Talk:Chapter 8 controversy

why this page deserves deletion
Please delete this page.

(A) The event in question was a 1995 oped in a newspaper, and some other peoples response. If we include articles for every oped that pissed someone off, wikis servers would crash.

(B) Or worse, imagine if we made TWO articles for every newspaper oped. The specifics for this issue were already been covered in the IPCC article(where its notability is also questionable) so why do we need this page.......

(C) .... and we got by for 16 years?

(D) ANSWER:  The editor who created the page has been seeking opportunities to highlight the word "CONTROVERSY" in climate change articles. When you have to create unneeded pages to report a nasty oped and response from 16 years ago, its hard to see that as anything other than one part of a larger POV campaign, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. The controversy over chapter 8 of the IPCC report is well sourced and has been sourced on Wikipedia for years, primarily in the IPCC and Benjamin D. Santer articles.  Creating a redirect to help people find this controversy is what we do as editors.  Your arguments appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than on sources.  The sheer number of sources on this subject makes it very clear that this was one of the most notable global warming controversies of the 1990s.  The event was not an "oped" as you claim, but a documented campaign by the climate change denial lobby (Conway & Oreskes 2010) who criticized the findings of the science report published by the IPCC in the media rather than in the scientific literature.  The redirect is entirely legitimate and supported by a wide variety of sources alredy provided to you. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

cross post from article creator's talk page
Copied from []

(Viriditas,) Please cease and desist labeling failed attempts to manufacture controversies as a "controversy" when the attempt is dead, no longer in the public eye, and did not result in some sort of quasi-legal proceedings, and you should cease and desist using that word to describe such failed attempts to manufacture a controversy because (A) "controversy" does not comport to those factual circumstances and (B) claiming that it does comport to such facts when it does not is to POVishly embrace the tactics used by those who sought to create the (nonexistent) controversy, but failed, 'lo those many years ago. Fact that mud was slung in 1995 without sticking to anything might have been sufficiently notable to cover in the encyclopedia, but it is inappropriate to paint it with a patina of contemporary legitimacy by calling it a "controversy". It was an op-ed and some indignant responses, nothing more. Unlike the CRU email controversy that resulted in formal quasi-legal proceedings (all of which cleared those involved of serious wrong). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument makes no sense whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia where we write articles about notable historical events.  This is one of them.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a fallacy.  Please don't raise it again. This was not a "mud slinging" event but a documented attempt to criticize the accuracy of the IPCC report, an attempt that resulted in hundreds of sources on the subject from newspaper articles to books to journal articles.  Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can find at least one hit for a verifiable source that talks about the mudslinging smear campaign as the "chapter 8 controversy" so I withdraw my desire to see this redirect page deleted.  I will continue opposition to calling the events a "controversy" on the articles where the details appear. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have confused this topic with another. I have read dozens of sources on this subject, none of which refer to or call it "mudslinging" and most of which describe it as a controversy.  Is it too much to ask that you strive for an informed opinion based on the sources rather than your personal opinion? Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted on Viriditas's talkpage, only in more detail: p. 3 of Merchants of Doubt: 'But the Journal only published a portion of both Santer and Bolin's letters, and two weeks later, they gave the accusers another opportunity to sling mud, publishing a letter declaring that the IPCC report had been "tampered with for political purposes". The mud stuck...' Can we stop arguing over single phrases and get on with building an encyclopedia? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, did both of you not notice I conceded the point regarding phrase "chapter 8 controversy" on this page?  The battle was over before the last two salvos.  It will be wonderful if Viritidas' in-press coverage will improve on text in the IPCC article prior to his edits there a few days ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the sources, there was a documented controversy over Chapter 8 of the IPCC report. It doesn't matter if you can find the phrase or not. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * V, are you breathing? For the THIRD TIME you win on this page.  Part of consensus is acknowledging when you have persuaded others.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between you and me, is that I'm not in this to "win" anything. I'm here to write accurate encyclopedia articles.  That's it. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)