Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossnixon (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 5 March 2010 (→random convenience break: vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:18, 5 March 2010 by Rossnixon (talk | contribs) (→random convenience break: vote)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Climate change denial

AfDs for this article:
Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Misplaced Pages policy on POV forks. JohnWBarber (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: It appears that numerous editors only read the very top of the AfDs they vote on, because !votes are being added below that indicate they didn't look much at the discussion. I didn't realize the importance of detailing my reasons at the very top when I started this AfD (mostly because I thought this article was such an obvious case for deletion), but I'll lay out my reasons more clearly in this spot, summarizing what I've said below. Overall, it should be obvious what a WP:POVFORK is when you look at it: Either it can't be WP:NPOV because of the nature of it or it's very difficult to maintain as NPOV. I've shown below how the article is stuffed full of any rhetorical weapon or smear that can be used against one POV area in the debate (one I don't happen to agree with). Its sourcing, especially its most prominent sourcing, comes from op-ed articles that use "denialism" as a simple club to beat people whom the partisan commentators disagree with. This is combined with large, baggy sections (taking up most of the article) implying that most of the denialists are either shills for special-interest groups or are fooled by them. I agree that these machinations by special interests exists and have some influence, but the article covers that out of all proportion to their influence. Various other factors, ignored or downplayed by the article, also contribute to denialism: conspiracy theories, the past cold winter and the various embarassments of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Various reliable sources recently have discussed most of these influences (links are lower in this post).

Although all of these problems with the article are technically fixable, in practice, according to WP:POVFORK, it's a bad idea to have an article based on one segment of a controversy. It automatically implies that there is no reasonable case to be made against Anthropogenic Global Warming, when, in fact, skeptics (as distinct from denialists) have made (various) reasonable cases that global warming is uncertain, may not be caused by human behavior, may not be as severe as some say, etc. etc. (My own POV: I'm neither a denialist nor a skeptic; I'm an uncertain believer in AGW who doesn't pretend to understand the whole thing.) An article on denialism taints all opposition to global warming, since Category:Denialism is basically a subcategory for Category:Insanity. If Misplaced Pages did a great job keeping contentious topics in NPOV form, then this article would be a good idea, but this article is proof we don't do that kind of thing well at all. Everything worth having in it can be fit into the already existing Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans, which already covers the important topics of this article. Covering fringe elements of a debate we already cover is best done in other articles, partly because they help us and the reader to get a better perspective by considering context.

Reliable sources tell us that the embarassing conduct of scientific organizations associated with the controversy has lowered support for AGW and increased the numbers of both denialists and skeptics. So has the recent cold winter, they say. If special interests were so important (they take up two thirds of this article) then denialist opinion wouldn't vary so much over the past few months due to the weather or the recent revelations (I agree we should cover the influence of those special interests, but in some rough proportion to their importance.) The article doesn't adequately reflect that, I assume for POV-pushing reasons -- which is precisely why WP:POVFORK suggests we avoid these kinds of articles. This entire subject can be adequately incorporated into Global warming controversy. Now don't tell me this is a WP:POINTy nomination. Please feel free to respond to my points, and I'll adjust my opinion if you can convince me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete as POV fork. Sole Soul (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - The industry-funded denial of climate change has been documented both in the popular press and in academic studies. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Simply clicking on the Google Scholar link reveals a wealth of publications on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:WIKILAWYERING, Clauses 2, 3, and 4. It's an encyclopedia. Not an op-ed page. We all know exactly what's the matter with basing an article on a point of view. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Based on a point of view? All else aside, when people have actually published peer reviewed articles examining the phenomenon (e.g., McCright & Dunlap 2003 Social Problems 50(3): 348-373) it's a little more than a "point of view". Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
          • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS some of it by scholars. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Mmm, no. Stop linking to essays. The relevant policy here is Misplaced Pages:Notability. There's more than enough to demonstrate the notability of this topic. Guettarda (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
              • Mmmm, yes. Stop wikilawyering. The relevant policy here is WP:POVFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." There's more than enough to demonstrate the POV nature of this fork. The industry-funded denial of climate change has been documented both in the popular press and in academic studies. The government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming has been documented in numerous reliable sources. Be careful what principles you base your POV fork article on -- they're just as useful for the other side. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)added comment -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    My full response, with quotes, is on the talk page, because this is a tangent and I don't want to distract from the main issue. But here are three sources that are at least as good as the ones used in this article, and they could be used to create the same kind of POV fork:
    ONE:: Wall Street Journal 2/26/10 (get it before it goes behind the subscription wall )
    TWO:: The Guardian 2/10/10:
    THREE:: The Times of London 11/29/09: What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.
