Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Amidst all the noise emitted during this discussion, there is a quite clear consensus that the topic is both notable and documented enough to justify an article; and that sufficiently reliable sources do exist. At the same time, at least a few people agree the article requires editorial attention. This close neither endorses nor opposes the rather widespread idea that the nomination of this article was made in bad faith. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, 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 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)
 * The government-funded academic promotion of the idea of global warming has been documented in numerous reliable sources. - Name three. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 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 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. 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)
 * Yes, please do be civil. Your reply to my comment is anything but. Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing uncivil in pointing out the weakness at the core of your argument. I eagerly await your scolding editors below for calling this a WP:POINTy nomination. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  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. 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", Wikipedia 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)
 * Alphascript publishing just reprints wikipedia articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Bad faith nomination due to Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:42, 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. &mdash; 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.&mdash; 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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? &mdash; 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Please read WP:POVFORK. I see no evidence that the article in question is a POV fork. — Rankiri (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did read it. Here's your evidence:
 * 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[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[5][6] 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[s] 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Keep per my earlier comments. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad faith, tendentious nomination. Climate change denial covers a notable and well-documented topic, i.e. the issue of denialism as it applies to climate change, just as Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism cover denialism as it applies to those issues. The nominator's disruptive WP:POINT-scoring is a significant violation of the article probation regime in this topic area, but that's best dealt with elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion has become less a deletion debate than a WP:COATRACK. I suggest a quick cloture. PhGustaf (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the article, a WP:SNOW close would be appropriate here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- obviously notable, massively represented in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge some sections with Climate change controversy. Otherwise fails NPOV, even quite simply through the article's title. Moves away from science (which climate change, being part of climatology, should be focused upon) into the realms of media speculation and (quite frankly) witch-hunt. Talk of industry backing of climate change skepticism is notable, but ill-proportioned. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:57, 3 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 Wikipedia.  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 where the most important content of this article is already summarized (or could easily be summarized). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 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)
 * '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)
 * None of the situations at 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 Wikipedia 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. 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Keep as a bad faith nomination, per this. There are problems with this article, but this is just WP:POINTmaking. Oren0 (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you couldn't have read the discussion, which contradicts each of your assertions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:POINTy nom, notability is off the charts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per numerous editors above.  A pointy nomination of a well-sourced topic seemingly in response to the parallel nomination of a badly-sourced, POV-fork neologism.  --P LUMBAGO  09:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know if the nom was bad faith or not - I assume not - but it does seem POINTy. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you couldn't have read the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's refreshing to be accused of bad faith right after I defend your good faith in nominating the article. A one-line nomination calling something an obvious violation of policy, when it is not, seems POINTy. If the violation were obvious, then the article would have been speedied and that would've been that. Obviously, there's more to it - but that wasn't how the nomination stood when I commented. Do have a look at WP:AGF, if you get a chance - it's clear that you feel strongly about this issue, and that's fine, but we need more light than heat here. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 00:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No question about it, or everything else in Category:Denialism would have to go too. WP:POINTy nom, discussed mostly by our current crop of people who do things like this. --Nigelj (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - bad faith nom William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * deleteTreacherousWays (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? — Rankiri (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Climate change exaggeration RfD. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know WP:OTHERSTUFF. I participated in both discussions and I think there is a world of difference between the two. For example, this article doesn't seem to quote (actual) 9-year-olds. — Rankiri (talk) 01:16, 5 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)


 * Delete as an "advocacy article" of the first water. See WP:Advocacy articles.  Collect (talk) 21:54, 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)
 * Your rather unhelpful comments seem to be irrelevant here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:39, 6 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)
 * 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.
 * 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[1] and Ellen Goodman,[2] among others,[3][4] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.[5][6]" 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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.
