Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 21 April 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on March 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

On the intro refs

I marked the phrase "The term conspiracy theory is commonly, though not always, used in a pejorative way," with a fact tag, because it was unreferenced. I noticed one editor put a lot of useless refs around other things I wasn't inquiring about. Said editor then removed the fact tag and put this link after commonly, though I don't know why because it seems out of place and the article doesn't seem to be talk about it. The excuse he gave in the edit summary says confirm in conspiracy. Perhaps said editor is unaware, but Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources. Try again. ~ UBeR 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite an authority for your view that "Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources and are not to be used as sources". It doesn't appear to be stated in WP:RS and it is not consistent with the practice of other encyclopedias, which routinely use cross-references for this kind of thing. Obviously, I can go to the article and cite its sources, but this is going to get very cumbersome, very quickly.JQ 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I can. Lest you're lazy, I'll quote it for you: "Misplaced Pages and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Also, WP:OR makes this fairly clear as well. It makes sense, because otherwise we would just be arguing in circles (circular logic/begging the question). My claims are justified. Are yours? ~ UBeR 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. And although I thought that the relevant bits of the Conspiracy theory article were well-sourced, they actually are not. So, I'll find and add some sources to both.JQ 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article added to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Purported pseudoscience

I just need some citations to justify inclusion in that list. Count Iblis 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" is not a scientific claim. Ergo, it cannot be a pseudoscience. Real science doesn't care why people may or may not lie. ~ UBeR 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What should be the in the claims section

From reading this article, it appears only Crichton's State of Fear and Durkin's documentary are being labeled as conspiracy theories. The rest of the sources in "Claims" have not been labeled as conspiracy theories by any sources. ~ UBeR 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it would be better to focus on improving the structure of the article, sources and so forth, rather than trying to delete material. If you want to help on the former, that would be great. JQ 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the unbalanced, unsupported, and other material in violation of Misplaced Pages policy should be removed first. I will gladly work on improving the article, especially in terms of cleaning it up, etc. after that. ~ UBeR 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We just went over all this on afd. Do you want to reopen proceedings there? If not, I think you should take it that your view that material alleging frauds, hoaxes and so should be deleted does not command significant support.JQ 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced. The "Criticism" section is currently geared towards providing evidence that many notable people have described skeptics as propounding conspiracy theories. I think it should summarise the more substantive arguments that critics of the conspiracy view have made. Of necessity this will need to link back to other global warming articles on Misplaced Pages, to avoid too much duplication of material, because obviously many of the substantive arguments are actually arguments against what are claimed to be "scientific" arguments made by the GW-skeptics.

Furthermore, the idea that global warming could be a hoax, without being a massive and far-reaching conspiracy, is a wee bit puzzling to me, and therefore the "overheated rhetoric" section could do with an example or being deleted.

This is a point where you could certianly help, UBeR. I included this section because I thought it would be reasonably easy to find people calling AGW a hoax without invoking a conspiratorial motive of some kind, but a trawl through hundreds of ghits produced no good example. You have claimed many times that people who call AGW a hoax are not conspiracy theorists, so maybe you could provide some examples.JQ 10:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your claims about improper synthesis in the article: I want to register my disagreement with the synthesis policy - I think it's an overly bureacratic rule which needs loosening - but it's official Misplaced Pages policy so I'm willing to adhere to it. Having said that, what specifically do you think is still contrary to Misplaced Pages policy in the current version of the article? —greenrd 10:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

UBeR, please indicate which citations you have a problem with, and what points of dispute you have regarding factual accuracy and neutrality. JQ 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just quote Noroton on the sources:

