Talk:Climate Hustle/Archive 1

Started draft
Started reading about the story and was surprised nobody had created this yet. Someone had to, I guess. This is not an area I feel particularly comfortable writing in, so I'm going to add some content from some of the more mainstream sources and try to solicit some help. In the meantime, I'll leave it in the drafts space. The mainstream sources have not been kind to the film so far, and I don't want to publish something that could be more neutrally presented (or perhaps I've been too neutral per WP:FRINGE?). I've also not seen the film myself, and don't see sources with a suitable synopsis. Another reason to stay as a draft for now. If someone else wants to move it, you're welcome to. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's probably a good thing that you haven't seen the film as it's probably a major waste of time, do you really want to watch conspiracy theory movies that promote fringe science? ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 14:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, whether I want to watch it (or ever intend to), isn't really the point. My point in mentioning I haven't seen it is to say that it's an article about a film, but most of the sources talk more about the general ideas it contains/promotes rather than the content of the film, so the "synopsis" section is lacking, and if someone else has seen it they may be better equipped to write it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Climate Change Denial Documentary" is not an unbiased description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.240.10 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that there was a weak consensus coming out of many related discussions favoring "climate change denial" vs. "climate change skeptic", so long as reliable sources support the former. I may very well be wrong, though, and there might even better ways to describe it. What would you recommend? About the former issue, I've asked at WP:FRINGEN. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

When you click "climate change denial", you're taken to a page that describes it as "unwarranted doubt". The producers of the movie, and the scientists they interview in the movie certainly wouldn't consider their own doubts unwarrented. So what is warrented or unwarrented is a matter of opinion. I would just remove the word "denial" from this sentence. The movie is a documentary. And it is about climate change. So "climate change documentary" should suffice, without taking sides on whether or not the doubts are warranted or unwarrented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.240.10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody holds (or promotes) doubts they believe to be unwarranted. That's an external judgment. The concept of "neutrality" on Wikipedia isn't about neutral wording to present all perspectives as equal, it's to treat perspectives the way they're treated in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. In other words, among all sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, how is the subject perceived. As the overwhelming majority of reliable sources view this kind of "skepticism" as "denialism" (i.e. unwarranted doubts), that's what we say. So while you could argue that what is or is not warranted is subjective, it ultimately doesn't matter because we're not issuing judgments; we're summarizing the consensus among reliable sources -- and according to reliable sources, it's unwarranted. Now then, that spiel aside that doesn't necessarily mean "climate change denial documentary" is the best way to describe it. In fact that wording strikes me as a little awkward. But the reason for changing it is not to create a false balance. The guideline which is most relevant to this, if you want to explore more about how Wikipedia works in this regard, is probably WP:FRINGE. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. When I encounter the word “denier’ with respect to climate change, it’s been my experience that it is not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Its usually used in opinion pieces and blogs. And its often used in a context to ridicule, often in child-like fashion, those that disagree with the scientific consensus. When I see ‘denier’ in an article’s headline, I expect to be taken to a blog where there is a picture of a man with his head in the sand, or a denier depicted as a zombie.

Most mainstream reliable sources follow the AP style guide. They discourage the use of the terms “climate change denier” and “climate change skeptic”, favoring “climate change doubter”. “The reason we don’t use ‘denier’ is that there is a connotation rightly or wrongly and a complaint by some that it has the concept of ‘Holocaust denier,'” said AP science writer Seth Borenstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.240.10 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A reasonable point of view. I don't really want to reinvent the denial of the wheel (joke), so I posted to WP:FRINGEN to see about where past discussions have led on this topic. It didn't get as many replies as I anticipated, but my sense that there was a preference for "denial" has not quite been affirmed. It seems there are a whole lot of sources about Morano and CFACT being "deniers", but the film itself less so. The word is in several of the sources, but as far as pithy summaries (e.g. [subject/description] placed before ["film"/"documentary"]), here's what I see:
 * CSM calls it a "global warming comedy", but I think they may have it confused with Sizzle. Otherwise it doesn't label (it doesn't even call it a documentary).
 * Variety calls it an "anti-climate change film"
 * NBC calls it an "anti-climate change film" and an "anti-climate change documentary"
 * The Guardian's pithiest statement about it is "a film that dismisses global warming as an excuse for government takeover and makes the outrageously false claim that rising carbon emissions are beneficial."


 * Others (Washington Post, etc.) just call it a "film" or "documentary" without a neat label. So I've gone ahead and changed the lead to say it's "a 2016 documentary film disputing the scientific consensus on climate change...". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.240.10 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)