    -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, this must have been a misunderstanding. I was talking about sources about "the government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, you don't get to choose your facts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep Nothing has changed since last three Keeps; nomination is apparent retaliation for an apparent drama fork from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration PhGustaf (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Why PhG! Mustn't WP:ABF! I actually voted to delete that one, too. How did you stand on that one...? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Why PhG! An apparent drama fork!?! Who's personalizing the discussion on this page and who's moving the discussion toward policy, facts and reasoning? You're trying to counter an intellectually consistent position with a (second) personalized accusation. Why not discuss the actual subject? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Request: Would everybody who votes differently on keeping or deleting this article vs. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration please note why they voted differently? It'll save us all the trouble of going back to see what you said there. And please be WP:CIVIL: Instead of telling other editors that they're hypocrites, ask them how their position on one article squares with the other. They'll either have a good explanation or they won't. Believe me, everyone will get the picture. Here's my vote there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Guettarda. A well known and well documented movement and an established article. Far more than just a concept. I have voted differently on climate change exaggeration. I am not aware of a similar well established climate change exaggeration movement therefore I strongly believe that the article on exaggeration is a POV fork. Also please note CCD is not the opposite of CCE and it does not need to somehow be weighed against it for balance. Polargeo (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I had a look at merging the article with climate change consensus but came to the conclusion it really did cover a different topic and didn't fit in well. To compare with 'exaggeration' you'd need to show there was a campaign by some companies to exaggerate climate change to promote their own sectional interests and which have nothing to do with the science. I think the problem causing these AfDs is that the term 'denial' has also been used to label skeptics so if you can find a better term a rename might be reasonable. Dmcq (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep.. as per others, nothing has changed from the last AfD's, and this nomination seems to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT character, as well as a (poorly thought out) WP:POINT to stall the AfD at CCE. As opposed to the CCE article: This article is well-defined, has a wide variety of reliable sources that explain and describe the subject directly, all of which documents the notable character of the subject. It doesn't take a stand, but describes what secondary reliable sources state about the subject (as opposed to being a coatrack for POV) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • to stall the AfD at CCE Why Kim, your bad faith assumption is showing. I voted to delete the other article. Which I would also like deleted. Because I want it deleted. Can't be deleted fast enough for me. <knock><knock> Hello. Hello! ... Am I getting through yet ...? Hello? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and verifiable. Previous AfDs have shown it not to be a POV fork. Suggest speedy close. -Atmoz (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well sourced, relevant, notable. Article has survived three previous WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, and the nomination appears to be a WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nomination from the Climate change exaggeration deletion nomination, as suggested by the nominator's above request and comments on the other nomination page. Framing Climate change exaggeration and Climate change denial as equals goes against WP:UNDUE, and we don't have a Holocaust exaggeration article for good reason. StuartH (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Well sourced, relevant, notable, verifiable--and also a POV fork against policy. If there is "industry-funded denial of climate change" and a "well known and well documented movement", Misplaced Pages requires that movement be described neutrally. "Denial" is not neutral, and this article's framing of the discussion appears to me to be non-compliant. Incidentally, since each person gets one equal vote here, Strong Keep carries the exactly same weight as Keep, does it not? If I am mistaken, please note my vote is actually Super-Double Plus Mega-Delete With No Touchbacks. --DGaw (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The comments here aren't "votes" exactly; whoever closes the discussion is charged to consider the merits more than the number of the arguments. But you're right in that Strong is unhelpful. PhGustaf (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It is just an expression of the user's feelings. Snow Keep is not generally considered acceptable anymore :) Polargeo (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename - would be better under the heading of Skepticism of climate change, "denial" makes the article seem biased towards proponents of climate change. --Crablogger (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, pointy and pointless nomination. Agree with Guettarda, Atmoz and Polargeo. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep — topic is well sourced in media, and there are also many scholarly papers that mention it (eg , and Heavyweight attack on climate-change denial Current Biology, Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages R109-R110) as well as books (eg Climate Change Denial Alphascript Publishing, 2009, ISBN 613004514X ). ► RATEL ◄ 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep on two counts. First, frivolous nomination. Nominating an article for AFD so you can gather evidence to accuse people of hypocrisy is WP:POINT to the max. (And no, I'm violating WP:AGF, since (1) this was the nominator's stated intention (see diff), and (2) he/she already asked people how their votes here compare to their votes there.) Second, this is an article that has already been here (three times) and this AFD presents absolutely no new evidence to support its deletion. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Uh, how do you get around the fact that it's a WP:POVFORK created to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.? I, ah, did mention that at the top of this page. Minor detail? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See the first three AFDs for an explanation. Simply repeating claims against which there has demonstrably been a consensus is not a valid AFD argument.— DroEsperanto (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See my responses at 19:47 and 20:15, below. My "stated intention" is at the top of this page and doesn't conflict with my statement about enjoying watching hypocrisy revealed. And of course inconsistent reasons for supporting one article and deleting the other is something that a closing admin should find useful in considering whether good-faith encyclopedia-building was behind some comments or squalid POV pushing was all that backed them up. It is extremely useful for this AfD in particular and for Misplaced Pages in general that editors who can't separate their POV from their editorial judgment start thinking seriously about that flawed thinking.
There is no prohibition against bringing up for consideration an AfD after some time has passed, especially when the climate-change controversy has changed so much. For instance, we now have (1) this statement from the UK government's top science adviser on why so many are skeptical: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed. Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. (2) plummeting support in public opinion polls in recent months, none of it attributable to industry machinations but instead to the series of revelations about bad science and bad practices (and probably a cold winter) -- and yet, despite the power of public facts to change public opinion (a power that hasn't been demonstrated with the industry machinations, which I believe exist), the article doesn't reflect this reality. And in fact, this article isn't the best spot for Misplaced Pages to report on any of this -- the main controversy article is the spot, because skepticism has increased just as support for AGW theory has decreased and there is no reason to concentrate on one side of that equation more than the other side. Here's what an article in yesterday's New York Times had to say:
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
This -- the set of facts before the public -- seems to be what counts. The point of this Misplaced Pages article is that irrational factors or conspiracies to propagandize are what count. It's probably a mixture of many things, and that indicates the subject is best addressed in the overall controversy article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Legitimate skepticism and denialism are not mutually exclusive (both exist), nor does this article support that notion (and if it does, it can be fixed), so neither (1) nor (2) are really issues. My question for you now is: what POV do you this topic promoting in an unfair and irreparable way? — DroEsperanto (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit like WP:BURDEN. I don't see a legitimate need or purpose for this as a separate article, but there are all sorts of inevitable problems and temptations because we have it. What NPOV-compliant purpose do you see this article serving that wouldn't just as well be served in the overall controversy article or other AGW-related articles? Why do we need a special article to examine this particular part of the spectrum of opinion? (And why not other parts of the spectrum of opinion? And how do you split up the spectrum in an NPOV way? And frankly, why bother to cover segments of the spectrum anyway?) The news articles I've linked to above give several sources for denialism (and skepticism), but the existence of the article tempts too many editors to add to the evil-business-machinations aspect, despite the fact that it appears other factors are at least as important. But POV-pushing editors will always want to emphasize the most nefarious aspects of the other side, so there will always be pressure to keep expanding the business aspect until it reaches the grotesque size it does in this article. The article is a natural battleground (or worse, a POV haven). The overall AGW controversy is better covered in other ways -- particular reports or particular controversies, for instance. It's easier to monitor and counter POV pushing that way. You say: nor does this article support that notion (and if it does, it can be fixed) You're kidding, right? Are you familiar with the POV conflicts at the AGW articles? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - this nomination was made in bad faith to make a point about another AfD. Not all criticisms are equally noteworthy, and if some editors were to finally come to understand that, this topic area would be much less tense than it is now. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    And thank you so much Tarc for doing your part to reduce tensions with your accusation of bad-faith. It's so reassuring to see our recent differences at AN/I and ArbCom couldn't possibly have colored your reaction to my wanting both articles deleted. If we did move from personalities to substance, however, we might note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has this interesting statement in it: In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Misplaced Pages may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Misplaced Pages. In other words, issues about one article may naturally bring up important insight into articles of the same nature. Whether or not that applies to notability or POV, the implication is obvious: We want the same considerations used fairly in treating the same issues involving similar articles. That's what the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK is all about. We all know that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    You have a seriously flawed understanding of WP:NPOV...a trait that shared with the creator of Climate change exaggeration, interestingly enough. It is a simplistic, black-and-white approach of "if the Misplaced Pages will allow no criticism of A, then there can be no criticism of B". You place !A and !B on exactly equal footing, but with this topic, that simply is not the case. Much of this is rather similar to the drive last year to ram fringe criticism into the Bill Ayers article. You didn't get the point then, and don't get the point now. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    Well, you're getting better, Tarc, but you still haven't got that discuss the edits, not the editor thing quite down yet, or even stick to the topic, have you? Try to keep working on that. To address the substance: In a political debate, which is primarily what this article is about, you strive to emphasize balanced coverage and you scrutinize sources. Tellingly, the first four footnotes are from op-ed articles and much of the rest of the coverage is from a Newsweek article, from a magazine known for its bias. Look at who's covered and quoted in the article: It's all negative. Even the Luntz comments are presented as if there's something sinister in a political operative suggesting that his clients do a good job in making their case. There is industry lobbying in every political debate that involves industry. That there are special interests involved in this debate is no more important here than in any other political debate, and it would be a rare subject where Misplaced Pages devotes even a whole section of an article to that kind of topic, never mind a whole article -- so what's so different about industry machinations here? There is certainly a time to simply follow what reliable sources say, but that doesn't mean we remove our own editorial judgment from the process. The importance of industry lobbying should be weighed against other influences on public opinion and public policy in this debate. The crack-up over at the CRU and the string of embarassments over at the IPCC are bigger factors that most reliable sources are citing for the recent meltdown in public support for climate-change legislation. Unlike this POV fork, those are subjects around which we could (theoretically) craft fair, NPOV articles. The purpose of this article seems to be to advance a political position -- to smear the opposition by tainting it as corrupt. Most opposition to the AGW consensus is not corrupt, so we shouldn't have a whole article meant just to emphasize that. The newspaper article links I've provided near the top of this page (expanded version on the talk page) show that two sides can play at that game, because there's plenty of corruption (of various types) to go around. We should not be examining the faults of one side in depth while ignoring the faults within the other side -- certainly not in our choice of what article subjects to have in the encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    TL;DR. Cobbling together a few disparate stories to craft the "exaggeration" article is not at all comparable to an article on those who deny a broad scientific consensus on global warming. Apples and oranges. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. In light of Climate change consensus, Climate change denial is an appropriate subject discussed by a number of WP:RS sources.
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine, Newsweek.
Resisting Change: Global Warming Deniers, Newsweek.
The Psychology of Climate Change Denial, Wired.
Now climate change denial is a psychological condition, The Australian.
Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right, The Guardian.
Denying Climate Change, Outlook India.
Etc. — Rankiri (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS is not an adequate answer to objections based on WP:POVFORK. Probably almost all POV forks have reliable sourcing. I mention near the top where there are reliable sources essentially calling climate scientists political campaigners. Is that worth an article? Do we create articles on all POV-based subjects if we can find reliable sources -- especially ones with their own bias? If you allow it in one case, you'll find it cropping up in some other, very uncomfortable cases. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, I did read it. Here's your evidence:
  1. WP:POVFORK: Lead paragraph: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts Examples from the article: (a) First eight words: Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative (b) Second sentence emphasizes the pejorative nature of the term (which is essential to it, or the title would replace that word with "opposition") by quoting only left-wing opinion columnists: Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, have described climate change denial as a form of denialism. This is reliable sourcing? This is NPOV treatment? (c) First sentence of second paragraph emphasizes corrupt motives of those who are "denialists": activist George Monbiot states that he reserves it for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests. If that were the common understanding of the term, then we'd be committing WP:BLP violations left and right by calling almost anyone a "climate change denier", and yet this is how the second paragraph of the article opens. There's more, but this shows how the article highlight negative ... viewpoints. It could be edited out, but you wouldn't have much to replace it with -- it really is the nature of the term to be pejorative in one way or another. The rest of the second paragraph is a vague comment with a bunch of footnotes attached.