1. "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" documentary on Channel 4 in Britain: "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but "
2. The quote from the Cooler Heads Coalition says of someone who criticized another skeptic of promoting a conspiracy theory: "Sounds plausible to us." That was the last line in their press release (or whatever announcement it was on their Web site). Absolutely nothing in the words that precede that statement shows that they seriously believe it's a conspiracy. The quoted statement was a rhetorical flourish (irresponsible, in my opinion, but not a claim that there's a conspiracy).
3. The Washington Post "article" is a Sunday magazine piece that engages, more than most, in rhetorical flourishes of its own and doesn't pretend to be objective. It characterizes the statement of a skeptic as a "conspiracy theory" but the quote used to back it up (shown in the WP article) could be interpreted as either describing a conspiracy theory or describing ideologues run amok. A couple of paragraphs before, the author writes that both sides have their own charges of a "conspiracy theory, of a sort." Of a sort???. Let's change the title of this article to Global warming conspiracy theories of a sort.
4. "The general claim that the theory of global warming is a lie promoted by members of one or more interest groups secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes has been made on a number of occasions " (emphasis added). The problem is that none of the citations back this up:
   1. On its Web page, the Oregon Petition does say global warming is "a lie" but doesn't say it's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes"
   2. Melanie Philips calls global warming theory (in 2004) a "fraud". An irresponsible rhetorical flourish, not a charge of a conspiracy.
   3. Same with Martin Dirkin calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." Nothing else in the article where this quote comes from supports the idea that Dirkin actually thinks there's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes." What we have is another rhetorical flourish from a filmmaker hawking his movie.

And what we have overall is an article that is full of holes and not worth keeping. Overheated rhetoric is not conspiracy theorizing. Writing Misplaced Pages articles is not propagandizing. Or at least it's not supposed to be.Noroton 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)"

~ UBeR 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lie is by definition dishonest. If a large number of climate scientists are lying to us, and politicians are involved too, surely a conspiracy must be involved? Please cite a published theory which clearly explains how it can be simultaneously that (a) they're lying, but (b) it's not a conspiracy. Or at least could you provide a relevant historical analogy to illustrate how this could be so?—greenrd 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, UBeR, given your active involvement in the discussion, how did you happen to miss Noroton's subsequent comment?

Comment on changing my vote The article has been improved quite a bit since I saw it last. It proves to me that the charge that there's a Global warming conspiracy has been made numerous times both as an explicit statement and at other times as a clear implication. I think the article should make it clearer up top that this is often more a rhetorical tic than a serious charge (that many of the people who make the charge don't take it seriously is clear from the quotes in the article). But my problems with the article no longer warrant deletion: There's clearly some value here. Kudos to JQ! Noroton 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If your only support is a statement that's been withdrawn by its own author, I'll deleti the tags.JQ 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he supported the article for being kept, but that does not mean his criticisms on the sources vanish. They're still there. ~ UBeR 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was edited in response to the criticisms made by Noroton, which is why they were withdrawn. Claims that refer only to a hoax or fraud, with no link to an assertion of conspiracy have been listed separately, and I've noted the possibility of rhetorical overheating. So I've removed your tag and will keep it off unless you can raise specific problems with particular quotes. Also, since you've never made any claim of factual inaccuracy, I've replaced your "totally disputed" tag with a POV tag.JQ 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep note that my original proposition stands. Currently, as it stands, Crichton's State of Fear and Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary are the only pieces claiming "that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" and being labeled as conspiracy theories. ~ UBeR 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What claims of factual inaccuracy do you make? JQ 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I will state it, but I will do so again. Of the 15 works being listed as "conspiracy theories," only two have a sources calling them as such. They should be removed, and if you choose not to, I will. Your excuse to use this in an irrelevant case is apocryphal. ~ UBeR 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is silly,. An assertion that there is a conspiracy is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. Like lots of others, I've had it with you. You've consistently failed to make any useful contribution to this article, and it's obvious you have no intention of doing so. JQ 07:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. ~ UBeR 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Er.. you may differ, but wholesale deletion of cited information with the edit summary including deleting unsourced material is rather absurd. Now stop the edit warring and discuss the pros & cons of each of the perceived problem cited bits individually. Vsmith 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this. Some of UBeR's edits did in fact remove unsourced material . However, in a number of cases UBeR claimed to be removing irrelevant material that appears to be clearly relevant or blatantly relevant , and in several cases UBeR claimed to be removing unsourced material that was actually sourced or partially sourced . So on most of those, UBeR is out of line. In contrast, Childhood's End has taken a much more helpful approach to dealing with some of the unsourced material which does indeed need to be dealt with . --Nethgirb 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)