SALT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (5th nomination)? ;) -- samj inout 11:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In many ways Climate change controversy is the foil to climate change denial. However, it would not seem as objective if Climate change controversy were named Climate change conspiracy. Controversy means that there is controversy. Denial means that the area is settled and not open to debate, and those that do advocate debate are (irrespective of their perspective or position) in denial, which means that they are stupid or mad (or both!). Now, if the article, Climate change denial were constructructed such as to say: 'this is what the peception of climate change denial is' that would be fine. Instead it provides an extended argument to PROVE the existence of Climate Change Denial. The article of God should not be a podium for those who wish to prove the existence of God, but rather document the views of society and different creeds upon their perceptions and interpretations of divine being(s). A general rewrite of the Climate change denial page is possible, but rename would clear up a lot of these outstanding issues (even if there is a perceptible polarity, even here, between advocates and opponents of climate change thoery, that is becoming increasingly volatile)--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article as discussing people or groups who are "denying" climate change for political or economic reasons, presumably with a somewhat cynical attitude as to whether or not climate change is a reality. With that focus, the article should discuss identity, motives, funding and activities, and should skim over the arguments advanced. Possibly a better title would end in "lobby groups" or something, but I can't imagine getting consensus on such a change. This is quite different from an article on skeptics who sincerely dispute that climate change is real, or if real that it is caused by human activity, which would mainly describe their reasoning. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't make it up, those are your words. I have looked at the other reasons you have presented and they don't seem to hold water. Really, what do you expect when you say it will be a joy to behold the hypocrites reaction to such a nomination, and that it would be wonderful to see their twists and turns of logic, and then go and nominate it, and then make an effort to point out said perceived hypocrisy? I am simply quoting you, let people make up their own mind as to what your words mean in relation to this nomination. At this point I support the nomination running its full course, not because I think it is in any way valid, but simply to deny the opportunity for claims of unfairness. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect you to be able to Explain how the article meets or violates Wikipedia policy. as it says on the top of the page when you open it up to edit. I expect you to be able to address the actual policy issue, not a single comment made before the AfD started. Otherwise I expect the closing admin to ignore your off-topic, irrelevant comments. That would be WP:DGFA#Rough consensus policy. Really, what do you expect I would expect? You wouldn't be trying to make a WP:POINT about my pre-AfD comment, would you? I mean, that would be a reason for the closing admin to ignore your comment, wouldn't it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first sentence: "A well sourced article about a real and well documented phenomenon". Lets just let the closing admin decide what to ignore and what to pay attention to. Amazing how you can accuse me of a "point" violation, sort of poetic. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • addressed in the response at 21:44, immediately below yours -- irrelevant and off topic to the stated reason for this AfD. I'll have even more to say later about the sources and the way this article uses them. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and Theory of gravity is slanted toward those who feel that the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth is a real scientific phenomenon. Not that it matters, according to WP:FRINGE. — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down! Aymatth2 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a fringe comment for you (one I don't happen to agree with, but never mind):
I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed. [...] “Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’. [...] When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.
WP doesn't have the right to go beyond what the reliable sources say, even about the denialists. And AGW ain't quite the law of gravity, according to this guy. [17] He uses the word "skepticism" here, but "certain unqualified statements" (like, say, comparing climate change to the law of gravity) hurt the believability of the scientists saying global warming is a real problem, and that's inevitably going to lead to support for both the skeptical and denialist POV. If you have a problem with this statement by the "personal adviser on science and technology-related activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet" in the Labour government of the United Kingdom, please take it up with him. (I assume that the source, the Times of London, simply didn't report on his support for the idea of AGW.) Our article skews what the reliable sources say about the sources of denialism: We highlight years-old charges that industry-financed groups did some PR work against it, but completely ignore the reasons given in these reliable sources -- colder weather and the recent embarassments of the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit
  1. New York Times ("A survey conducted in late December by Yale University and George Mason University found that the number of Americans who believed that climate change was a hoax or scientific conspiracy had more than doubled since 2008, to 16 percent of the population from 7 percent."), [18]
  2. The Guardian ("Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found") [19]
  3. BBC ("The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November."). [20]
