Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming conspiracy theory (3rd 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   no consensus. At the very least, deletion is out. Whether or not a merge should occur is a editorial matter outside of AfD and can continue to be discussed locally on the appropriate talk pages. –MuZemike 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy theory
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

In theory, of course, one can have an article on conspiracy theories. However, what one can't have is a long, BLP-violating (specific people are named as part of the conspiracy theory, without attempt at balance) article that actively promotes a conspiracy theory.

The group of articles this is a part of is already extremely bloated, containing literally hundreds of articles. Much of this content is already available at Global warming controversy and Climate change denial, but told from a neutral view there, and from a promotional view here. As such, this is largely a WP:POVFORK, though one which may contain a small amount of content worth trying to save, however, it would need a fundamental reframing and reworking, and an elimination of the WP:BLP issues.

As well, the article does not deal with a single conspiracy theory, but simply serves to rehash a number of isolated attacks made against global warming.

As I said, there may be a small amount of salvageable content, but this article gives a number of non-notable one-off conspiracy theories WP:undue weight. Some of these may be notable enough to include as part of Climate change denial, and, to handle this, I'd suggest making the article into a fully protected redirect, instead of outright immediate deletion, in order to allow an attempt to salvage material by merger into a more appropriate place.

As such, allow me to begin with voting Delete and merge any salvageable content to Climate change denial. 86.** IP (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As a quick note: Unfortunately, due to the absolutely abyssmal editing environment of the entire set of Global warming articles, I do not believe it possible to do a merge without going through AfD; a number of editors are willing to engage in obstructionist behaviour, even with an AfD and DRV-mandated merge, it would be impossible to move forwards without a mandate. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. While my view is slightly more nuanced than a simple delete, given the experience at that article, this seems the best process.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV fork, not worth saving. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POV fork of what content? Please read WP:POV fork, and then specify where the fork came from, and what content we have that is duplicated with another POV. The assertions of 86.** doesn't hold water, since none of his articles have the same or similar content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You've never actually read WP:POVFORK, have you? It doesn't have to "come from" anywhere: "In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) [emphasis added] is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." There is no requirement that they fit the criteria you propose. 86.** IP (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, i have read POV fork, several times. In a nutshell: To be a POV fork, 2 things have to have happened: A) Similar content must exist (with another POV). B) Article must be written deliberately as POV (ie. in WP:BADFAITH). When claiming POV-forking, you are casting aspersions at the editors who created the article, and the ones who are editing at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It explicitly does not: "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article." That directly contradicts everything you just said. 86.** IP (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do please read the 2nd paragraph of WP:POV fork, since you seem to fail to acknowledge it. Content forks happen all the time, but stating that it is a POV fork is an assumption of bad faith. Which POV does the article hold? (this is a question that you do not address) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Bad faith nomination. 86.** has done no editing, no discussion, or any attempts of improving the article in question. He asserts that it is a WP:POV fork, but when examined, the content that he is referring to is not similar. When stating that the article is a BLP violation, he doesn't give examples, but instead asserts that because people are named, it must be a violation, no matter whether references support the namings. In fact it seems as if 86.**'s nominations is purely based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally the hatted part is simply unacceptable, it ignores WP:AGF and casts aspersions at his fellow editors. It is not a particularly good article, it could do with a lot of improvement, which hopefully will ensue from this nomination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it worth responding to blatant personal attacks. 86.** IP (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I agree with Kim.  Please invert your ratio
 * Time-and-text spent drafting improved text
 * Time-and-text spent complaining and arguing.