 * 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 POVFORK recently - especially the part that goes "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia'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)
 * If there is any information in this article that is not already in Global warming controversy section, it's trivial. I wouldn't move it anywhere. Any editor can go through the sources and pick out any bits of information that might be worth saving, and that can be done by getting a copy of it from an admin, even after it's been deleted. It would be better than simply moving anything from this article, because the other article already covers the valuable aspects of this one. Potentially, Politics of global warming might cover some subjects. Other things should be removed whether or not this article stays, including these whole sections of minutia: "Connections to the tobacco lobby" -- trivial; "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" -- pointless ("The suit was dismissed"); "Effect of climate change denial" -- unencyclopedic blather; "Public sector", I do like the second paragraph, but I wonder how important it is five years later; "Overview" -- worthless. I think that covers the entire article. Even the "Private sector" part, which I kind of like, is a summary of Business action on climate change. You haven't addressed any of my comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The views of a particular group on a controversial subject generally deserve an article, the controversy deserves another, and the generally accepted view (if there is one) deserves a third. For example, Anabaptism, Mormonism and Catholicism are examples of articles about particular beliefs, Eastern Schism and Protestant Reformation are examples of articles about arguments and Christianity as an example of a discussion of a broader body of opinion.


 * 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)
 * How would you title the future articles on the segments of the spectrum of opinion on the global warming controversy? Climate change skepticism (at this point, it redirects to Global Warming controversy); Climate change warmism, Anthropogenic global warming believers, Climate change extremism, Climate change moderation, Climate change correctness? Sounds like a lot of work to keep each one as fair as the other ones. And of course Wikipedia doesn't require uniformity among articles, so you'd have to battle it out to get fair treatment of each subject or gin up some RfC for all of them at once. Much easier to cover the large topic of global warming with other articles. That's why we have WP:POVFORK. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:02, 5 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. rossnixon 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. There are three different concepts here: Climate change, controversy over the subject, and views of those who consider it is not happening. Three different articles: what is currently known or thought to be known about the subject, what debates or arguments have occurred, what are the view of supporters of one extreme position. Is the earth round? Does life evolve? Does communism work? We need to separate articles on the "fact", on the debate about the "fact", and on the views of the proponents of each position on the debate. The articles on Evolution, Reaction to Darwin's theory and Biblical literalism are completely different. This article, the one on the controversy and the one on the concept need serious clean-up to remove overlap. But this is a legitimate topic, well sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article attacks the subject rather than describes it, and cleaning it up would create a stub covering what's already in Global warming controversy. Theoretically, it's possible for Wikipedia to have articles on subjects that are POVs. Technically, it could potentially be done within policy, and WP:POVFORK mentions that. Practically, it is incredibly difficult to do it with any fairness in an ongoing, big, hot controversy (we do a better job when the POV is historic or very old or at least not that controversial). Realistically, it's currently impossible -- and this article is proof of that. Only a POV pusher could love it. It enshrines minor details with the effect of tainting a particular point of view when the reasons not to hold that point of view are adequately covered in other parts of the encyclopedia. The effect of the article, in the words of WP:POVFORK, is "to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". For instance, there is an entire paragraph in the article detailing how one U.S. think tank supposedly offered $10K to scientists to counter an IPCC report. In 2007. The article is mostly this kind of trivial political point scoring that has little to do with why some people are denialists. Wikipedia hasn't proven that it is capable of writing a real encyclopedia article on this subject. This certainly isn't one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As it stands, this is a poor quality article, far from an objective and impartial description of the viewpoints and perhaps motives of people who deny that climate change is happening. That does not mean the article should not exist, just that it needs improvement. The topic is legitimate and clearly notable. The whole theory of Wikipedia is that over time editors will improve all articles. If not, there is no point to the project. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no point to the project when it comes to big, hot political controversies. There are too few editors willing to set aside their own POV and too many who aren't. When you remove the rotten pulp from this article, you're left with a kernel of about two, maybe three short paragraphs that partly replicate information in other articles. And before you get to the kernel, you'll have a POV fight on your hands. And lose. And nobody should attempt to edit it without being aware of General sanctions/Climate change probation. It isn't edible and we shouldn't put up with the smell. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles on many controversial subjects from Abkhazia to the Woodward effect that require constant patrolling. Articles on subjects that do not seem controversial at all, such as Cactus, are repeatedly vandalized. But over time the quality of the encyclopedia does steadily improve. With a complex and important topic like climate change where there are many different opinions, it is best to have separate articles on each aspect. This is one. It will be difficult to bring it up to a good level of quality and to maintain it at that level, but not impossible. "Difficult" is not a reason to delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another random break