These reliable sources are quite explicit about the reasons for the public opinion numbers. Oh, yeah, we do have a little bit of this in a sentence or two in the fourth paragraph of the article. Fourth paragraph from the bottom, that is. If the BBC poll is right, 40 percent of the entire denialist camp in the UK came to this belief since November. What's happened in that time? The cold winter and the embarassments of the IPCC and CRU, as the three articles mention Our coverage in this article is skewed. Our readers are likely to know about the IPCC and CRU embarassments, but they're missing from this article, making it an embarassment to Wikipedia. (edited to add) This (yet again) shows how this article functions to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. which is yet another way it violates WP:POVFORK -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)added comment, as noted; minor tweaks -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have identified useful information, with sources, that I encourage you to add to Public opinion on climate change. I do not think it is clearly relevant to this article, which is more about lobbyists. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I should do that. (just tweaked my comments a bit and added a comment above) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am starting to think the article confuses two different concepts. One is the meaning and usage of the pejorative term, which is sort of a dictionary definition. The other is the activities of lobbyists who try to create doubt about climate change for financial or sectional reasons, as opposed to genuine skeptics. The bulk of the content is about the second concept. I am leaning towards a rename to something like "Climate change lobbying" followed by an overhaul to also cover activities of groups with an interest in increasing alarm about climate change. It would need very tight patrolling to avoid POV, but does seem a legitimate subject, different from both Business action on climate change and Global warming controversy, although with some overlap. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning the same treatment for AIDS denial and all the other articles in Category:Denialism too? --Nigelj (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denial and Lobbying are two very different concepts. Denial is passive or negative, where a person takes a fixed opinion and refuses to listen to any counter arguments. A denialist may seem stubborn and irrational, but perhaps deserves respect for their conviction. "The holy book says it is true, so it must be true, whatever you say." Lobbying is an active and positive attempt to influence people's views in favor of the person or group who is paying for the lobbying effort. The lobbyist may be relatively indifferent to the the validity of the position they are promoting. The content of this article seems to be mostly about lobbying, not denial. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

random break 3[edit]

WP:RS#Statements of opinion does allow for some sourcing from opinion pieces: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. This article does attribute information to authors (except we say Newsweek instead of the author's name, implying that the source is a normal, unproblematic news article). However the basic structure of an article -- it's necessary parts, most prominent parts and passages that are used to show what's important, should not rely on this kind of problematic sourcing from opinion pieces. I don't know that reliable sourcing in regular news accounts or elsewhere actually exists. The parts of the article that remain after you remove these can be either deleted or put into various other articles -- in most cases they already are (see the See main article notes at the top of some sections).
Some parts of the article are very solidly sourced: There isn't a problem with most of the "Private sector" and "Public sector" sections, parts of the "Overview" section simply report on others' opinions, and the first paragraph of the "Effect of climate change denial" section. The "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" section seems solid but "Connections to the tobacco lobby" is entirely built on unreliable sourcing. But the solid sourcing doesn't cover the basic structure of the article: the important, defining parts and the passages that tell us what's important. I've created User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial, a copy of the article with the three most problematic prominent sources shown in boldface (I used boldface italics mark passages that could remain, ranging from somewhat problematic to not a problem at all in terms of WP:RS policy). This shows how much and how prominent the bad sourcing is. There are a few minor bad sources as well, but they don't amount to much and don't need to affect the way we see the article as a whole:
  • Newsweek, "The Truth About Denial" This magazine's articles combine opinion, news reporting and analysis. I'm inclined to want to use newsmagazine pieces as reliable sources as long as we're careful with them, and, as RS says, even an opinion article may be reliable on some facts. However, this particular article is more problematic than most: It was sharply criticized not just as wrong but as biased and unreliable on the magazine's own pages by its columnist, Robert Samuelson, who said: We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. [...] NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. [21] That is very severe, unusual criticism for a magazine to run on its own pages. We do mention that criticism prominently ("Overview" section), but we still rely on the Newsweek story for information, more than any other source (four times directly; two other footnotes that make up most of the "Effect of climate change denial" section rely on a sidebar from the same issue). Also unusual, The New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Jeff Jacoby which criticized the article. Sample quote: [W]hy is the tone of Sharon Begley's cover story - nine pages in which anyone skeptical of the claim that human activity is causing global warming is painted as a bought-and-paid-for lackey of the coal and oil industries - so strident and censorious? Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit? [22] By relying so strongly on the Newsweek coverage, Wikipedia implies that we endorse it, at least for its facts. When we say, the Newsweek report attributes American policymakers' failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to consistent undermining of science by the "denial machine" at the bottom of the article, introducing the prominent "kicker" quote (an important spot [23]) we're citing an unreliable, unusually highly criticized source on a key fact that the article seems designed to support. The first sentence of the "Public sector" section, critical of Frank Luntz, a BLP, relies on the Newsweek article, as does much of the second paragraph, which criticizes another BLP, Philip Cooney (roughly half of that small section relies on the Newsweek article).
  • George Monbiot, "an English writer, known for his environmental and political activism", according to our article on him, currently Footnote 3, cited four times (ever since Day 1 of the article [24]). The source is an excerpt from a book of his, which seems just as much an opinion piece as his column in The Guardian. In the "Overview" section, Monbiot is one of the most prominent sources, and in the "Connections to the tobacco lobby" section, three of the five paragraphs rely on this source (with the other two relying on an opinionated magazine piece). Take a look at the bottom paragraph of that section: George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." How can we trust that claim from a biased source? The type of sourcing we'd want for statements that put elements of the subject into perspective should be rock solid -- in this case, regular news articles. Monbiot's book would have had that information to make a partisan point, and we don't know how hard he was straining to make it. I don't know if there are news articles that could replace this or replace other sourcing.
  • Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair [25] Hertsgaard is environmental correspondent for The Nation, a left-wing opinion magazine in the U.S., and what he's written for Vanity Fair is a combination of reporting and his own opinion. His article is used in the overlong and tangental "Tobacco" section, and the main purpose of it is to introduce negative information about Frederick Seitz. The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") It was a WP:BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Wikipedia, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. It is now merely an unreliable source to rely on for information.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)added material -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right-leaning newspaper columnists like Robert Samuelson and far-right newspaper columnists like Jeff Jacoby not liking something does not make it unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, to your modification and additon, just because Mark Hertsgaard is left of center does not make him unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hertsgaard piece is full of opinion. As I say, we can use opinion pieces for facts, but it's problematic to use them so much -- and to use them exclusively in the "Tobacco" section. In my copy of the story, the entire section is in boldface, although some of it might be used. We rely almost exclusively on the left for opinion pieces here, but I don't think that getting more from the right is the answer -- getting news articles for sources would be the answer, but it's very problematical: we don't know if they really exist. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hertsgaard piece is a featured article in Vanity Fair, a publication with an undisputed record of fact-checking and accuracy. It is a reliable source for facts. It is not an op-ed. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I've just added a bit to my comment, but it doesn't affect the part you replied to.) I agree that it isn't conclusive, but the fact that editors at Newsweek and The New York Times op-ed page would publish those very prominent critiques does matter. Their important objections are about professional journalism more than merely their opinion that the piece was wrong. Samuelson's criticism of the piece in his own magazine that it did not note the defense of the American Enterprise Institute is a journalistic flaw in that article that cuts to the core of its reliability as a whole. As I say, one reason not to rely on opinion pieces for so many of the facts in a WP story is that they can leave out important information. Samuelson found that, and it's a fact that we should, actually, use in the WP story for fairness (it would be even better to get a news source for that, as with anything). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Op-Ed pages publish opinions of people who are paid to have opinions. Those opinions are theirs alone - Op-Ed pages state that prominently. Not including a rebuttal of something does not invalidate Newsweeks record of fact checking and accuracy. That a right-wing editor at Newsweek didn't like a peice the magazine wrote is not a retraction, rather it's his opinion. With that, you can again have the last word, but you know the article's not getting deleted, so give it up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the piece. This is how it ends: But it could still be a livable, even hospitable, planet, if enough of us get smart in time. If we don't, three feet of water could be just the beginning. Mark Hertsgaard is the environmental correspondent for The Nation. Name of the article: "While Washington Slept" -- that title is about opinion, the kicker passage is about opinion. There is reporting in the article. We may want to use some of the facts from it, and it's certainly more fair than our own use of it is fair, but we don't want to rely on this kind of thing so much. Would you want the same for a "Global warming alarmism" article? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To respond further, it's unusual that a Newsweek cover story would get that kind of reaction from the magazine itself and from the Times. Why are we using an article that is itself controversial as the backbone of our story? The Newsweek piece was also opinion, and we don't know where exactly the opinion and argument-making ended and fair reporting began, since the piece as a whole was used to make a partisan point. If the same article had been done by a New York Times reporter, there wouldn't be this problem. We have examples of some very good reporting in the article, such as Cushman's great article in the "Private sector" section, but it isn't enough to hold together this article and it can be put in the main article on that subject (there's a link at the top of that section). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you know the article's not getting deleted, so give it up Either the closing admin will see this article violates WP:POVFORK, or a future AfD will, in which case it's good to have these problems on record, or they can be used to create a much shorter or much changed article. But the much-altered article will be made up of trivia: an old lawsuit that has been dismissed, an overview section saying "some opinion writers have said this" and some polling results that will either have to be updated constantly or (as they are now) be out-of-date or trivial history. The bits that are left will be in other articles already. These are the problems of a content fork. The only thing that holds it together is the opinion-piece meme. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Business action on climate change is only 31K, and most of the worthwhile information could go there, so we have plenty of space in other, proper forks of Global Warming controversy that can properly handle this. Even the Washington Post piece you cite is an editorial from that newspaper (noting the effect of the recent scandals on denialist opinion -- something still not in the article). This article concentrates on business interests funding one side of the issue, when there are governmental and business interests and groups funding and politicking on the other side as well -- what you would expect in democracies. One of the few really good sources, Cushman, writing a news article in the New York Times, is misused by our article in a POV way: Cushman is writing about a proposal, not something in place, as we describe it for our own POV pushing purposes. The Newsweek piece is cited as reporting, giving it respect it does not deserve as a piece unusually criticized for its reporting. Where are the news accounts and similar reliable sources that could be used to back up the main points of this article? You haven't linked to any that I've seen. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More