  2. From the first sentence in the section you link to: Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork – only that it is not necessarily a content fork.
  3. I think this is what you're getting at: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. (a) No. 1, above, shows the subject is not presented neutrally. (b) Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate. That's kind of like saying, Some say that Barack Obama is "The Anti-Christ". Others have decried the claim. With a bunch of footnotes after each. Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial. It's a smear with footnotes. (c) The three longest sections of the article are about industry efforts. The longest section in the article is titled "Connections to the tobacco lobby". Something tells me that the subject of that section isn't quite so important in the overall picture of the denialist POV. In fact, all this emphasis on industry machinations is an effort to prove that denialism is mostly not a POV but simply a special interest. There is something about the business interests for Misplaced Pages to cover, but not that much.
You wanted evidence of how WP:POVFORK applies to the article. Now you've got it. Removing the offending parts would get you a section-sized stub that belongs in another article (and probably is already there, I haven't looked). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The article may have some WP:NPOV-related issues but I believe they all can be addressed through regular editing. I also wouldn't mind renaming the article as long as the new, more neutral title won't make it a soapbox for propagandists of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE views. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively, Rename would be a good compromise --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable topical subject on wikipedia, even if it is not discussed in the Encyclopedia Britannica.Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Denial When there is weak scientific evidence, then starts the personal attacks with pejorative terms to intimidate. At least this article validates that cause and effect. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This topic is not a POV fork; if it has POV in it, then fix those spots. This topic has been covered extensively in the media, and in research. Climate change denial has become a trend, and as the article states, has affected the political debate on the subject. There is no reason that such a topic cannot be covered neutrally, and it would most likely be undue weight to try to cover it completely in other climate change articles. The lowdown: climate change denial is a broad movement that has been covered in the press extensively, so it meets WP:NOTE, and as to it being a POV fork, the article has some issues, especially in the lead, and yet, both sides of this argument are covered in the article. It does not try to say that climate change denial is correct, merely that it exists, how it may have come about, and how it affects the world. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Addendum - Also, as others have pointed out, the same argument has been the primary reason for no less than THREE other deletion discussions. While consensus can certainly change, this is beginning to look like a piñata party featuring everyone's favorite dead ungulate. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you've ignored everything I've said, here's the argument in a nutshell: My arguments at 19:47, 20:15 and in the thread ending with 02:59 above were not covered by the previous AfDs. Much of the article is years old, and doesn't take into account recent developments affecting the denial types and the skeptics. The news articles I've linked to in the 02:59 thread show varying reasons for the recent changing poll numbers and the dramatic changes in the AGW controversy, none involving the business machinations that take up most of the article. It's incredibly hard to keep POV-fork articles in an NPOV state. This article is an excellent example of that problem. It's Wik-op-ed-opedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The argument you made above is an argument to avoid at AfD. You say the article is out of date, but this is NEVER a reason to delete. If an article needs improvement, then improve it; don't delete it. Also, you seem to think that just because an argument is no longer prevalent in the news, it is no longer notable; a widespread claim is still encyclopedic even if people no longer use it. Lastly, to all those voting keep because they believe the nomination is pointy: while JohnWBarber should probably not have mentioned his interest in seeing the dichotomy of votes in the two debates, he also consistently espouses the view that this article is POV, and THAT is the reason it should be deleted. Even if I disagree with his reasoning, I completely believe he acted in good faith. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of your points have already been addressed, many by my post at 02:59. The only reason I pointed out that the article is out of date is because I believe updating it would be opposed by some editors on the side supporting AGW -- in other words, it's a POV problem for active reasons, not passive ones. It's impossible to think anybody actually believes this article reflects the subject, and yet ... there it sits. Thanks for the AGF. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. This partisan editorial tries to make an impression that the whole "global warming" hoax has some credulity behind it. I suspect that there's too much money at stake to leave this piece to "the commumity" (i.e. propaganda depts of the climate-change-bureaucracy), so the chances of bringing it to a neutral POV are too slim. Better delete. NVO (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Once again, just because you believe that this article is troubled beyond repair, does not mean that it is. If an article needs work, it is fixed, not deleted. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork should be merged with Climate change controversy mark nutley (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is a deletion case to be made for this article, or more likely for merging the contents into a more suitable target. A suitable case is not made here, no suitable merge candidate has emerged, and I remain in doubt as to the wisdom of removing the existing unique content from Misplaced Pages. For that reason I still oppose deletion. Dmcq's opinion most closely matches my own. --TS 07:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They raise the level of the discussion. The suitable candidate you're looking for is Global warming controversy#Funding for partisans where the most important content of this article is already summarized (or could easily be summarized). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 'Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and is the WP:COMMONNAME of this phenomenon. Nomination gives no reasoning, and is clearly disruptive. Verbal chat 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Clearly a comment that resulted from ignoring the discussion, which contradicts points about reasoning and WP:POINT. GNG and COMMONNAME are irrelevant to POVFORK. There is no requirement that the full reasoning needs to be given in the nomination statement. The reason was given and elaborated later. It's trivially easy to find. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As this is headed for a clear, overwhelming keep, perhaps an invocation of the snowball clause would be in order at this point. --TS 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the situations at Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep really fit here unfortunately. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The snowball clause is most closely related to Ignore all rules, so whether or not we invoke it does not depend on other policies. I do grant your point that such a close would be irregular--to the extent that such things matter. --TS 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's more important to let normal processes work so that more editors actually think about what they're supporting or rejecting. Perhaps that's healthier for Misplaced Pages in general and for our coverage of this subject in particular. Perhaps we should respect facts and ideas more and our own comfortable opinions less. It's one way of building a better encyclopedia. That's what we want, right? To build a better encyclopedia regardless of whether or not it promotes our own, personal points of view? How would you do that other than by encouraging examination of the facts? Why the urge to shut down discussion, even if it's going your way? What's the harm? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Because, of course, the discussion is not free. It saps time from all involved. The purpose of the AfD is to determine if an article should be deleted or not. If that aim has been achieved, its unproductive to spend further resources on it. Any minute spent monitoring or arguing this AfD is a minute not spend in some other, probably more worthwhile, endeavor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring evidence is what saps time from all involved. Discussion of actual evidence (see the links at my "Further comment" now at the very top of this page), actual facts (see my dissection of the POV problems with the article at 20:15, 3 March), actual polices (WP:POVFORK, which has been ignored) and actual reasoning (see the top of the page, for more see the 19:47 3 March comment and the thread ending at 02:59, 4 March) is a timewaster only to POV diehards. If editors either can't or won't address reasonable points made reasonably, it isn't the fault of the one bringing them up. Feel free to point out to me where I'm wrong, though. I am listening. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This misses the point. You asked an abstract question and I answered it in the abstract. If you want to get concrete, I understand that you know the truth and are therefore right. However, I, and about 95% of the editors commenting here, seem to think that you are wrong. Of course this means that we all ignore evidence and fail to respond to reasonable points reasonably, while you are still right. Too bad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No, you've missed the point. Consensus doesn't decide AfDs, "rough consensus" decides it. Rough consensus depends on strength of argument. See WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. That's policy. I didn't say I have the truth, so please don't exaggerate: I said I have what you're supposed to have in a deletion discussion, or any WP:TALK page: facts, reasonable argument, policy. If you can counter it, it would be better for the article, for Misplaced Pages and for the rest of the editors to counter it. If you don't, and if I'm continuing to discuss the merits of the article with others, then please step aside. It's only wasting your time if you're spending time at it unproductively. The value of the article isn't so certain that a snowball close is proper. Feel free to take it to A/N. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge and redirect Note the current lede sentence of the article: "Climate change denial is a term, generally pejorative, used to describe views that downplay the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior." In other words the subject of this article is a pejorative term used by persons on one side of a debate to discredit those on the other side. The existence of such a term might warrant a paragraph or two in an article about the overall controversy, but not an article of its own. We don't have separate articles on "Obamacare" or "Climategate" or other such coined pejoratives. Contrast with Holocaust denial, which is a crime in some jurisdictions. The rest of the article is essentially a WP:COATRACK for allegations against individuals and organizations based essentially on opinion articles that use the term denial. There's even a section arguing an analogy to the tobacco industry. Also note that there is no AfD tag on the article at the moment.(fixed, thanks)--agr (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denial, whether pejorative or nor, is an independently notable topic with 120 Google Scholar hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