 * Keep. Not a POV fork, and it's a notable topic w/plenty of sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a valid encyclopedic topic with innumerable references in mass media and academic writings. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Keep - This is getting political. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it got political when this was put in the article: Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation," Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body."[3] That footnote leads to an extract from a book by activist and opinion columnist George Monbiot, cited four times in the article. I suspect Monbiot is on the money, but I doubt this is important enough to cover. This is not neutral coverage (it seems meant to "highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts"), but it's typical for this article, and it's been in there since Day 1. I guess that's when it got "political". -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per above.  -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Important topic, adequate article. Cardamon (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Funny that JWB accuses people multiple times of 'wikilawyering', when that's all I see him doing. Per POVFORK, which he cites ad nauseam, "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." If there are problems with certain parts of the article, change it. Tan   &#124;   39  14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Help me out here, Tan: Which part of WP:WIKILAWYER applies to my comments? The "change it" idea flies in the face of the fact that AGW articles are so contentious that we have a general sanctions regime set up for them. The article has been around for years without its massive flaws being fixed -- in fact, they've been expanded. It's one of the prime situations WP:POVFORK was meant to avoid. In an article that covered more than one segment of opinion on AGW, it would be easier to argue that standards be fair throughout the article -- if an opinion columnist like George Monbiot was used to reference facts, it would be easier to say "well, should we use an opinion columnist to reference facts about the other side?" and proposals to do just that could be brought up. When you do articles about segments of opinion, that kind of fairness is harder to implement. On a hot topic, harder still. On AGW, impossible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article covering well-documented form of denialism, which is a separate subject from global warming controversy. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article represents a legitimate, notable subject, independent of climate change itself. That said, I agree with the nominator that there are POV issues.  For example, the sentences in the first paragraph "Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term." Readers can easily come to the article to learn about legitimate scientific scepticism about climate change, but the article does not address that, or even let them know where to find the information they are looking for.  I added a link within the article, but perhaps a hat note explaining the situation up front would be better.  But these are concerns that can be addressed through editing, not deletion. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, reliably covered in numerous sources, sufficiently distinct from related topics to merit its own article. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Artw (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep w/ WP:SNOW. If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again eh? -- samj in out 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is the 4th attempt on this article, no doubt by heavily conflicted editors. User:JBsupreme has already committed that If this deletion nom fails [he] will happily re-list it shortly.. At which point do we get to WP:SALT Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (5th nomination)? ;) -- samj in out 11:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep rather than name a bunch of sources and whatnot, I'll just point out that this is the fourth nomination of this article. It seems to me that there is some serious POV pussing when that amny editors try 4 times to delete an article on a contraversial topic. And yet your reson this time is "POV fork"? A one word reply to that should be "hypocrite"-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As far as I can tell the nomination is based on climate change denial denial, the content is fully compliant with policy (give or take the occasional POV edit). Guy (Help!) 