Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 3

message: Given that the terms "denial machine" and "denial industry" are exact quotes from the primary source(s) of this article, I don't see why they shouldn't be in quotation marks when used. Revolutionaryluddite 16:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would certainly be an improvement. --Childhood's End 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Emphasis as to why not - you only do it in a context where you want to be sure that this is attached to a single source, and remind the reader that its a direct quote. Otherwise it ends up as scare quotes. --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my concern as well, but the source you provided seems to suggest that he's using it correctly:Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source. For example: His tombstone was inscribed with the name "Aaron" instead of the spelling he used during his life. I suppose what you're saying is that when the quotation marks are used, a citation should follow, right? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, without presenting them attributed and in context, they're nothing more than 'scare quotes', something that's proscribed. Read WP:WTA. There's a number of WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL issues with this article that we're going to need to fix here. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so, looking for a fix, what we want is that the first time these quotes are used in the article they should be quoted and sourced. From then on out, they need to be neither quoted (since they involve fewer than four words) nor sourced. Agreed? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of quotes 

message: Is the protection indefinate, or is it only for a specific period of time? Revolutionaryluddite 02:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection expired a short while ago. Vsmith 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: expired a short while ago When, exactly? Also, doesn't the protection tag go away when the effect expires? Revolutionaryluddite 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At 02:12, 3 September. And, no it doesn't - would indeed be nice if it did. Vsmith 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: i don't know the mechanics of archiving talk pages, so i figured i'd just toss out there that perhaps it's time for someone in-the-know to do so. this page is unweildy in its length. time to roll it over? Anastrophe 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I added a template for MiszaBot to auto-archive (which it does about once a day). If someone objects, they can remove that template (set for 15 days) before MiszaBot gets around to doing its thing. On a side note, it is interesting to read some of those early comments. Perhaps some people *cough* will realize that I don't actually tend to agree with you and Childhood's End on a regular basis. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Ben that agreeing with me from time to time is being used against you whenever you happen not to join the denial/denialism garden party :/ Says much about some people here, imo. But hey... William has agreed with me above, so perhaps he'll be tagged too. Oh, and I would suggest 30 days for the bot. --Childhood's End 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: I would not normally visit a page like this, because it is an area I know a lot about, and I normally avoid such pages. However, I think there is a lot of unnecessary confusion here. 
English changes all the time. Words get added. Words disappear. Denialism is clearly a popular new word that will soon be in many dictionaries. It is easy to find it with google. It can be found in newspapers and magazines aplenty. It is common in people's speech. Perhaps numerous definitions will be assigned to it, when formal dictionary definitions are written. To me, denialism and denial are obviously closely related. Denialist and denier are closely related, in my mind. I reject all the hair splitting and other nonsense I have seen associated with this over the last few weeks on this and other pages (only political action, someone with a financial interest involved, etc). This is all sort of speculation and OR, as near as I can tell at this point. And just ways to create a huge fight over nothing. 
In the case of global climate change, a lot of the jury is still out scientifically. However, both sides of this debate are sometimes using similar tactics, particularly in the public sphere and political sphere in the media. There is selective quoting of data and statistics. There is selective quoting of science. There are "denials" of confusing facts. There is an attempt to turn the topic into a series of sound bites to use as political slogans by people who know nothing about the topic. There is denialism on both sides, but believe me, there is plenty of denialism involved. I have watched the Gore movie and the BBC rebuttal "Global Warming Swindle" (available on the internet) and they were both just vacuous. 
Denialism lives. On both sides of this debate. The tactics that are employed by the environmentalists and the commercial interests and those who are suspicioius of global climate change are both reminiscent of other denialists; the holocaust deniers, the AIDs denialists and others. So this frenzied pitched battle here is just pure nonsense. 
And you can take this from someone who has often been quoted in the RS literature on the subject. This is the biggest stupidest tempest in a teapot conducted by ignoramuses I have seen in a long time.--Filll 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here. Thank you. Odd nature 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: thanks for sharing your low opinion of your fellow editors. i happen to be the pre-eminent scientist worldwide investigating climate change - there is nobody more well informed than i am. it's true. i just said it's true, so therefore, you should take it at face value that i am who i say i am, and that my opinion is more important than yours. Anastrophe 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Useless comment that should be ignored.  Or, to be passive aggressive, whatever.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no more or less useless than your own commentary, or that of user Filll. on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Anastrophe 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yours. Reasonable and responsibile editors consider and weigh each comment on its' merits and act accordingly, thus Filll's observations are a reflection of what he's seen here. Odd nature 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Which side would that be? I seem to remember you making a blatant personal attack against Felonious Monk  when he tried help you. Pot, meet Kettle. Odd nature 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: This is the pretty close to insanity. What on earth are we arguing about? About an emerging new word or set of words in English? This is ludicrous. Worrying about whether denialist is more of a common word than denialism? Whether denialism has anything to do with denial? About whether a denialist is a denier? This is beyond crazy. 
My understanding, as an outside observer, is that for decades the most common word was "denier", especially as used in "Holocaust denier", being someone who was engaged in "Holocaust denial". Then AIDS came along, and someone decided (??? why???) that AIDS denier and AIDS denial sounded weird, so they would use AIDS denialist and AIDS denialism. Perhaps this was created by someone whose first language was not English. Perhaps it just sounded better to someone. Anyway, it took off. And is spreading. And might very well consign "denial" and "denier" to the dustbin of linguistic history. So what? 
Why fight about this? This is completely stupid.--Filll 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. As I've pointed out above the sentence is something like saying "media sources and others describe African elephants as being elphantine." I doubt anyone would object to removing such a sentence from the African elephants article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One purpose of this arguing is not to give encyclopedic support to a claim that some media describe something in a fashion that is inaccurate. Obviously, the media have made comparisons to denial/denying concepts, but since 'denialism' lacks any clear verifiable meaning, and without direct references to the word, it would necessarily be wrong to claim that they describe something as 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to the world of denialism Filll. That climate change denial is a form of denialism is a fact that is only rejected, denied if you will, by climate change denialists and their ideological allies largely. Now a dedicated cadre of denialism deniers here have resisted mentioning denialism at all in this article, strenuously denying each and every of the two dozen or so sources provided. You know who you are, that this is going on and who is responsible is obvious to anyone reading this page. Regardless, there's an abundance of sources given on this page showing that the viewpoint which holds that climate change denial is a form of denialism is verifiable per WP:V. And since WP:NPOV calls articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and in proportion to the prominence of each, this viewpoint is simply not just going to be brushed under the rug as some would like to do here. This viewpoint is simply not going to go away by ignoring, dismissing, discrediting or even misrepresenting the sources. So either we work to together to craft an accurate and complete coverage of it or they can continue as they have until they exhaust the community's patience. Either way, that a large number see climate change denial as a form of denialism cannot be denied. Odd nature 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there are those who wonder why we would bother saying the equivalent of "media sources and others describe African elephants as being elephantine" when such a thing is obvious from reading the rest of the article and when it is difficult to find sources that actually describe those elephants as being elephantine and not merely elephants. (That said, I agree that the Newsweek source is a good one for the denialism quote, but Newsweek or other media sources aren't saying it, they're reporting that X or Y said it, right?) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False analogy. These semantic contortionist tricks got boring a long time ago. I suggest you all think very carefully about how far you're willing to push the communities patience. ornis (t) 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that, but then you give no specifics. You sound like you're just giving empty threats as what you're saying is empty of anything meaningful, whereas I am actually trying to explain specifically why I don't think this sentence is necessary. Can you explain specifically why it is? (Please try it without any implied threats.) Odd nature himself argued (vehemently) that these words were just cognates. Why can't we delete this sentence? What does it contribute to the article? These are specific questions that get answered by talking about "semantic contortionist tricks". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've pretty much lost any I might have had by this point. I think it's about time we stopped feeding them frankly. ornis (t) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or by implications of being a troll. You know you just might shut me up if you tried actually answering the question instead of accusing/threatening me. How does that sound as a bribe? :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin 

