This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, blogs are reliable sources now?
This amusing attack page is using assertions made by non entities in self published works. Great Greglocock (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- There are almost 300 sources so we're not going to know which you're talking about. Yes, blogs can be used depending on context and author. See WP:SPS and WP:PARITY. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an example the most recent edit (thanks for your low effort answer) http://web.archive.org/web/20080509185419/http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html No idea who the author is but Rev Dr is not a likely birthname. So we have a blog post written by an unknown person confidently expressing opinions which are then repeated in this hilarious article. Greglocock (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cut the attitude, Greg. You make a low-effort, context-free whine, we're not going to go running around like headless chickens trying to guess what you are talking about. VQuakr responded just right to you. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Duh human's react to recent events. Bit of a clue, right charlie? Greglocock (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- After the last contribution, it was not that difficult. I followed the link Greg posted, found a blog named "giveupblog", found a link to it in the most recent edit, and deleted the bloggy source.
- Of course, posting the difflink and saying "giveupblog" would have made it easier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Hob "difflink and saying "giveupblog""-How does that work, sounds handy? Greglocock (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, you could have said, "This diff used a blog named 'giveupblog' as a source", or even "The article uses a blog named 'giveupblog' as a source", and everybody would have known what you were talking about. Instead, you relied on other people thinking the same way you do and looking at the same things you did. Bad approach. Does not work.
- Why do I have to explain this to someone who did his first edit in 2004? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Hob "difflink and saying "giveupblog""-How does that work, sounds handy? Greglocock (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought you were talkin about some tool. Yes OK, I'll just do it in future. Greglocock (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Greg, your comments here look rather battleground, and deleting sources without discussion here looks a bit WP:POINTy. You evidently don't like majority views on the topic, but please don't be disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought you were talkin about some tool. Yes OK, I'll just do it in future. Greglocock (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Hob, your edit removed the source being disputed, which is interesting as an early discussion on the topic but not a source for the statement in the article. As cited in Diethelm & McKee (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?", European Journal of Public Health, the statement appeared in Hoofnagle M, Hoofnagle C. What is denialismAccessed on 29 November 2008 Available at: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php (archived)– these were the sources previously cited in this article, before this edit "Setting the historical record straight and giving due recognition to all those involved in the precise definition of denialism" added the disputed source, and substituted an earlier version of Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle. According to Diethelm & McKee, "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists".
The Hoofnagle's own blog dated 18 March 2007 is of interest for the record (and says it was "Adapted from Give Up Blog's post with permission", apparently referring to the earlier disputed post), the ScienceBlogs version of 8 September 2007 has the advantage of profiles of the authors and other useful links. ScienceBlogs was at the time an invitation-only blog network selected by the editors of Seed Magazine, not just random bloggers, and was generally reliable in areas of the author's expertise: in this instance it's the original source cited by an academic paper and a book on climate science. Both of which are also cited. His profile suggests Chris Hoofnagle may be one of the authors, but I've not so far confirmed this. . dave souza, talk 12:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Ambiguity?
Opening sentence: Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. (Is the intention to include those who deny "the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions"?) Drsruli (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Book Question
Does a mention of "State of Fear" belong on this page? Drsruli (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)