 * You seem to want readers to reject climate change denialism. I suggest the solution to bad information is good information, provided when editors like you actually write better article text.  Trying to convince the rest of us to pretend the bad information does not exist in the first place is futile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I forgot the context... in the climate articles I watch, unless I missed it, which is possible, you have only proposed draft ALTERNATIVE text once. The preferred solution is usually not just deleting controversial stuff, but revising it in a neutral manner.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's around a hundred global waerming articlesþ. At least 75% of those are mediocre to awful. First, we need to et rid of the worst, so that resources can be put into improving the more salvagable. 86.** IP (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can be convinced that recreational argument is not your primary goal only by your significant editorial efforts to improve whichever "awful" climate article you think is "most salvageable". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please! This is very unhelpful. I have also been doing a trawl through global warming related articles, and I also find that there are many that need attention. We need to get the Climate Change Taskforce working on this. It's an area where Wikipedia's quality is going to be scrutinised by the general public, so we need to get focused. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I spent a huge amount of time in the last week doing a merge, and adapting and fixing up content. I then got pages of attacks because I supposedly didn't discuss enough before doing a relatively simple merge. You can't winm, because if you discuss, you're told to edit, but if you edit, you get attacked. 86.** IP (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you've spent time trying to shoehorn climate change alarmism into media coverage of climate change which is a totally unsuitable place for it and expect people to be thankful to you for that? There's a word for that except I think you actually believe you are improving the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I spent a huge amount of time in the last week doing a merge, and adapting and fixing up content. I then got pages of attacks because I supposedly didn't discuss enough before doing a relatively simple merge. You can't winm, because if you discuss, you're told to edit, but if you edit, you get attacked. 86.** IP (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you've spent time trying to shoehorn climate change alarmism into media coverage of climate change which is a totally unsuitable place for it and expect people to be thankful to you for that? There's a word for that except I think you actually believe you are improving the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge- Last I checked, "delete and merge" was still not a legally allowable choice. I've no problem with a merge to the appropriate article.Umbralcorax (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason? And what article would that be to please? Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Global Warming seems like an obvious choice. If there's a sub-article where it might be more appropriate, then it can go there instead. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Encyclopedia of Global Warming has significant coverage of conspiracy theories by that title which demonstrates the notability and encyclopedic nature of the topic.  Once again 86.** IP's nomination seems overbold, contrary to deletion policy and Arbcom guidance.  This editor seems to be an account of a former editor of this topic area and this seems improper for a topic area which is plagued by sockpuppets.  Warden (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fairly clearly an encyclopedic presentation of an encyclopedic topic. Plenty of sources showing. Not a POV fork, to my eye. The POV Warriors need to learn how to discuss and agree upon neutral presentation — blowing this up at AfD isn't the answer. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Amen. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Userfy. Bad POV problems not a sufficient reason for deletion.  Merge discussion can be held separately re Climate change denial, and at a later time. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Global warming controversy. There isn't one single conspiracy theory, but a number of distinct allegations, the most notable appearing not in a non-fiction book but in a novel. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a textbook POV fork. There is nothing new here, and it certainly doesn't warrant an article, especially since the article seems to exist to promote an absurd fringe view. eldamorie (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this isn't a fork of global warming controversy which is principally about scientific objections about it and any mitigation. It isn't a fork of climate change denial either unless you can show most people do this for money rather than just being conspiracy theorists. Could people please try and distinguish between describing a notable if strange views in a neutral manner and actual POV of editors where they try making sure only their point of view is reported in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge what is salvageable to global warming controversy, per Judith. Inherently pejorative title covering content that's better handled elsewhere and will inevitably be a POV fork.  Realistically, "conspiracy theory" should be a short section in the "controversy" page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say Climate change denial as the target; that's the one that covers the media campaigns and similar attempts to distort perceptions. 86.** IP (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Denial is no more than loosely connected to conspiracy-theory. The first is ignoring what is being said, then second is acknowledging what is being said but stating that it is a conspiracy/ulterior motives that makes "them" say so. Both are disconnected to scepticism as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Denial is the specific statement that X doesn't exist. Conspiracy is an explanation for the existence of the alleged X. Denialists use conspiracy theories to explain away the reasoning and existence of arguments against denialism.  Ergo, I see it as a good place for the information worth keeping to go, in terms of "X deny that climate change exists, explaining the existence of the IPCC and their results as a conspiracy theory.  Y agency and Z expert points out how this is not the case."  I see it as a nice way of mentioning and contextualizing things while still giving due weight to the experts.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Denial on its own does mean that but in the context of climate change and in scholarly work it normally refers to something a bit more specific as described in the first sentence there 'Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons'. It is perfectly possible for such a denier to believe global warming is happening due to human action. Putting this stuff there would be saying that the conspiracy theories are made up by people for commercial or ideological reasons rather than that they actually believe there is a conspiracy. Is there any indication that the majority of these people are just making up these theories for such reasons and do not necessarily believe them? Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"CLOSE and refer to merge process as supplmented by any needed dipsute resolution processes Reason, 86's original proposal is a merge, and 86 admits this is packaged as an AFD to short-circuit the collaborative techniques for merging-by-consensus, e.g. WP:MERGE and WP:DISPUTE.  That was [86s own statement, but I will go further to characterize the statement as soundly a lot like contempt for his fellow editors.  On option, I suppose, is to just let the AFD run given all the editor input.  However, in my view, this is an important teachable moment about wiki consensus and respect for each other in a collaborative environment.  Allowing the misguided AFD to result in a decision would be to reward the contempt that led us here instead of to merge & dispute resolution, and to invite a repeat AFD.  Please do not let AFD be co-opted in this manner.  People need to be compelled to use the  [[WP:DISPUTE]] procedures.  What follows was my vote before I clearly understood that the AFD packaging was designed to get a holy mandate and just skip over the usual merge-with-dispute-resolution process everyone else is expected to use.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * * Keep Google returns over 640,000 hits on "global warming conspiracy".  Therefore, I do not see how this article's title is pejorative and it covers a concept very much in the public eye.  Honest scientists questioning the science are skeptics.  People who for whatever reason ignore or simply reject the science out of hand are in denial.  What we have here is an article that goes beyond that.  The statements covered by this article go to outright malfeasance... professional or legal misconduct, conducted by nearly the entire global scientific community.  If we assume those nerds really do want to score massive grants and advancement as their detractors claim, then their holy grail is to produce data and analysis that turns the global paradigm on its head.  No one has managed to do that and if they were able to do so, tenure and funding are assured and they may be looking at a Nobel prize.   Unless, of course, the entire scientific and academic community worldwide is in on the conspiracy (making one wonder what sort of dirty money can buy that loyalty) or else the allegations of conspiracy really are just an unproven theory.  Yet Google has over 600,000 hits on the specific phrase "global warming conspiracy".  So of course the article belongs here, and requires accurate NPOV reporting.  If anyone does not like the presentation of the topic, they are free to suggest ways to betterify it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:GHITS. Your claims aren't really relevant to a deletion debate as they appear to be your personal beliefs about climate change (specifically that the existence of climate change is a conspiracy rather than a reality).  Wikipedia is not a forum to engage in debate.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect NewsAndEventsGuy may be being sarcastic, though I'm not really sure what his point is, if so. If he'd clarify a bit? 86.** IP (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I have the subtlety of an unusually unsubtle brick.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If ya'll think I am a denialist it says volumes about your attention to sources (ROTF). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you were, but wasn't sure what your argument to keep is, behind the sarcasm, so... 86.** IP (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The meaning is prima facie. There was no intended innuendo, sarcasm, or hidden meaning. Just read the text in B&W please.  And if it is still unclear read it again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)


