Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 9 April 2015

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Jlakely (talk · contribs)

Economist Quote

Arthur Rubin reverted my edit adding a quote from The Economist because he claims that it was not from an article and because it might be a violation of WP:undueweight. I'd like to bring this issue to the talk page to solicit consensus.

- It seems as though the piece is an article. It is from the International section and provides no general argument to characterize it as an editorial. (No Economist articles have bylines and editorials are generally placed in the "Leaders" section of this newspaper.") View the article here: http://www.economist.com/node/21555894

- As to the worry about undue weight: It prefaces a lengthy negative quote from the book Merchants of Doubt. So this quote helps bring balance to the page/section.

Thank you for your input on this matter.

RobertMonday (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that The Economist doesn't have bylines. However, the piece reads to me as an editorial. I've been wrong before, though.

However, even if it an article, it is undue weight, as adding additional negative material about the same characterization of the organization. It might be appropriate to trim the Merchants of Doubt quote, as the quote is clearly the opinion of the authors, and only reliable as such. It also may be an excessive quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It is confusing about the lack of bylines. Respectfully, I think the quote balances this section. Merchants of Doubt quote is quite negative and quite opinion-laden. The Economist quote, on the other hand, is a neutral and from an RS (in a page with few). I could do some research into whether The Economist places editorials outside the "Leaders" section of the paper if you'd like. As a longtime reader, I think that is rare. Also there is no argument per se in this piece that would make it an editorial.

You make a good point about the Merchants quote. Perhaps this discussion is moot if it were removed. Would you prefer to remove the Merchants quote for the reasons you mentioned or add The Economist quote in order to contextualize it?

Best, RobertMonday (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer the Merchants quote be removed. It adds nothing constructive to the first sentence of the paragraph, in either formulation ("question" vs. "deny"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

DMCQ Edits inserting "Denier"