How is it independent of the climate change controversy in general? Note there are about 120 google scholar hits for climate change hoax and 65 for climategate. Climategate has over 2 million hits on vanilla Google. So what? We should have one NPOV article on the controversy, not separate articles on every pejorative term each side manages to popularize.--agr (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you authored the WP:Advocacy articles essay and added Climate change denial as the only example into the essay (which I removed, and you'll no doubt replace), don't you think you should state that here? Your whole essay seems to be a coatrack to attack the climate change denial article. Someone should propose that essay for deletion. ► RATEL ◄ 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

random convenience break

  • Keep substantially covered in reliable secondary sources. Merges and renames are not done through AFD - while I might support a merge or rename (I do not currently,) the venue to propose such is a talk page. The content on this page, even if it is a "POV Fork" is encyclopedic and reliably sourced. As such, deletion is not the solution. I look forward to reasonable discussion as to what should be done with the sourced, encyclopedic content. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    1. WP:POVFORK is meant to prevent articles that "advocate a different stance on the subject" whether for or against. Since the subject is already covered at Global warming controversy, in the "Funding for partisans" and "Political pressure on scientists" sections, there's not much of value left to merge. If "Climate change denialism" were some independent philosophy of some sort, it would be worth an article, but everything about the subject is part of the larger "Global warming controversy" (the real-world debate, I mean). Support for denialism goes up or down depending on the overall debate. So I don't see how "encyclopedic" it is to have a whole article on this.
    2. Reliable sourcing is a totally separate issue from WP:POVFORK problems, and I don't have a problem with the verifiability of much of it. But you see the partisan nature of the article just by looking at the first sources from the second sentence: Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, have described climate change denial as a form of denialism." We're using partisan columnists to define the term, not just to source their own opinions. Even the Newsweek article that the WP article relies on is only partly reporting because it's also partly advocacy. I'm guessing that it's probably possible to create an NPOV article from partisan sourcing from both sides, but we already have an enormously hard time keeping AGW articles NPOV, so this doesn't make the prospects look good for this one. A lot of WP:POVFORK is about what the reasonable prospects are for an NPOV article.
    3. Definition of the term is also difficult. If we look at the lead section, we see Monbiot's definition of the subject, which appears to be different from Ellen Goodman's, which may or may not be the same as unnamed "writers", while two other unnamed writers (Robert Samuelson, Dennis Praeger) apparently object to use of the word. Sounds like a partisan attack word. In fact, it will always raise hackles because it has a partisan feel about it, even if it is a justifiable name (I think it is justified, but that's not my point). Keep in mind that we don't use words like Climategate (a redirect) for article titles. Why distract readers and editors by treating this subject with a partisan name and its own article, as if we were enshrining it and as if Misplaced Pages were taking a side in it? Even if we're not taking sides, it naturally looks that way to a lot of people. That matters.
    4. Every ongoing, big public debate has its denialists, exaggerators of one side or another, apathetic noncombatants, principled adherents, radicals, nutballs. It is a very bad idea to cover the subject by covering individual segments of the spectrum of opinion on a controversy. I don't want an article on "Climate change skepticism" or "Climate change believers", either (some partisans call them "Warmists" ). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you read Misplaced Pages:POVFORK recently - especially the part that goes "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Misplaced Pages's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it."? You feel there is no information in the article in question that should be merged back to Global warming controversy? None at all? You feel there's no topic that could be written neutrally about? Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- CCD is a concept that I come across every day in the media, both as a self-evident fact and often openly named as such in so many words. Arguably one of the most important phenomena in human society today, given the potential consequences. Move to delete seems to be self-serving and has nothing to do with the good of the encyclopedia. Keep please. Unit 5 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep – this looks like a tendentious nomination of an article on a commonly used and well sourced term of description for those denying the existence, impact or human influence on climate change, a rather common political movement with only fringe scientific acceptance. It's a legitimate article topic, and well sourced. . dave souza, talk 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork. If this deletion nom fails I will happily re-list it shortly. JBsupreme (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork being pushed by paid alarmists. 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: