Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 10

Why is this page still unmarked?

Someone needs to mark the ARTICLE itself with a warning that it is controversial.

That is, unless Wikipedia's goal is actually left-wing indoctrination rather than a global collaboration project.

There are three responsible options for this page:

1. Preferred: Delete this page and leave this is a section on the page regarding the climate debate at large.

2. Add a Global Warming Alarmism page that is just as biased, and link the two to one another.

3. Go through great pains to adjust this page to incorporate criticisms of both positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.106.234 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ponder that question long enough and you'll get the answer: Controversial articles are tagged because they are controversial. Ones that aren't controversial don't get tagged.72.78.154.17 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs section on Kivalina lawsuit

Is there a way for me to get permission to edit this article? I would like to add a section on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil et al.

The suit is discussed here (CNN), here (NYT), and in the June 2008 Atlantic Monthly. Thanks, Cyrusc (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection level to semi, so you should be able to edit it. But has there been any finding of facts with regards to denial yet? The general topic of Kivalina might be better off in Effects of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what you mean by "finding of facts"? What the section I propose would describe is a federal lawsuit brought against the energy lobby for alleged conspiracy to mislead the public about climate change.Cyrusc (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the "alleged". If the lawsuit had produced any (positive) finding of facts on the conspiracy issue, that would be a very strong addition. But the mere allegation is very weak. People allege the most absurd things in lawsuits all the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It will take months or years before a court ruling on the factual issue, and any ruling will be appealed, so waiting on it could keep this case out of the article.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Looking at the lawsuit, the chances the court is going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs is rather unlikely. The amount of information inserted in this article should be drastically reduced at this time. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility (or right) as editors to take sides in the law suit, or to predict legal outcomes, but to chronicle information relevant to the entry. How could a widely reported federal suit about climate change denial not be relevant to the Climate Change Denial entry? The result of the case should of course be included when it's available.Benzocane (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By including it so prominently, you violate WP:WEIGHT. That is my only point. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven lines of text is hardly over prominent.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is for a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

UBer, your gut feeling that these are "unsubstantiated accusations" is not relevant; what's relevant is the fact of the high profile case. Several sources for seven lines is clearly not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. If you have credible sources documenting the speciousness of the case, we could certainly include that vantage. Do you have such sources?Benzocane (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, like Dr. Schulz explained, accusations are meaningless. They happen all the time, and they aren't appropriate for encyclopedic endeavors. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)