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: In many ways Climate change controversy is the foil to climate change denial. However, it would not seem as objective if Climate change controversy were named Climate change conspiracy. Controversy means that there is controversy. Denial means that the area is settled and not open to debate, and those that do advocate debate are (irrespective of their perspective or position) in denial, which means that they are stupid or mad (or both!). Now, if the article, Climate change denial were constructructed such as to say: 'this is what the peception of climate change denial is' that would be fine. Instead it provides an extended argument to PROVE the existence of Climate Change Denial. The article of God should not be a podium for those who wish to prove the existence of God, but rather document the views of society and different creeds upon their perceptions and interpretations of divine being(s). A general rewrite of the Climate change denial page is possible, but rename would clear up a lot of these outstanding issues (even if there is a perceptible polarity, even here, between advocates and opponents of climate change thoery, that is becoming increasingly volatile)--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the article as discussing people or groups who are "denying" climate change for political or economic reasons, presumably with a somewhat cynical attitude as to whether or not climate change is a reality. With that focus, the article should discuss identity, motives, funding and activities, and should skim over the arguments advanced. Possibly a better title would end in "lobby groups" or something, but I can't imagine getting consensus on such a change. This is quite different from an article on skeptics who sincerely dispute that climate change is real, or if real that it is caused by human activity, which would mainly describe their reasoning. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep A well sourced article about a real and well documented phenomenon. I see no basis for the deletion of this article. I was going to try to avoid guessing at the motives of the nomination but this speaks for itself: "and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold.". While you might think nominating an article for deletion to expose perceived hypocrisy is a joy to behold, it is actually a disruptive way to make your point. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 14:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're actually assuming bad faith by insisting, even after I've shown otherwise (in a thread you participated in), that that was the primary reason for my nominating it. It's actually uncivil to repeatedly assume bad faith after you've been given adequate reasons otherwise (those are very specific links to parts of the policy). From the very first line, and at length, I've shown that this article is contrary to WP:POVFORK. You have addressed nothing in my (many, prominent) policy-related reasons for deletion and focused on trivial reasons: To say "well-documented" is beside the point if the nature of the article is contrary to other policy. The sources I see are either obviously irrelevant to the reasons why most denialists are denialists or they're mostly opinion pieces. Even the Newsweek article, the piece that shows up more times than anything else in the footnotes, is part commentary/part newsgathering. It is a joy to behold hypocrisy revealed for all to see. I have every right to that opinion. But that comment was an aside, and you've got no reason whatever to say it was the main reason, much less the only reason for this AfD. Your ABF is enormous. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it up, those are your words. I have looked at the other reasons you have presented and they don't seem to hold water. Really, what do you expect when you say it will be a joy to behold the hypocrites reaction to such a nomination, and that it would be wonderful to see their twists and turns of logic, and then go and nominate it, and then make an effort to point out said perceived hypocrisy? I am simply quoting you, let people make up their own mind as to what your words mean in relation to this nomination. At this point I support the nomination running its full course, not because I think it is in any way valid, but simply to deny the opportunity for claims of unfairness. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect you to be able to Explain how the article meets or violates Wikipedia policy. as it says on the top of the page when you open it up to edit. I expect you to be able to address the actual policy issue, not a single comment made before the AfD started. Otherwise I expect the closing admin to ignore your off-topic, irrelevant comments. That would be WP:DGFA policy. Really, what do you expect I would expect? You wouldn't be trying to make a WP:POINT about my pre-AfD comment, would you? I mean, that would be a reason for the closing admin to ignore your comment, wouldn't it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My first sentence: "A well sourced article about a real and well documented phenomenon". Lets just let the closing admin decide what to ignore and what to pay attention to. Amazing how you can accuse me of a "point" violation, sort of poetic. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * addressed in the response at 21:44, immediately below yours -- irrelevant and off topic to the stated reason for this AfD. I'll have even more to say later about the sources and the way this article uses them. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete Article seems slanted toward climate change supporters (those who feel it is a real scientific process). To me, even just the name alone seems to be bias. Immunize (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Theory of gravity is slanted toward those who feel that the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth is a real scientific phenomenon. Not that it matters, according to WP:FRINGE. — Rankiri (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down! Aymatth2 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a fringe comment for you (one I don't happen to agree with, but never mind):
 * 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. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’. [...] When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.
