Talk:False balance

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaackurubal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryananderson1290.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Zombie article/essay
This piece reads like a high school essay of dubious quality, marked by many vaguely expressed opinions and few concrete facts, Is it possible to clean it up? Is it worth cleaning it up? Is anybody watching this page? --TS 18:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I'm reading up on deletion policy right now. Not that I'm unsympathetic to the concept but it appears to be a neologism. Abbenm (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This piece is less an exposition of false balance than it is a piece on the 'truth' of anthropogenic global warming.  Even the link to 'scientific consensus' is laughable on the basis that science either is or is not; consensus does not make inconclusive data and results any more valid or make it so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.236.190 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Synonym: False Equivalence
Numerous examples on the internet and journalism use the term "False Equivalence" for precisely this topic. At the moment, the term "False equivalence" only leads to a mathematical topic. Perhaps a synonym/disambiguation should be added? Ghostkeeper (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Before realizing there was this article on False Balance I expanded the False Equivalance article. In the meantime I've added cross-links but I guess there is a case to be made for merging the two (although the mathematical piece should not be part of any such merger). The Seventh Taylor (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The False Equivalence article states in the end: "It should not be confused with false balance – the media phenomenon of presenting two sides of an argument equally in disregard of the merit or evidence on a subject (a form of argument to moderation).". Jjk seems to make it clear in the page history (of False Equivalence) that they're not the same. It would be nice if the False balance article didn't start of with "False balance, also referred to as false equivalence," because that's confusing. seriema (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists.
The headline makes a statement so weak that it is unsurprising that there is a an overwhelming consensus. That something exists does not say whether it is interesting, important, or urgent. I don't know how to get rid of this tomfoolery statement of the obvious, or at least rephrase it so that it actually means something informative. Greglocock (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the source of 97% in diagram?
According to Forbes fact-checking "the 97% consensus is false" https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=21645f2c1157 88.156.136.69 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:FORBESCON, articles on Forbes written by non-staff are generally unreliable. Even if Ritchie were staff and not someone who has worked for the fossil fuel industry, it would be a journalistic source (WP:FORBES) and "generally reliable" but not reliable for science.
 * This is the second time this week I noticed someone try to use that crap as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FORBESCON is not wikipedia's policy or even guideline. While some editors might see this contribution unreliable, it doesn't mean it is factually incorrect. This analysis is written in reputable source by lecturer from University of Houston.
 * "worked for the fossil fuel industry" - Do you think that Ritchie is a part of some conspiracy? Do you have any proof for your conspiracy theory?
 * "someone try to use that crap as a source" - Who are you to say that Forbes is a "crap"? You are trying to act like some kind of authority here that knows more than well established, respected magazine and it's academic contributor. It's truly bizarre behaviour. 88.156.136.69 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * not wikipedia's policy That does not mean you should ignore it. It means you should check the reasoning how it ended up that way and either accept it, ask people to explain it, or challenge it. This is the wrong place to do that.
 * Do you think that Ritchie is a part of some conspiracy No, I think that if someone's income depends upon rejecting a fact, they are more likely to do that. But it does not matter what I think. It only matters that 1. it's a journalistic source, 2. the guy is not even a scientist, let alone a climatologist.
 * Who are you to say that Forbes is a "crap"? I already explained that. It is irrelevant who I am, only what reasoning I use. Please consult literature about bad reasoning so you do not make such rookie mistakes anymore.
 * You are trying to introduce a WP:FRINGE source, and you will not succeed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By default, Forbes Contributors are not considered reliable sources. By default, an executive for a company (and in an industry) which has worked for decades to undermine the science on climate change is not going to be considered a reliable source for the scientific consensus on climate change. This source is starting with a huge uphill climb to show reliability, and teaching a single class on "construction management" at a university does not get far enough up that hill. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source cited in the image description on Commons is https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism, I'll add it to the caption. Belbury (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity I read article you linked and paper it was based on (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024).
 * Sentence "Among climate scientists in 2013, 97% thought that climate change was happening" seems to be incorrect.
 * First of all, paper doesn't say about "climate scientists" but "peer-reviewed scientific literature". It doesn't say about "climate change" but "anthropogenic global warming" and 97% is not among ALL papers but only those that express position on anthropogenic global warming.
 * So in reality it looks like this:
 * Fox News coverage:
 * 31% Endorse AGW
 * According to research
 * 32.6% papers endorse AGW
 * It looks like perfect match. 88.156.136.69 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't tell if this is trying to be serious, but sidestepping the statistical silliness, there is one sort of reasonable point: it's a comparing the content of papers to the backgrounds of guests, which are indeed different things. But it doesn't require much of a leap to simply compare the backgrounds of Fox News guests to the backgrounds of scientists who write about anthropogenic climate change. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Go publish your thoughts in a reliable source. That is the minimum requirement for us to use them. Read WP:OR and WP:RS. And WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With all respect Hob Gadling, your contribution doesn't help to improve this article. Look at the research again:
 * https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
 * Section "5. Conclusion" - "Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW"
 * How from this conclusion from paper you guys went to "Among climate scientists in 2013, 97% thought that climate change was happening"?
 * And kindly don't tell me "it's not a forum" or "it's original research". I'm not the one making here "original research". I just see that what this wikipedia page contains doesn't seem to match what's in scientific paper. 88.156.136.69 (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah! Now that you left out all the irrelevant bullshit about "reality", about "32.6% papers endorse AGW", and about using Ritchie as a source, and concentrate on the one item about which you have sort of part of a point, I can take you slightly more seriously.
 * Yes, we have to discern between percentages of people and percentages of papers. But our source is the Guardian piece by Dana Nuccitelli, and he talks about percentages of people as well as percentage of papers. If our source were talking about percentages of papers, and we were talking about percentages of people, that would be misrepresentation. As it is, it is OK.
 * And of course one would have to make the statistics based on not among ALL papers but only those that express position. Otherwise, it would not make any sense. It would be like doing the "percentages of people" part not among climatologists but among the world population. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the assertion that 3% of climatologists "[d]eny climate change" (sic!) is so absurdly misleading that it ends up being laughably wrong. The widely-touted 97% figure is outdated and wildly conservative – here's a more up-to-date assessment. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, your straw man assertion is absurdly misleading. The 97% claim in Cook's original paper (based on reading abstracts, not actually reading the papers), was " They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. " that is, you are confusing "denial" of AGW with climate change denial. Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Denying AGW is one form of climate change denial. If you deny AGW, you are a climate change denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)