DMCQ has twice tried to insert "Denier" language into the page despite consensus on this talk page against its use on WP:NPOV grounds. Please weigh in. RobertMonday (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me where there is a consensus on this talk page about that, and especially one to remove and ignore reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RobertMonday, can you quote the exact language you are objecting to, and maybe a diff to Dmcq's edit? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has just put the diff back in. Basically I changed questions to denies and referenced a book about climate change and society for that the institute does climate change denial. The word 'questions' is inappropriate, it is only questions as in pettifogging and harrying not as in wanting an answer. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on a smartphone at the moment, but that source seems would seem reliable for "deny", but it doesn't mention "Heartland" anywhere near that page . "Merchants of Doubt", on the other hand, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note 8 says 'Heartland Institute, a leading think-tank promoting climate change denial...'. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure a "note" has the same credibility as running text. In context, it would need to be in Herrick and Jamieson to be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole article discusses the subject, a flat description like that is meant and not a mistake. I think a straight description is better but the rest of the article shows what it does. If you really think in-line is better how about about an in-line one in the Oxford Handbook on Climate change and Society? On page 149 of an article by the same authors it says the conservative think-tanks are a fundamental and highly effective component of the denial machine and includes the Heartland Institute as hosting anti-IPCC conferences. On page 151 it says the Cooler Heads Coalition is a front for climate change denial and includes Committee for a Constuctive Tomorrow, the Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Dmcq (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those quotes is usable in this article for "denier"; the first could be used for "anti-IPCC", and the second could be used for "denier" in Cooler Heads Coalition, if the source is otherwise reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So you want it stated directly in black and white in the main text of an academic publication and by more than one person as I see Oreske's stuff is dismissed as a personal opinion. Okay I'll have a search of Google books as it is a general belief. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There's another book by multiple authors Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming page 79 but I don't know if they are academic enough to satisfy the stringent requirements I see here if Merchants of Doubt doesn't. I found two other academic publications that had more than one author. How about Global Climate Change: A Primer page 48 or How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate Change page 220. Has any reliable source said otherwise about the Heartland Institute? Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read Merchants; it's generally good for facts, but "denial" is an opinion, and I question that being even a notable opinion. WP:BLP doesn't apply to characterization of organizations, but WP:SYNTH does. I'm on my smartphone again, so I cannot easily verify any citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Denial is pretty straightforward, and there's also a more specific article climate change denial. Lots of reliable sources state they are climate change deniers, is there some evidence otherwise? Perhaps you could be clearer on why you say it is just an opinion, why it doesn't matter and at the same time is important enough for it to matter to you? If it did come under WP:BLP which part exactly of that long policy would apply do you think? Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to deny that "denial" is a controversial term? In order for us to call an organization "denialist", some reliable source must say that. We cannot assume that, because Heritage supports "Cooler Heads", and Cooler Heads is denialist, that Heritage is denialist. I support an organization that was in favor of the cultural embargo of Yugoslavia, when I was opposed to it to the point of attempting to fund scientists there to attend international meetings. The difference between skepticism and denial is often subjective. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are generalizing from the particular subject to the whole organisation. On the specific subject of climate change an organisation can be denialist without being on another subject. Supporting Cooler Heads on climate change is definitely support for denial on climate change. But there are others citations I gave which are even more specific. The real way of showing they are not is to get a reliable source saying they support actual science on climate change. If you really feel bad about denial how about some other word like 'oppose', but denial is strongly supported by reliable sources. What I'm objecting to is 'questioning'. If the police take someone in for questioning the implication is that they are going to listen to the person's answers and check them and release the person if the evidence now doesn't point to them. The Heartland Institute are not in the least interested in getting answers, they'd prefer not to get answers. Are you really saying they are questioning the science of climate change in good faith in that they want an answer to a problem they see - rather than doing it for political, economic or ideological reasons for show and aren't interested in an answer? That illustrates the difference between a skeptic and a denier. Have we got any evidence for them being skeptics in that sense? Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think "oppose" is appropriate; their own position paper is almost adequate for that, in itself. "Deny" requires a specific, reliable source that the Heritage Foundation is a denialist organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement for it to be listed as a 'denialist organisation', just that is denies climate science and some reasonable citation otherwise would be enough to counter the very good reliable sources saying it is one. Where do you get this requirement for 'organisation' and for removing the 'climate change' part? You never did say either which bit of BLP would apply if it did apply. I'll stick in oppose but I would like to know why you prefer to alter what the reliable sources say. Dmcq (talk)

I agree that "oppose" is the best formulation. I see no consensus for the alternate usage. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Merchants is the only source presented which reports that this organization is denialist. As "deny" vs. "skeptic" is often subjective, we would need a specific reliable source (possibly more than one, if there were any doubt) for the claim. If a source reports X, and we know that X indicates denial, we should not report that they are in Egypt denial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the only one, besides the note another of those I gave says quite "and the Heartland Institute (a leading climate change denier organization)". More to the point your idea of 'if there were any doubt' is not a real life workable concept, one always has a measure of doubt however slight. For Misplaced Pages we don't even need the measure of doubt that means all twelve of a jury would be convinced in a law court, something like ten or eleven in twelve is quite enough as the world is full of people who are strange. It isn't an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary verification. For individual members of the public it would often be unreasonable to distinguish denial from skepticism - there is so much obfustication a skeptic can easily be misled. However claiming that for the Heartland Institute is stretching credibility beyond the braking point. As to that if someone report denial we should not report that, you have gone over the edge into censorship. That is in direct contradiction to Misplaced Pages's policy WP:CENSOR. Dmcq (talk)