 * Keep As Kim said: Bad faith nomination (etc.) 86** seems to be on a crusade to delete climate change articles, repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), accuses others of bad faith, and has been shown to be prone to misinterpretation and misstatement. He lacks credibility, his charges are tiresome and should be dismissed out of hand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly think this accusation holds water when other people have said it should be deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to say that I am on a crusade to delete (more precisely, to merge) climate change articles (more precisely, articles about the controversy). There are too many of them, which makes it difficult to maintain quality. I think exactly the same about history of Israel-Palestine conflict, transhumanism, astrology, and many other areas where I wade in. I don't think "bad faith nomination" is a convincing argument to keep an article. We will make more progress if we assume good faith all around. Series of articles arise rather haphazardly. An article gets too long and someone starts another and then perhaps the two overlap, and then another gets created. Sometimes a cull is productive. Fewer articles, more concise, more focused.... more informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you can point to where it should be merged that would help. Or perhaps you would like to do something 'useful' like helping 86.** IP 'merge' climate change alarmism into Media coverage of climate change? Or are you just glad to remove anything which doesn't say the mainstream position every second sentence and don't really care if it is notable and not a fork? Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said above where I thought it should be merged, but I'm open to argument. See on FTN that I have gone through the whole category and posted my comments on each article - this is an attempt to get more eyes on the series of articles and get them neat and logical, so we no longer have these "fork of what", "merge to where" diversions. And I am currently doing a full systematic literature search of the journals on all the climate change denial/scepticism discussion. It is taking a while as you might expect but in the end I will show that there is a substantial body of political science and sociology to inform these articles. You can do some searching yourself if you want. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So saying merge to what is a diversion? Great. That's really constructive. You said you wanted a merge. Shouldn't you be fairly clear about where you'd merge to and what the result would basically look like? I'd have thought you could at least look at the articles you talk about if you're going to spend all this effort yourself on looking through the literature, and by the way the citations could save you some trouble. Dmcq (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said, I already said where to merge. And I said I posted to FTN the result of having gone through the whole category of articles. There are too many articles about the global warming debate. We are not fulfilling our remit of informing readers. What citations could save me some trouble? Oh, perhaps you mean I should start by looking at the works already cited in our articles? No, because our articles are out of date. Instead I searched in ISI and found dozens of articles from 2010 and 2011. For example: Whitmarsh, L., "Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time" GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS Volume: 21   Issue: 2   Pages: 690-700   DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016. MAY 2011. That sort of thing. Any good? Are you actually interested in this encyclopedia providing reliable information about the future of the planet? Or do you have some quite different, unacknowledged agenda? I am really starting to wonder. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious Judith, at to why you would select that article to reference, since doesn't make any mentioning of conspiracy (or even come close to the topic at hand? It is basically an examination of public opinion in Britain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

{od} I agree the climate articles could be improved. In particular, the excellent content in the article titled "global warming controversy" is only a small slice of full scope suggested by that title. IMO, many of the problems being debated here could be at least partially cleared up by retitling the current content of that article, and then reusing that title (global warming controversy) as some sort of navigation or disambig page for the many other topics that could be called "global warming controversy". For example, see this way. I am not pursuing it at present so if anyone else wants to bring it back from the archives, please do.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that article does cover what the scientists and most of the public see as the controversy plus quite a bit of the darker side as it were. Most of its content is devoted to the stuff actual real skeptics have put forward and it has references to subtopics on most of what it covers. It might be possible to get more of a disambiguation page and split that article up a bit. I fail to see how that helps here where you have a load of these fringe theory noticeboard people come along with a mission to expunge all non scientific thought. They seem to think that everything plus the kitchen sink ought to be put into the current global warming controversy article, or really in my opinion they just don't care where it goes provided the article disappear even though it is easily shown to be a notable topic. It can't go in the current article and if you had a disambiguation you'd need an article like the current one to contain it and the main content of global warming controversy would be in another article. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge due to WP:N. This is such an absurd and obscure conspiracy theory that it does not warrant separate coverage at this length. For example, how many people on Earth really believe that all the organisations and individuals listed really have met together and conspired to make up all this peer-reviewed science and other evidence? (The United Nations (The whole of the UN??), The Bilderberg Group, The Club of Rome, Green Cross International, Al Gore, Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong, George Soros and Mikhail Gorbachev!) This is absurd, and unworthy of such serious coverage in a serious encyclopedia. It fails WP:N via the "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject" clauses, as well as lack of serious secondary sources generally. --Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was an AWESOME characterization of the absurdity of the conspiracy theory. But fact remains there is still a lot of hollering about it.  If we were to cover it properly, it would be readily apparent how absurd it is.  If we do not cover it at all, then the hollering will still be there but without good wiki NPOV coverage.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Leiserow(2005) roughly 7% of the American public (~12 mio.) are "nay-sayers", amongst these there are 5 major categories 1. its natural 2. its hyped, 3.theres no proof, 4. denial, and 5. conspiracy theorists. Although Leiserow doesn't specify the respective sizes of the categories - #5 is large enough to make a distinct grouping. So, there are are significant number of such conspiracy theorists in the US at least. (my guess >1mio. but that is pure guessing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Hi, George? Mikhail here. Can you get onto the UN and get them to produce some more extreme weather events in Europe? There are some people in Arkansas starting to doubt Global Warming again." "Yeah, OK. Jacques was trying to get The Club of Rome to publish some new graphs. Are any of those guys still working for us?" I mean, where is the serious coverage that anyone actually thinks this is going on? It's an article about a fantasy, built on top of a dream, that didn't happen in a delusion, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge So many poor articles. So little time. :) The melange of global warming/climate change ... theories/conspiracy theories articles is a haven per se for fights on Wikipedia. It is past time to winnow the topics to the main areas, and devil take the hindmost. While the main areas are abslutely notable, this does not mean each potential sub-topic is equally notable. Collect (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So many people from the fringe theory noticeboard just jumping in to back each other up. Read Fringe_theories/Noticeboard and figure out if you think they have actually read even the first sentences from the articles. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pray tell how you associate me with that noticeboard?  I suspect your answer should be quite illuminating, indeed.  Collect (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From that you were on that noticeboard a few weeks ago when the stuff about that other climate change article came up. That 'FRINGE' seems to come up a lot in your list of contributions. That you turned up at that deletion debate when you don't seem to frequent deletion debates or climate change articles. That you then subsequently turned up at this one. That you just say 'merge' like the others without having any indication you have checked what they say about the target. I hope that is illuminating. <+g> ROFL etc Dmcq (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFL! Care to tell the editors here how many of my 20K edits are on "fringe" topics? You make an allegation - kindly back it up.    Yes - I do appear on many hundreds of MfD dscussions - and my inclusionist beliefs for userspace are known, and if you consider that "fringe" - so be it.   And since I read the article, and saw how poorly written it is, my !vote is fully as well-informed as anyone's.  Now will you either show the others here how many "fringe" edits I have made? Or admit you are "pushing the envelope" a bit?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you saw how poorly written it is - and vote to merge? With what? And why? 'So many poor articles. So little time. :)' I see that's amusing to you too but I have not heard poorly written as a reason to delete notable articles before nor that there were lots of other articles unless they were shown to be forks of the same subject. I gave my reasons like you asked. ROFL is not an answer. So how exactly did you end up here then if not through that route? Don't you think climate change has enough people with a mission trying to delete or angle things without having a bunch of people who don't seem to have even read the target article saying merge to it? Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha - so your accusations of me frequenting FRINGE are abandoned without even any sort of apology? ROFL!  If one sees a really poor article in an area which has hundreds of articles, then Merge is an absolutely proper position to take.   I am here, if anything, because I have well over two thousand entries on my Watch list.  Did you understand that a person with well over two thousand watch list entries is seeing a great many conversations implicit therein?   BTW, I have now read several dozen of the "climate change" articles (including the one you seem to think I did not reead), and I would likely !vote to "merge"  a substantial number thereof. Collect (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you to say where you came to it from of those 2000 watch list entries if you didn't come that way. That should be a very easy question for you to answer. Did you just read Itsmejudith's flawed summary of articles at the fringe noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? My User page lists several  hundred BLPs I follow. I follow TfD, MfD, DRV, AfD, CfD and a few other boards including RS/N, AN, AN/I, BLP/N, NPOV/N and over a dozen others, on the order of a hundred editor talk pages,  all the ArbCom pages, every page in recent memory on which I edited or posted on the article talk page, etc.   In point of fact, it is quite likely that this article etc. are noted on a dozen or so of the pages I follow - to which the answer is "so what?" - it is clear that your allegation about me editing FRINGE articles was absolutely meritless, and that should be quite enough.  Collect (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well no point in persisting I suppose. Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect part of the cabal now. ROTFL. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about fixing your stuff at that noticeboard where for instance you talk about moving the science bit of Global warming controversy to Scientific opinion of climate change? After all you said above you want to be be rid of these "fork of what", "merge to where" diversions. Or do you really think scientific opinion is about results in science papers? Maybe looking at Scientific evidence would help - that describes what is in global warming and a lot of global warming controversy. Or how about your remark "probably not a good idea to have an article on one extreme position in a debate" about climate change denial? So exactly how are you going to balance that? Do your thing of 'merge to global warming controversy' again? And on that point have you looked yet at helping 86.** IP with his merge of merging climate change alarmism into media coverage of climate change since it doesn't look like it fits into global warming controversy? Or is ROTFL the extent of your useful dialogue and you can't be bothered to deal with actual problems? Dmcq (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only today I can't be bothered to do anything much at all. Next I am going to go through and make some bold but entirely justifed edits to a number of climate change debate articles. Probably tomorrow. Then watch me do the same in the astrology walled garden, the transhumanism walled garden (including ensuring that the white-supremacist eugenicist dimension is exposed), the evolutionary psychology walled garden, some other fringe walled gardens, and history of Nazism where the eugenics connection is not yet clear. Possibly also some bold stuff on some stalled Israel-Palestine articles, where Collect and I might not be so closely aligned as here, but we will see. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to put effort elsewhere. I'm asking you to fix your own stuff that you said you were putting some effort into which was to get an overall view of the climate change articles with a view to figuring out some structure. You seem to have some fairly basic misunderstanding like I was instancing above. Just because you want to be rid of fork of what", "merge to where" diversions does not mean the problems have disappeared. And yes Collect's essay Editorially involved might be helpful to you. Dmcq (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't agree with Collect's essay. Do agree with noticeboards. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you'd disagree with Collect's False_consensus as well then. Oh sorry that is just reporting unanimously supported ArbCom decisions not his thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Group of editors", you want to apply that to noticeboard regulars? Together with noticeboard occasional contributors? And generally anyone who questions your assumptions? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK is what I think. If they don't look like ducks or swim like ducks or quack like ducks then they're not ducks as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, so I look like a competent, good faith, experienced, science-friendly, policy-minded editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can but hope you have some better idea of what the global warming controversy and scientific opinion on climate change articles are about after your pottering with them. Perhaps you can revise your merge target? Dmcq (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I see that User:Northamerica1000 has cleaned up Portal:Global warming nicely and it refers to WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force which would have been a good place for prior discussion of the numerous articles and how they should be arranged rather than the IDONTLIKE business of 'It is past time to winnow the topics to the main areas, and devil take the hindmost' about a notable topic. I believe that task force should be made into a project and with the portal now being referenced on most pages that perhaps that would encourage new editors coming to the area to be a bit more constructive. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * His/her approach is laudable. I completely agree about the project as a way to make good progress.Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * strong keep regardless of the accuracy of the conspiracy, it is incontrovertible that some people do believe it exists, and that such belief has received widespread coverage.

Comment The first few notes following were moved here from the top. I had placed the first after the proposers 'as a quick note' but that was within a 'hide' which has been removed. I've moved my reply here to try and stop the edit warring. Dmcq (talk)


 * Well after that perhaps I should point to Fringe_theories/Noticeboard where a bunch of people as far as I can see think the mission of Wikipedia is to present the TRUTH and eliminate all erroneous ideas. I have presented my impression of their mission there. Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to closer: Remember that the arguments need to be judged on merit, and that conspiracy theories, gross personal attacks, and the like, do not count as arguments to keep. 86.** IP (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to closer: Let's not have another debacle like occurred at the Climate change alarmism AfD (see DRV), where the closer misinterpreted a near even split of opinion as consensus, and then declared a minority view ("merge") to be the consensus. We have a nearly identical situation here. As of 15:24 today I see the tally as:


 * 1) Keep Carrite (talk) 02:18, 12 Dec.
 * 2) Keep Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 13 Dec.
 * 3) Keep J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 Dec.
 * 4) Keep Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 11 Dec.
 * 5) Keep Legis (talk - contribs) 09:00, 12 Dec.
 * 6) Keep NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 13 Dec.
 * 7) Keep Warden (talk) 22:21, 11 Dec.


 * 1) Merge Collect (talk) 20:43, 14 Dec.
 * 2) Merge Nigelj (talk) 18:50, 14 Dec.