 * WP doesn't have the right to go beyond what the reliable sources say, even about the denialists. And AGW ain't quite the law of gravity, according to this guy. He uses the word "skepticism" here, but "certain unqualified statements" (like, say, comparing climate change to the law of gravity) hurt the believability of the scientists saying global warming is a real problem, and that's inevitably going to lead to support for both the skeptical and denialist POV. If you have a problem with this statement by the "personal adviser on science and technology-related activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet" in the Labour government of the United Kingdom, please take it up with him. (I assume that the source, the Times of London, simply didn't report on his support for the idea of AGW.) Our article skews what the reliable sources say about the sources of denialism: We highlight years-old charges that industry-financed groups did some PR work against it, but completely ignore the reasons given in these reliable sources -- colder weather and the recent embarassments of the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit
 * New York Times ("A survey conducted in late December by Yale University and George Mason University found that the number of Americans who believed that climate change was a hoax or scientific conspiracy had more than doubled since 2008, to 16 percent of the population from 7 percent."),
 * The Guardian ("Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found")
 * BBC ("The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November.").


 * These reliable sources are quite explicit about the reasons for the public opinion numbers. Oh, yeah, we do have a little bit of this in a sentence or two in the fourth paragraph of the article. Fourth paragraph from the bottom, that is. If the BBC poll is right, 40 percent of the entire denialist camp in the UK came to this belief since November. What's happened in that time? The cold winter and the embarassments of the IPCC and CRU, as the three articles mention Our coverage in this article is skewed. Our readers are likely to know about the IPCC and CRU embarassments, but they're missing from this article, making it an embarassment to Wikipedia. (edited to add) This (yet again) shows how this article functions to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. which is yet another way it violates WP:POVFORK -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC) added comment, as noted; minor tweaks -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have identified useful information, with sources, that I encourage you to add to Public opinion on climate change. I do not think it is clearly relevant to this article, which is more about lobbyists. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should do that. (just tweaked my comments a bit and added a comment above) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Major environmental issue. ‡ Himalayan ‡  ΨMonastery 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the article title suggests an article about a common pejorative. So long as the article remains on topic about the pejorative (rather than about the science or "fairness" of application) then it can be neutral and informative.  However, I'm not convinced the article currently lives up to this standard - and if it can't remain POV, then it should be deleted.  Rklawton (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I am starting to think the article confuses two different concepts. One is the meaning and usage of the pejorative term, which is sort of a dictionary definition. The other is the activities of lobbyists who try to create doubt about climate change for financial or sectional reasons, as opposed to genuine skeptics. The bulk of the content is about the second concept. I am leaning towards a rename to something like "Climate change lobbying" followed by an overhaul to also cover activities of groups with an interest in increasing alarm about climate change. It would need very tight patrolling to avoid POV, but does seem a legitimate subject, different from both Business action on climate change and Global warming controversy, although with some overlap. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you planning the same treatment for AIDS denial and all the other articles in Category:Denialism too? --Nigelj (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Denial and Lobbying are two very different concepts. Denial is passive or negative, where a person takes a fixed opinion and refuses to listen to any counter arguments. A denialist may seem stubborn and irrational, but perhaps deserves respect for their conviction. "The holy book says it is true, so it must be true, whatever you say." Lobbying is an active and positive attempt to influence people's views in favor of the person or group who is paying for the lobbying effort. The lobbyist may be relatively indifferent to the the validity of the position they are promoting. The content of this article seems to be mostly about lobbying, not denial. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It is possible to write an article on the history of the phrase, tracking its politics and history, and the intentions of the people who use it, and the reactions of those so attacked. However, this is not that article - this is a pure political advocacy article dutifully repeating the point of view of those who use the term. As an advocacy article, this has no place on Wikipedia - put it on a blog somewhere. Ray  Talk 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —JohnWBarber (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination is almost certainly responding to the substantial violations of WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK that comprise the majority of the article. That said, the solution to that is to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards: "climate change denial" meets WP:NEO, and, as is plainly evident in the coatrack sections of the articles (and in numerous available sources), is a term used to marginalize legitimate critics of the public policy proposals by some environmentalists, even when those critics don't actually deny the existence of climate change. Keep and clean up. THF (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the article "Climate change denial" would appear to be on the subject of a segment of the spectrum of opinion on the climate-change controversay. But currently, the article's lead defines the subject as something much more restricted: 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. Some writers apply the term to all climate change skeptics. Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term. If improvement of the article, rather than deleting it, is the answer, then one set of improvements would be made by following the implications of the title and another set of improvements by following the restrictions of the lead. So the title/lead conflict should be ironed out. I've proposed doing this at Talk:Climate change denial. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep although I think the article needs to be narrowly focused on source material that discusses "Climate change denial," and not become a coatrack for criticism of climate change skepticism or skeptics. Mackan79 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

random break 3

 * The bad sourcing and what you're left with when you clean it out Theoretically, an article about a POV can be NPOV, and in some surface ways, this article is -- it does cover those who criticize use of the term, for instance. But the article is a WP:POVFORK in part because of the poor sourcing, which violates WP:RS, particularly WP:RS. The article describes a partisan subject, identifies the name "climate change denial" as often pejorative (at least in some versions of the lead, which has been changing in the past few days), and then gets information from sources primarily from the opposition to the subject rather than from standard news stories in which journalists and editors try to cover a subject with a neutral point of view. This is important, because writers trying to make a point may be tempted to ignore, highlight, downplay or otherwise misrepresent the subject -- precisely the problem we want to avoid under WP:POVFORK policy. The reliance here is so heavily on partisan sourcing that we can't rely on basic elements of the article. Another problem is that in certain spots our article covers specific criticisms of named "denialists" but we don't always include the defense of these people, even when that's covered in the sources we cite, so we compound the problem by our lack of commitment to NPOV.
 * WP:RS does allow for some sourcing from opinion pieces: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. This article does attribute information to authors (except we say Newsweek instead of the author's name, implying that the source is a normal, unproblematic news article). However the basic structure of an article -- it's necessary parts, most prominent parts and passages that are used to show what's important, should not rely on this kind of problematic sourcing from opinion pieces. I don't know that reliable sourcing in regular news accounts or elsewhere actually exists. The parts of the article that remain after you remove these can be either deleted or put into various other articles -- in most cases they already are (see the See main article notes at the top of some sections).
 * Some parts of the article are very solidly sourced: There isn't a problem with most of the "Private sector" and "Public sector" sections, parts of the "Overview" section simply report on others' opinions, and the first paragraph of the "Effect of climate change denial" section. The "Kivalina v. ExxonMobil" section seems solid but "Connections to the tobacco lobby" is entirely built on unreliable sourcing. But the solid sourcing doesn't cover the basic structure of the article: the important, defining parts and the passages that tell us what's important. I've created User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial, a copy of the article with the three most problematic prominent sources shown in boldface (I used boldface italics mark passages that could remain, ranging from somewhat problematic to not a problem at all in terms of WP:RS policy). This shows how much and how prominent the bad sourcing is. There are a few minor bad sources as well, but they don't amount to much and don't need to affect the way we see the article as a whole:
 * Newsweek, "The Truth About Denial" This magazine's articles combine opinion, news reporting and analysis. I'm inclined to want to use newsmagazine pieces as reliable sources as long as we're careful with them, and, as RS says, even an opinion article may be reliable on some facts. However, this particular article is more problematic than most: It was sharply criticized not just as wrong but as biased and unreliable on the magazine's own pages by its columnist, Robert Samuelson, who said: We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. [...] NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. That is very severe, unusual criticism for a magazine to run on its own pages. We do mention that criticism prominently ("Overview" section), but we still rely on the Newsweek story for information, more than any other source (four times directly; two other footnotes that make up most of the "Effect of climate change denial" section rely on a sidebar from the same issue). Also unusual, The New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Jeff Jacoby which criticized the article. Sample quote: [W]hy is the tone of Sharon Begley's cover story - nine pages in which anyone skeptical of the claim that human activity is causing global warming is painted as a bought-and-paid-for lackey of the coal and oil industries - so strident and censorious? Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit?  By relying so strongly on the Newsweek coverage, Wikipedia implies that we endorse it, at least for its facts. When we say, the Newsweek report attributes American policymakers' failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to consistent undermining of science by the "denial machine" at the bottom of the article, introducing the prominent "kicker" quote (an important spot ) we're citing an unreliable, unusually highly criticized source on a key fact that the article seems designed to support. The first sentence of the "Public sector" section, critical of Frank Luntz, a BLP, relies on the Newsweek article, as does much of the second paragraph, which criticizes another BLP, Philip Cooney (roughly half of that small section relies on the Newsweek article).