I disagree. We can say that the organization opposes the scientific consensus on global warming, and the IPCC (which are not exactly the same), but I would say that "denial" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. I do not consider Merchants as a particularly reliable source for opinions (which "denial" often is), and I don't have sufficient experience to determine whether a "endnote" in an (otherwise) reliable publication is necessarily reliable. Notes in academic journal articles are not given the same scrutiny as the text, but I don't know book editors' policies. I don't think the evidence here is as good as, say David Irving as a holocaust denier. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me you are transferring some dislike about using the word denial because it is used in holocaust denial into saying the actual facts are an extraordinary claim. The claim is simply not extraordinary, it is used in multiple reliable sources. Denial is the straightforward description of what is happening. The article on climate change denial draws a clear line between skepticism and denial and the sources make it pretty clear on which side the Heartland Foundation stands. Anyway someone has now changed 'opposes' to 'disagrees', I expect the watering down to continue for a while but I'll leave it till it gets ridiculous again. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Layout of the page

HughD Do you think that your edits to the layout of the page may put too much weight on specific incidents like the "document misappropriation" and the billboard rather than the ongoing - and surely more interesting to most readers - positions of the Institute, notably its position on climate change? Or does it not matter what order the body subheading take? Thanks Greg Sabatino (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I must agree with that. The article should have the more general sort of stuff first. Climate change is a current thing with them but there are other things too and we shouldn't be too focused on the present though it should be prominent. I don't really know quite how to put it except that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. not a scrapbook or newspaper. Dmcq (talk)