 * 3) Merge to GWC  Itsmejudith (talk) 11:39, 12 Dec.
 * 4) Merge Umbralcorax (talk) 21:57, 11 Dec.


 * 1) Delete and merge ... to GWC WLU 17:31, 13 Dec.
 * 2) Delete Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 11 Dec.
 * 3) Delete eldamorie (talk) 15:25, 12 Dec.

That's 7 "keep", 4 "merge", 3 "delete" (and/or merge); "keep" has a plurality. Or if the nearly even split is "no consensus", fine. (Note that the WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators does say: "When in doubt, don't delete"; emphasis in the original). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the tally I count an additional 4 "keeps" and 1 "merge". "Keep" now has a majority, for what all that is worth.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And accusations of bad faith, which half those keeps are, count as 0. This is strength of argument, not "troll the nominator." 86.** IP (talk)
 * And who are you to arbitrarily decide that bad faith on the part of the nominator is not a valid reason for rejecting this campaign of incessant AfDs, ANI complaints, etc., etc. As to a campaign: I took a brief look at your last fifty contributions (two days worth), and it's all AfD, ANI, and such stuff.  Do you ever do an productive editing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to 86**: you should also note that alleging "conspiracy theories [a "cabal"], gross personal attacks [harassment, etc.], and the like" do not count as counter-arguments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's look at your actual vote: "As Kim said: Bad faith nomination (etc.) 86** seems to be on a crusade to delete climate change articles, repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), accuses others of bad faith, and has been shown to be prone to misinterpretation and misstatement. He lacks credibility, his charges are tiresome and should be dismissed out of hand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)" You haven't a leg to stand on. You've explicitly accused me of bad faith, without making any arguments why this article should be kept, just attacks. If you dion't think that's a gross personal attack...  86.** IP (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to the various cabals' May I also point it was 86.** IP who started off the cabal business as far as I was concerned by accusing me of being part of a cabal in an AN/I they raised against me:
 * More can be seen on the talk page of the article and at the DRV, but it's clear that a small cabal of editors are determined to use any tactics to prevent any action being taken. ... 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So may I say pot kettle black Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 86**, did you even read what you quoted from me? E.g.: repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), of which this AfD is yet another instance. I also charge you with repeated misstatement and misintepretation, which has been documented elsewhere, but  here for now I'll let your quotation of my arguments demonstrate your misstatement that I didn't present any arguments.  (Note that Kim also present related arguments.)  But having cited those arguments, you then accuse me of "gross personal attack".  This is grotesque. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW (and I almost hate to ask), but is this "cabal" just me and Dmcq? Or everyone that voted "keep"? Is it sufficient to merely not acquiesce with you in some matter to qualify for membership, or must there be some tedious matter of a secret communication? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Shouldn't even be in AfD. It has been kept twice and not by slim margins. The last keep was only 3-4 months ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs improvement, but an encyclopedic subject, and does not appear to be a POV fork. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. One could make a good argument to merge this subtopic into climate change denial, but nobody has. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE - Just so everyone knows, this is also being "discussed" at ANI. Unfortunately, since this link has a problem in some browsers, you may need to search the ANI page for Global_warming_conspiracy_theory to find the discussion. Q Science (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Global warming controversy. At the moment, there are (at least) three articles on the same topic controversy, denial and conspiracy theories (this one). I know that there are differences between these three terms but they are too subtle to warrant separate articles. Move everthing into the controversy article. Use that as a main article that gives a breif introduction to this whole thing, then link to specific events/people where readers can find more detailed information (such as the Climatic Research Unit email controversy ). See Holocaust denial (Holocaust controversy redirects there) and 9/11 conspiracy theories (9/11 controversy redirects there) for examples.Zlqchn (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They cover different things. The controversy article is mainly about the scientific or otherwise reasoned controversy, what a scientist means by skeptics. The denial is about funded or ideological deliberate befuddlement of the issues with no regard to the science. The conspiracy one is your usual conspiracy theories one, nowhere as widespread as the 9 11 or JFK assassination ones but getting into the ufo conspiracy realm of notability and way beyond for instance the water fluoridization conspiracy one. That hardly seems a subtle distinction to me. There's also one you haven't mentioned environmental skepticism which covers what is normally meant by 'in denial'. Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER When anyone says "Delete and MERGE-TO", does that require a MERGE-FROM tag on the destination article? The proposing editor of this AFD (86.**IP) recently did another regarding Climate change alarmism. In both, 86 asked to delete one article and merge "any salvageable content" to another article. HOWEVER, 86 does not tag the destination articles. In the Climate change alarmism AFD the destination article he proposed was one that I watch, Global warming controversy. However, since 86 did not tag it, I had no idea there was a discussion I wanted to participate in happening at AFD until it was over. I suppose there might be something in the histories that had the potential to clue me in if I had noticed and interpreted correctly, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a procedure for tagging MERGE-FROM and MERGE-TO articles so no one is left in the dark like I was. Ordinarily I would just help out by placing the forgotten tag on the destination article, but in this instance, 86s words and deeds suggest an intent to do many more of these AFDs in the future. For that reason, if ALL articles mentioned in the proposal need to be tagged to ensure all interested editors have fair warning, I think it might help to leave that up to the proposing editor, and to NOT CLOSE this discussion until that happens and any clock or whatever is used to decide on closing has been re-set to zero. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it was essentially just shoved into Media coverage of climate change and chunks thrown away because climate change controversy was unsuitable as a target and, well I don't know the reasoning and it seems silly to me. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I also point out WP:MERGE to people who do merges of big chunks from one place to another. See the bit in bold This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * D, please try harder to help us keep focus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER - SUPPLEMENTAL Who knew? If I read it correctly, AFD is the improper venu for the current proposal because the proposing editor wishes to merge "any salvagable content" to another article, and WP:AFDHOWTO says "Use Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers." And of course, Proposed mergers discusses the issue of tagging all the articles that are involved. So now I think the closing admin should consider closing without comment on the merits and referring instead to the merge process as set forth at wiki/Help:Merging, and after "any salvagable content" has been merged over, presumably what is left will be crap and therefore ripe for a simple delete proposal at AFD. IMO, such a process would be a far superior means of collaborative consensus editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We can use common sense. This venue isn't a bad choice since it tends to attract a lot of attention, a merge might attract more (because you have to tag multiple pages) or less (because those tags tend to sit at the tops of pages like rotting woodchucks for years without a consensus being generated).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a bad choice. It would be an abuse of process, not to mention a waste of editors time, to use AfD as a merge/improvement discussion - please see WP:DEL, specifically WP:DEL and WP:DEL. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Also note that "delete" and "merge" are distinctly different options, even ambiguous. And sentiment for or against a "merge" can reasonably depend on the proposed target.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Badly needed for a long time. The fact that this horribly POV-pushing original-research monstrosity is still around shows that when you leave something up to a vote that it doesn't matter how clearly against policy something is as long as there are a dedicate group of people willing to show up to support it. Since this doesn't look like it's going to go anywhere thanks to people who not only do not understand policy but toss out reckless accusations of bad faith, this is going to need to get escalated to ArbCom or some other process, unless there's an admin who is willing to follow policy and count the votes based upon which ones cite policy and which ones do not. Frankly, what we need is to get someone to realize that WP:FRINGE allows admins to liberally apply blocks against people pushing fringe beliefs. DreamGuy (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the "keep" votes actually support the beliefs presented in the article? If so then you are about as far from reality as you can possibly be. (basically your !vote is based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, instead of policy...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the POV pushing global warming conspiracy cabal. It's here becaue it is notable, like UFO conspiracies are notable. And it isn't OR, it is well cited. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What we really don't need is this constant pushing of AfDs (and ANIs) based on broad complaints lacking any particular bases, by an editor repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in his facts and tending towards disruptive behavior. Possibly some editors also need to understand that describing a fringe theory need not be advocay of it. As to counting votes, the main purpose of that is to show a substantial division of opinion, which is to say, no consensus. As this discussion has run the fabled seven days ("actually, a bit longer"), is it not time to close it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2011 (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.