message: Per Talk:Denialism#Denialism_in_LexisNexis, the specific word "denialism" in reference to climate change was never used in any newspaper/magazine searchable in LexisNexis prior to 2006, and only twice in the year 2006.  The majority of "denialism" uses in searchable works published during 2006 or earlier were in reference to HIV/AIDS denialism.  136.152.153.36 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that has what precisely to do with the price of rice in china? ornis (t) 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply on the grounds of clear writing, common terms like "denier"/"denial" should be preferred over uncommon terms.  I am arguing that "Denialism" is an uncommon term, especially in relation to climate change.  136.152.153.36 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you're wrong. Look at the section above you. Also denialism gets around 497,000 ghits, and denialist around 128,000. Denier and denial obviously get a lot more, but so what? They're much more general words. ornis (t) 02:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. I don't really give a shit what LexisNexis has to say about anything. ornis (t) 03:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to know that the habits of mainstream publishers won't get in the way of advancing your POV.  136.152.153.36 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or evidence yours. Fifteen sources have been provided using "denialism" or "denialist". Just give me an idea how many more you need before you accept the fact that a climate change denial being denialism is a notable POV so we can just cut to the chase. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you actually try to read the sources/references FeloniousMonk - since they really aren't convincing. (for instance: 5 of them are objections to usage, and 3 are non-WP:RS). --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree this has gone way beyond ridiculous. He might prefer another word. I might prefer another word. However, languages change. Languages are in flux. This new word, "denialism" has clearly emerged in the last few years and is gaining currency. And the mechanisms and tactics associated with AIDS denialism are clearly operating in many other spheres, including the Climate Change debate.--Filll 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous and surreal. Odd nature 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: FeloniousMonk. Have you actually taken a look at the references - or did the sheer number impress you? I've just done so - and i'm even less convinced now than before. All of these references are extremely weak, as to the usage of denialism as both a concept and a word. Please check them out. --Kim D. Petersen 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that FeloniousMonk started the article about denialism...  --Childhood's End 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Denialism in Newspapers/Magazines

message: The very title of this article unavoidably screams out a particular point of view, and it ought to be regarded as illegitimate.  The entire article is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on anyone critical of the anthopogenic global warming cult.  Which brings me to ask, how about an article in Wikipedia titled "The Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult" which goes into the quasi-religious nature of man made global warming activism?  It would be every bit as legitimate as this one is, and I have no doubt about being able to find ample sourcing.  I'm tired of political activists who try to cloak their activism behind a facade of pseudoscience, and that's all this article amounts to.RFabian 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, I think you are confused. Perhaps you should read the discussion below.--Filll 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read the discussion I find that "global warming/climate change denier" is used as a pejorative term all through it.  Q.E.D. RFabian 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cult of Man Made Global Warming 

message: ::Lets do a critique of your references:
:::*<Australian Finacial Review - Climate denial has had its day WP:SPS. [corrected: its a reprint of an Op-Ed: Single person view].
:::*Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Carter, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, Public Misperceptions Of Human-Caused Climate Change: The Role Of The Media Objects to usage of the word.
:::*Newsweek, The Truth About Denial Single mention of the word (in a quote). Non attributable - or only as a single person view.
:::*The San Diego Union Tribune - Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth - Op-Ed - single person view.
:::*Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort Non-WP:RS, unpublished (WP:SPS - and intended as humor - read the abstract)
::All in all - not a good collection for support. --Kim D. Petersen 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to put a line under something: Only one of the references describe it as a "form of denialism" (the cards one does - but is WP:SPS - so in effect, there are no references to the comparison). --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add that I find the entire sentence unnecessary, since clearly climate change denial is a form of denialism. It seems sort of like saying that "media sources and others have described African elephants as being elephantine". Seeing as how these are just cognates (as someone pointed out earlier), what does this sentence add that the category :Category:Denialism does not? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, as for myself, I dont know what is denialism. Wikipedia suggests something in an article that barely survived a deletion review, but this is no reliable source to attribute a proper meaning to the term, and the term does not exist in dictionnaries. Outside Wikipedia, my feeling is that most of those sparse (mostly non-notable) authors who have used the term essentially meant 'denial' or 'denier' so to me, there is no way to determine that these media sources have really referred to 'denialism' as it is understood by the WP article about this. --Childhood's End 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You have just described your own behavior with regard to the reasons that have been explained over and over to you as to why your 'sources' do not meet encyclopedic standards and to why it cannot be verified that Newsweek or other notable sources have actually referred to what you understand as 'denialism'. --Childhood's End 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, you may think you've explained away these sources, but in reality you haven't. But please, carry on as you have, you're helping me make my case. Odd nature 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality i've cut the sources down to 2[corrected: 3]. Both[corrected:All] of which are presenting the views of individuals - so what we have are 2[corrected: 3] personal views to support the statement. Rather weak dont'cha'think? --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes i'm saying that the sources do not show that viewpoint, one even argues against it. And yes, one of these isn't WP:RS - none of them indicate that this viewpoint is "significant" - we have 2[corrected: 3] views of individuals left, which definitively doesn't make the view such. I'm neither "ignoring, discrediting or misrepresenting" the sources - and frankly i find that accusation very uncivil and very far from WP:AGF. This viewpoint might be significant, it might be correct, it might be supported by several reliable sources - but these sources are not even close to showing this. --Kim D. Petersen 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's 3: Richard C. J. Somerville (San Diego Union Trib), John Quiggin (Australian Financial Review), and Manik Roy (Pew Center on Climate Change). Maybe you're not counting Somerville because he used the word "denialist"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct, its 3. (i forgot my own comment to the strikeout of Newsweek and M. Roy) - corrected in the above comments. --Kim D. Petersen 23:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll could you try not attacking the editor - but instead react to the content? (please see: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). What is weak in my criticism? What exactly does "my side" have to do with this?  --Kim D. Petersen 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of the references