In weight discussions the length of coverage in WP relative to coverage in reliable sources is generally a much more important consideration than the order of subtopics. Part of our discipline of neutrality involves not forking material considered favorable or unfavorable, to different articles, or to different sections. The so-called "document misappropriation" is one of if not the most significant events in the history of the subject of this article. The press coverage of the event dominates coverage of the subject of this article in reliable sources. So, no, we should not position certain events at the end of an article in an attempt to reduce its weight. And I think a fact filled history section flows naturally early and should fall before any characterizations of policy positions. The policy positions and climate skepticism in particular are prominently featured in a full paragraph summary in the lede, as per our manual of style; their first mention is not buried "below the fold." Hugh (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No that is just wrong. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be edited for readability as an encyclopaedia, it is not a ragbag with things automatically sorted to the top like some news aggregator. You are squaring the emphasis if you are sticking it at the top and having it large. The article should be presented in a logical manner. The weight comes in when comparing to other viewpoints on a subject. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the last big edits of yours to something called Americans for prosperity and I've got to say it looks like a real mess as well. You have got to think about the overall structure rather than just sorting the sections by how many citations they have in them. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dmcq. If our goal is to structure this page like an encyclopedia, then the ongoing positions/activities of the Institute should come above specific isolated events like the "document misappropriation" and the billboard campaign. As it stands now, it's like the body of the Britney Spears page leading with the time she shaved her head (to pull an analogy off the top of my head). Greg Sabatino (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a fellow fan, I see! That's great. Please note that BS artilce is well-structured, as per MOS, a good article even; the first section of the body is history, and the head shaving is included in that section, not broken out into a section at the end called "Incidents". Hugh (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've moved all the incidents after the section on positions but before the financial section. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at this section hat template and tell me what it means to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Criticism_section. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Our readers benefit from knowledge of who this organization is before diving into their policy positions. WP:RF However, if you disagree, and favor history at the end, I'm very sure you would move the whole history, positive and negative. Breaking out certain historical events ad labeling them "incidents" is nothing more than a blatant POV fork. Hugh (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt our arguments will convuince you as you think we are POV pushers. I get the feeling if the consensus of 2 to 1 in this discussion changes the page against what you want then you'll just think that we're acting against policy in a POV way and you'll go and do the same sort of thing somewhere else. So here's a choice, we can discuss this on the talk page of the relevant poicy which I think would be WP:NPOVN or we could have a wider talk here via a WP:RfC on this talk page, which would you prefer or is there some other forum you believe would be better? Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me, you don't know what I think, thanks. Please don't count votes on this, that is not helpful. Policy is clear. Did you look at that template? Please convince me why someone should not slap that template to your proposed "Incidents" section, should you restore it? Please tell me, what is the principle you use to distinguish an "Incident" from the rest of the history of the subject of this article, and put it at the end, if not POV? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I will raise the matter at WP:NPOVN then since you will not decide. Dmcq (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Query raised at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Does_weight_mean_that_incidents_should_come_before_a_description_of_an_organisation.27s_aims.3F. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There has been a couple of responses at the noticeboard. I think basically they agree that we should go from the general to the particular. That before going on about documents being taken we should say what their general position and actions on climate change and various responses have been. I think that section could possibly go in the climate change position section rather than in a separate section on notable incidents but it shouldn't be before without context. 11:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the consensus of the discussion. You did a noticeboard request, very commendable, but now you are back to "I think..." Hugh (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In journalism, news style embraces the inverted pyramid, where the body is organized from most significant to least. Journalist worry about their readers "getting to" the good stuff. However, we on WP are specifically prohibited from this style by policy, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Chronological ordering of events has many advantages; it is very neutral, and most of the time an easy consensus. Think about that. Think about what the one uninvolved commenter said, "general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis." Think about the conservative project's guideline. I would appreciate your collaboration on the content of the article. We are all in complete agreement that the subject of this article's involvement in climate change is its most significant aspect. That does not mean climate change is the first topic after the lede. We have a lede a paragraph for that. We have a table of contents for readers who want to skip ahead. The 5th subtopic is no farther away than the 2nd in hypertext. Late or early placement of subtopics connotes nothing in wikipedia. Hugh (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree we cannot completely isolate events to a history section. For example, in doing justice to the policy positions we will include a meeting held, or a book published, and other events that might be considered history. So like most editorial decisions we are asked to make judgements and arrive at consensus. But to break out certain events, that are for the most part independent of any particular policy position, just because in your opinion the certain events are distracting, and put them last, is not a good organization, sorry, and non-neutral. The events you seek to "demote," the 2012 document leak and the billboard, are among the most significant events in the history of the subject of this article, as evidence in the impact of those events on funding, and on the impact of those events on coverage in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what they said about "general information should precede specifics, and facts should precede analysis"? That is why the position should be before the specific incidents. The misappropriation of documents is not general information and it isn't 'facts' - it is something that happened and has no particular impact on anything else in the article. The article is strange with that being put before the context in which it happened. The first response did give one situation in which such a thing might be okay - if the notability of the article was dependent on it in a major way. But that isn't the case here. Your statement "Late or early placement of subtopics connotes nothing in wikipedia" is in contradiction with what the respondents said, and you originally objected to them being lower down because you said it broke NPOV which is the noticeboard the respondents were on, and now talk about it as demoting so you do consider order as connoting something.