 * George Monbiot, "an English writer, known for his environmental and political activism", according to our article on him, currently Footnote 3, cited four times (ever since Day 1 of the article ). The source is an excerpt from a book of his, which seems just as much an opinion piece as his column in The Guardian. In the "Overview" section, Monbiot is one of the most prominent sources, and in the "Connections to the tobacco lobby" section, three of the five paragraphs rely on this source (with the other two relying on an opinionated magazine piece). Take a look at the bottom paragraph of that section: George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." How can we trust that claim from a biased source? The type of sourcing we'd want for statements that put elements of the subject into perspective should be rock solid -- in this case, regular news articles. Monbiot's book would have had that information to make a partisan point, and we don't know how hard he was straining to make it. I don't know if there are news articles that could replace this or replace other sourcing.
 * Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair Hertsgaard is environmental correspondent for The Nation, a left-wing opinion magazine in the U.S., and what he's written for Vanity Fair is a combination of reporting and his own opinion. His article is used in the overlong and tangental "Tobacco" section, and the main purpose of it is to introduce negative information about Frederick Seitz. The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") It was a WP:BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Wikipedia, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. It is now merely an unreliable source to rely on for information.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC) added material -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Right-leaning newspaper columnists like Robert Samuelson and far-right newspaper columnists like Jeff Jacoby not liking something does not make it unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, to your modification and additon, just because Mark Hertsgaard is left of center does not make him unreliable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hertsgaard piece is full of opinion. As I say, we can use opinion pieces for facts, but it's problematic to use them so much -- and to use them exclusively in the "Tobacco" section. In my copy of the story, the entire section is in boldface, although some of it might be used. We rely almost exclusively on the left for opinion pieces here, but I don't think that getting more from the right is the answer -- getting news articles for sources would be the answer, but it's very problematical: we don't know if they really exist. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hertsgaard piece is a featured article in Vanity Fair, a publication with an undisputed record of fact-checking and accuracy. It is a reliable source for facts. It is not an op-ed. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've just added a bit to my comment, but it doesn't affect the part you replied to.) I agree that it isn't conclusive, but the fact that editors at Newsweek and The New York Times op-ed page would publish those very prominent critiques does matter. Their important objections are about professional journalism more than merely their opinion that the piece was wrong. Samuelson's criticism of the piece in his own magazine that it did not note the defense of the American Enterprise Institute is a journalistic flaw in that article that cuts to the core of its reliability as a whole. As I say, one reason not to rely on opinion pieces for so many of the facts in a WP story is that they can leave out important information. Samuelson found that, and it's a fact that we should, actually, use in the WP story for fairness (it would be even better to get a news source for that, as with anything). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Op-Ed pages publish opinions of people who are paid to have opinions. Those opinions are theirs alone - Op-Ed pages state that prominently. Not including a rebuttal of something does not invalidate Newsweeks record of fact checking and accuracy. That a right-wing editor at Newsweek didn't like a peice the magazine wrote is not a retraction, rather it's his opinion. With that, you can again have the last word, but you know the article's not getting deleted, so give it up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the piece. This is how it ends: But it could still be a livable, even hospitable, planet, if enough of us get smart in time. If we don't, three feet of water could be just the beginning. Mark Hertsgaard is the environmental correspondent for The Nation. Name of the article: "While Washington Slept" -- that title is about opinion, the kicker passage is about opinion. There is reporting in the article. We may want to use some of the facts from it, and it's certainly more fair than our own use of it is fair, but we don't want to rely on this kind of thing so much. Would you want the same for a "Global warming alarmism" article? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To respond further, it's unusual that a Newsweek cover story would get that kind of reaction from the magazine itself and from the Times. Why are we using an article that is itself controversial as the backbone of our story? The Newsweek piece was also opinion, and we don't know where exactly the opinion and argument-making ended and fair reporting began, since the piece as a whole was used to make a partisan point. If the same article had been done by a New York Times reporter, there wouldn't be this problem. We have examples of some very good reporting in the article, such as Cushman's great article in the "Private sector" section, but it isn't enough to hold together this article and it can be put in the main article on that subject (there's a link at the top of that section). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you know the article's not getting deleted, so give it up Either the closing admin will see this article violates WP:POVFORK, or a future AfD will, in which case it's good to have these problems on record, or they can be used to create a much shorter or much changed article. But the much-altered article will be made up of trivia: an old lawsuit that has been dismissed, an overview section saying "some opinion writers have said this" and some polling results that will either have to be updated constantly or (as they are now) be out-of-date or trivial history. The bits that are left will be in other articles already. These are the problems of a content fork. The only thing that holds it together is the opinion-piece meme. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Final comment (I hope): I'm sorry it took so long to post this long analysis at the tail end of the AfD. I'd have done it sooner, but to show that a lengthy article is a WP:POVFORK you really have to show that the problem sourcing is a huge amount of the whole, so that took a lot of reading and research and then a lot of writing to put together, and the copy in my user space, User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial, which really graphically shows how big the problem sourcing is, took time as well. I was also delayed by activity outside this AfD. I think this research shows that Wikipedia would be just fine without this article and with the small amount of good coverage transferred to other articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsweek, Wired, the Australian, the Guardian, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, Richard D. North in the Social Affairs Unit, the Washington Post, Harper's Magazine, Rolling Stone, the Daily Telegraph, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. For the nth time, even if you were right, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The subject of the article has been discussed in numerous major publications and by countless notable individuals, and that alone already makes it worthy of inclusion according to both WP:N and WP:FRINGE.  — Rankiri (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as I said earlier, even though the article has some minor issues with WP:NPOV, most of it is written in an acceptably neutral manner. From WP:CFORK: when an article gets too long—and Global warming controversy is already at 125kb—a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure . . . Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. — Rankiri (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But Business action on climate change is only 31K, and most of the worthwhile information could go there, so we have plenty of space in other, proper forks of Global Warming controversy that can properly handle this. Even the Washington Post piece you cite is an editorial from that newspaper (noting the effect of the recent scandals on denialist opinion -- something still not in the article). This article concentrates on business interests funding one side of the issue, when there are governmental and business interests and groups funding and politicking on the other side as well -- what you would expect in democracies. One of the few really good sources, Cushman, writing a news article in the New York Times, is misused by our article in a POV way: Cushman is writing about a proposal, not something in place, as we describe it for our own POV pushing purposes. The Newsweek piece is cited as reporting, giving it respect it does not deserve as a piece unusually criticized for its reporting. Where are the news accounts and similar reliable sources that could be used to back up the main points of this article? You haven't linked to any that I've seen. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.