→Proposal to change title: reply |
→Proposal to change title: reply |
||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
:::::::There may be many public figures who deny the scientific evidence — that doesn't make them sceptics, it just makes them profiteers who exploit the gullibility and low science-literacy in the general public. This will not be changed, stop wasting your and (more importantly) our time and go away. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 18:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
:::::::There may be many public figures who deny the scientific evidence — that doesn't make them sceptics, it just makes them profiteers who exploit the gullibility and low science-literacy in the general public. This will not be changed, stop wasting your and (more importantly) our time and go away. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px #014225;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF| 💌]] [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|📧]]</span> 18:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::::"Be polite, and welcoming to new users" - "This is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." Please follow the rules. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.61.143.249|67.61.143.249]] ([[User talk:67.61.143.249#top|talk]]) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::::::::"Be polite, and welcoming to new users" - "This is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." Please follow the rules. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.61.143.249|67.61.143.249]] ([[User talk:67.61.143.249#top|talk]]) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::::::::: Well done for proving that you're not actually a new user. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: That request will fail. Please search the archives of this talk page using the search box above, it has been discussed numerous times before. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
::::::: That request will fail. Please search the archives of this talk page using the search box above, it has been discussed numerous times before. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:36, 24 December 2016
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Clicking it redirects here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclideon but I don't think its supposed to. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Fixed The redirect had been inappropriately changed. I fixed it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
See Also
Hello,
@Isambard Kingdom: thank you for your concern ((https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_denial&diff=748810854&oldid=748810560%7C]).
Still, I fail to see how 1)Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Climate_change_and_pollution, elaborating the views of possibly now the most notorious non scientist Climate change denier, and 2) Before the Flood (film) a film that documents climate change denial for more than half of its length, could not be 'directly relevant' in the see Also section. See also: WP:ALSO in case. Regards, --DPD (t) 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps my edit summary was not sufficiently explanatory, but there are lots of external sites, like those you list above, that could be linked to this article. I just don't see that they are directly related to the content of this article and the explanation it offers on the subject of climate denial. More generally, we also recognize that Wikipedia is not a "link farm" and so some streamlining of links is normal. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're both part right we probably all agree they were offered in good faith.
- Donald Trumps views... no, and readers will easily find their way to coverage of that as the issue erupts.
- Before the Flood (film) ..... yes, I think that's a great resource to build on this, and the delivery is readily accessible to anyone with access, unlike scholarly works. So I would restore like to see that one restored, unless its linked in some new text in the body of the article itself.
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're both part right we probably all agree they were offered in good faith.
Okay, I'm cool with what ever people want on this one. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ronz makes a good point, the film would be better under "Further reading", which itself would be better titled something else, since it already has audiovisual items. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of image
I deleted this image from the article, but the image was reverted by another editor.
First, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts states "don't use images for tables or charts". The image is just data. In this instance, an image isn't necessary.
Second, Wikipedia:Image use policy states:
Generally speaking, you should not contribute images consisting solely of formatted or unformatted text... In most cases these can instead be typed directly into an article.
It also states:
The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. Wikipedia is not censored, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article.
In this instance, an editor took data and loaded it into an image meant explicitly to shock readers and bring attention to the article. An analogy would be to add this image to the article Stop Handgun Violence. A read of WP:IMPARTIAL and other nearby policies on that page shows that consensus has already been reached about this sort of editing. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "it's been here for a long time", though I was unable to find any policy or guideline which used longevity as a reason for keeping anything on Wikipedia. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's directly relevant and a vivid illustration of the consensus view. I don't have a problem with it. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please respond to the policy points I mentioned above? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Magnolia677 on this. The image is not there to convey data but to create an impression. As you say it is a 'vivid illustration'. If it came from a reliable source it might be okay - but as a Wikipedia editors own contribution no. We are not here to push our own POV. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep image Magnolia's reasoning is certainly in good faith and reasonably cohesive, but not persuasive.
- First, in response to the Do's don'ts argument that the image just represents data, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts was built out of fewer than 25 edits over four years and almost all of them are from a single editor. I simply don't agree that charts or tables are always best suited for informing the reader about data, plus that info page hasn't been sufficiently debated to have a great deal of weight, and the page itself says it is a general rule of thumb, not a one size fits all mandate.
- Second, Magnolia quotes an utterly inapplicable policy about images not being just text. To borrow court speak, the argument assumes facts not in evidence. Since this image is not "just text", Magnolia's second argument is moot.
- Finally, Magnolia claims the only purpose is to "shock" and "attract attention" but that's just plain wrong. The purpose is to convey to a statistic, specifically a ratio, to the reader. Magnolia tries to build a POV-based argument with an inapplicable analogy involving the this image and the article Stop Handgun Violence, which is an article about an advocacy group. In contrast, the article under discussion is about a cognitive phenomena. So the analogy isn't at all applicable.
Since the purpose of images is to convey concepts to the reader and this particular image is conveying a proportion that is directly relevant to the topic, it should remain. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also, there is another argument specifically in favor of the image. An article about climate change denial has to comply with WP:FRINGE, which requires clear statements about the mainstream viewpoints to avoid giving undue weight to minority fringe views. The image also helps convey to the reader the mainstream viewpoint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understood the tiny red dot standing for the tiny minority, but only now I got the idea that the black area may represent the number of scientists named in the text. Does it? If yes, it's not really clear from the image. Maybe that is the problem: an unusual spatial structuring of the data. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I have always assumed, though I am skeptical that the ratio of black to red is accurate, just eyeballing it my guess is the background would have to be enlarged. I don't like this particular approach to graphically depicting the ratio; there may be others that work better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The ratio of red-to-black is correct. If you open the SVG code, the black area is set to 277.624×250, which is 69406; while the red area is set to 2×2, which is 4. The previous image was a pie chart, which needed updating to reflect the more recent publication of a paper by Powell. While updating it, I switched it from a pie to a point to avoid the need for scaling. The old pie chart had a 5× scaled sliver because a sliver is too elongated to be properly visible at 1×; I thought this scaling defeated the point. If anyone has a better design of graphic, feel free to replace it. Madshurtie (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I have always assumed, though I am skeptical that the ratio of black to red is accurate, just eyeballing it my guess is the background would have to be enlarged. I don't like this particular approach to graphically depicting the ratio; there may be others that work better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I understood the tiny red dot standing for the tiny minority, but only now I got the idea that the black area may represent the number of scientists named in the text. Does it? If yes, it's not really clear from the image. Maybe that is the problem: an unusual spatial structuring of the data. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is interesting. The image is challenged by - surprise! - SkepticalScience (home of John Cook, who did the earlier lit review and came up with a slightly lower number). Here is their critique. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be sure to read that critique after it's been peer reviewed and published in the literature ;-) Guy (Help!) 12:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Although Powell defends himself against Cook, Cook is probably right that the proportion of relevant scientists rejecting AGW is higher than <0.01% (for one thing, Cook et al's method produces a similar percentage to surveys of climate scientists). However, Powell's research gives us a good idea of how many current climate scientists are actually publishing peer-reviewed rejections of AGW. Cook doesn't challenge this. The fact is that almost all of the vocal minority of climate scientists who reject AGW don't actually publish scientific research doing so. They publish non-AGW research or non-denial AGW research, and their denial is generally expressed in op-ed and other public environments. Madshurtie (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If you need an image at the start the unabomber one at [1] would be much better. It illusttrates the topic, it is not made by a Wikipedia editor to push a POV, and it has no complaints against it by a scientist saying it presents the facts wrong. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Funny, but probably has a copyvio problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Magnolia677 and Dmcq that this data would be better typed directly into the article itself rather than as an image. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Unwarranted
Why was the "unwarranted" deleted from the intro? It is the most important difference between denial and skepticism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've reverted the change as per #Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2016 above. Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is important and often mentioned in debates. search archives for it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Definition
"There is a debate among those involved in social controversies surrounding climate change about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to people who doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change. Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics and describe their position as climate change skepticism. Their opponents, however, often prefer to call such people climate change deniers and to describe their position as climate change denial." From reference #3 Carlos Danger (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bluntly, we don't care what they prefer. Wikipedia is not censored to protect the cherished delusions of cranks and charlatans. Climate change is real, there is by now pretty much zero informed dissent from this, or fromt he fact that humans are causing it, and the people who continue to be "skeptical" are in fact deniers. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Reading again, you seem to be objecting to it saying "some deniers do endorse the term" because whilst that source says "Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics" it doesn't explicitly say that any endorse the term and you would like what is there to more closely copy the source. Would that be right? Have a look further on to further reading '“Denial” is the term preferred even by many deniers. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic,” says MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most prominent deniers.' Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to change title
Hello all,
I found this article to be very one-sided. The article is protected, which is resulting in bias. I feel this article goes against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of view. Regardless of your personal views, I urge whoever protected this article to unprotect it, in the name of accuracy and reliability on such a controversial topic.
Thank you. (Did I do this right? First time.) Thanks Jim1138 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- This issues aka wp:NPOV has been raised and discussed numerous times. May I suggest you peruse the archives (in the orange box at the head of this page) for discussions. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- See Scientific opinion on climate change. Reality is one sided, we simply follow that. During 2016 the world learned an important lesson about false equivalency, Wikipedia has always tried not to succumb tot hat particular fallacy. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- My argument is different because I am not asking for a particular edit, I am arguing that the article should be unprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- But if you don't want any particular edits, you don't really have anything to say William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- My argument is different because I am not asking for a particular edit, I am arguing that the article should be unprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.143.249 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I asked for the article to be unlocked. I shouldn't have to ask for edits. 67.61.143.249 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you do not want to edit, there is no need for unlocking. And it you do want to edit, you should be able to say what it is you want to change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I believe unlocking the article will allow the necessary changes to make this article unbiased. The fact that it is locked in the first place is dangerous to this article's accuracy. 67.61.143.249 (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Why? You could say the same about any article, which if true would be a fatal objection to semi-protection. Since wiki policy permits semi-protection, your argument fails and will inevitably fail. So, don't pursue doomed-to-fail arguments: either produce some cogent objection to the present article, or find something useful to do elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- The article is locked precisely because people kept coming along to make the "necessary" changes to make it "unbiased". Oddly, that always equated to whitewashing. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fine. I will request that the title be changed to climate change skepticism/denial instead of just climate change denial, or just climate change skepticism. This was argued before, but even the article says the preferred term for climate change skeptics is divided between skeptic and denier. Why not appease both parties? This should be neutral, after all. Also, I propose we change the picture, because there are many prominent figures who also are skeptical/deny climate change. This picture seems very one sided. 67.61.143.249 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- There may be many public figures who deny the scientific evidence — that doesn't make them sceptics, it just makes them profiteers who exploit the gullibility and low science-literacy in the general public. This will not be changed, stop wasting your and (more importantly) our time and go away. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- That request will fail. Please search the archives of this talk page using the search box above, it has been discussed numerous times before. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)