If you think they meant something different respond to them and clarify there. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"The misappropriation of documents is not general information and it isn't 'facts' - it is something that happened and has no particular impact on anything else in the article." No particular impact? The severe impact of the documents and the billboard on subsequent funding is in multiple reliable sources. Those two historical events you seek to "lower" the weight of by breaking them out of the history section and place at the end of the article are the most significant events in terms of coverage in reliable sources on the subject of this article. It's sad, because I wish the subject of this article's activities with respect to climate change had as much coverage. It's sad, maybe, but coverage in reliable sources is how due weight is defined in WP. Sorry, it's not up to us to form personal assessments of significance. Hugh (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see they are receiving about $6 million now compared to about $5.5 million before that campaign in 2012 so the effect wasn't major in their history. Those were not what made the article notable. If you don't challenge the assessment at the NPOV noticeboard I will assume you recognize you don't have a case.. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not good to assume. Well then, curious, what would you consider be a major event? The good news here is that there is absolutely no need for you and I to waste time in talk space that we could be spending (in my case anyway) productively in article space, since policy provides us with a clear, unambiguous, quanititative, objective standard for deciding weight: proportionality to coverage in reliable sources. There is no mention in WP:DUE of financial impact as measured in US$. Whether you or I anyone else likes it or not, the doc leak and the billboard far and away dominate coverage of the subject of this article in rs. Hugh (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't dig in. Please I could use some help with the content. Look, once you start a history section, you're kinda committed. We're bound by the imperative not to section fork. We can't fork without being exposed to questions of POV, regardless of our intentions. If we fork the history now our GA reviewer's gonna ask us to put it back. Would you pick a couple few representatives examples of Hank VIII's wives, highlight them up front in history, and put the short-timers at the bottom? We need a very compelling reason to break an event out of the history. Here, if an event or activity makes sense in support of a particular policy position, sure. We have another imperative which is to let the facts speak for themselves. Ideally we would describe our org's activities and our readers would comprehend the positions. This org has a boatload of history that is orthogonal to the particular positions. The history should stay together, and the history should come before the policy positions. Help me take this to GA. In fact, you can nominate it. Expand one of the short sections. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no real point discussing with me, you effectively dismissed me as a POV pusher at the start but those people at the noticeboard are third parties and only people like that can be of much use for changing minds in a situation like that. Tell them your side and convince just one other person to say they think you're right, or even do that on this page, and I'll consider that you have some sort of point and stop. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to stop & go away, I want you to stay & help me with the content of this article you have strong feelings about. The slow response at the notice board was our peers telling us to work this out. Yes, early in this discussion, I raised the issue that taking certain events out of the history section and moving them to the end of the article would necessarily be perceived by our readers and fellow editors as a POV section fork, regardless of our motives; I did not intent to be accusatory or personal. I apologize for that. After further discussion, my impression is you sincerely believe that we need to get to climate change as quickly and early in this article as possible, please correct me if my impression is wrong. Let's work together in article space. How's your GA count? Hugh (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of blogs as sources

HughD Can you explain why you removed the Atlantic article by Megan McCardle from the page on her analysis of the Heartland Strategy Document because it was based on a blog, and included a Huffington Post blog in its place? Seems biased to me. Thanks Greg Sabatino (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, happy to explain.

• McArdle, Megan (February 17, 2012). "Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

The main point of the source is an analysis of the meta data in the PDF of the so-called "climate strategy memo." A careful read reveals that McArdle, the author, a respected journalist, is here reporting on a blog post, rather than on an analysis she performed herself. More careful reading reveals that the result of the analysis of the meta data was taken from a comment to a blog post. The meta data indicated that the document was a scan from a scanner in the Pacific time zone of Gleik, which seemed to support the subject of this article's claim that it was a forgery. This article appeared in The Atlantic, a reliable source, very early, days after this story broke. At the time of her writing, McArdle thought the document was e-mailed to Gleik. A few days later, Gleik admitted in writing that he received the document by mail and scanned it. Responding to comments from fellow editors as to the length of this subsection, I trimmed this reference. Hope this helps. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've no strong feelings about the removal but where are these comments from fellow editors saying they thought the section should be cut down? Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This removal was inappropriate. The Atlantic is RS. The removal serves to diminish the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The characterization of the history above is inaccurate and unfortunate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could decide one way or the other on the point raised in the previous discussion. Should the various incidents be in the history section before the position of the institute is discussed? As opposed to after it as they used to be. I raised this at the NPOV noticeboard but it seems dead, it is ridiculous if simple disputes can't find some reasonable way of getting some decision. Or better might be if they could be integrated in the discussions on the various positions I think but certainly not before with no context. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)o

Vast undiscussed changes.

These extremely bold edits should be discussed. I feel they have not improved the article on balance. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

not improved? were the edits harmful? are you familiar with WP:ROWN? Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you say in the previous discussion where you saw others saying the section was too long instead of just ignoring things. If you can do vast reams of edits to the article you can take a little time out to answer tiny queries like that.Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Articles with connected contributors