Talk:State of Fear

Reorganizing for Clarity

Can everyone please use real arguements instead stuff like "that is not in what I read". Also please note unlike non-fiction the author needs to make the thesis in a non-fiction book clear but need not overtly state it if doing so doesn't fit into the plot easyly; for example Orwell never once says directly that 1984 is a "cautionary tale about big government" but it would be very hard to find anyone who doesn't agree that is the thesis. MC actually has found ways to put his thesis directly in the narrative as the below quotes show (as well numerious external sources that are beyond question reflect the author's goals [his speechs, interviews, testimony, etc. before *AND* after the publication of the book). In sort the evidence is overwelming that this is not OR, so much so the burden of proof is on the people claiming it is not those who use it.

Since the above has become rather confused I am reorganizing (and continuing) the above issues here:

Linkage between title and plot summary wording:

Here are some direct quotes (from the narrative portion of the book) from the text that should resolve the issue completely:

"I study the ecology of thought", said Hoffman, "And how it has led to a State of Fear". (p. 495) [all captilization and punctionation in the orginal]

"I am leading to the notion of social control" [Hoffoman to Evens] (p. 501)

"How has this world view been instilled in everybody? Because although we imagine we live in different nations -- France, Germany, Japan, and the US -- in fact, we inhabit exactly the same state, the State of Fear. How has this happened?" (hoffman)

Evens said nothing. He knew it wasn't necessary.

"Well, I shall tell you how", he (Hoffman) said. "In the old days -- before your time, Peter -- citzens of the West belived their nation-states were dominated by something called the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned Americans against it in the 1960s, and after two world wars Europeans knew very well what it meant in their own countries. But the miltary-industrial complex is no longer the primary driver of society. In reality, for the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the poltical-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to prompting fear in the population -- under the guise of promoting safety". (p. 501)

Hoffman then continues to explain how the "modern" (not the 60's and 70's kind) enviromental movement has been co-opted by the PLM to be just an other source of fear.

Thesis points:

points 2 and 3 need no more then the above monologue

Lack of evidence for GW (since no one has denied Kenner being the same as MC.... Kenner never overtly disagrees with GW but gives plenty of evidence to call every major claim in doubt here are a few examples [selected almost at random]):

"The data shows no rise in South Pacfic sea levels for the last thrity years" (p. 204)

"The atmpospher is a bigger mystery then anyone cares to admit. Simple example: No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more, or fewer, clouds." (p. 209)

(refering to a diagram in the text that shows a marked temp. decrease) "It's the record from the weather station at Punta Arenas, near hear. It is the closest city to Antartica in the world". He (Sanjong) tapped the chart and laughed. "There is your global warming". (p. 211)

Conflict of Interest (since I am kind of rushed right now I will add more if needed):

Per Einersson was shaking with anger. He raised his fists. "I tell you, no!" he yelled, and punded the table.

Standing opposite hime, Drake was very red in the face, clenching his teeth. "Per", he said, "I am asking you to consider the realities."

"You are not" Einsersson said, pounding the table agai. "The relaity is ehat yoou do not want me to publish". (p. 47)

The dialog goes one for a few more pages where it is clear the researcher (Pers) is refusing to publish fiction against his fundings will (NERF)

Lack of sci. method:

"There is so much to do! Fo example: Nobody knows how to manage wilderness. We would set aside a wide variety of wilderness tracts and run them under different management schemes. Then we'd ask outside teams to assess how we are doing, and modify the strategies. And then do it again. A true iterative process, externally,accessed...." (p. 620 [Morton])

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but what we read is what we write (in Wikipedia)... unless ... Secondary sources say that this is the/an interpretation and the thing that its about. Otherwise we're engaging in original research. Thats the whole trouble here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please make up your minds either you want proof from the text or from third party sources (you have been given 100% authenticable proof of both).... I think to any objective observer of the debate the evidence is beyond doubt it is not OR... if you insist on this path I think the next step of the process is clear and neither of us want that I think --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You have?I missed it. Please point out your 3rd party source for "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has been provided in the article... here are sources that are directly referenced in the article or indirectly by ones that are:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110263812346896330.html?mod=arts%255Fand%255Freviews%255Farts%255Fonly%255Fhs

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,955669,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2004-12-13-crichton_x.htm

I think three is sufficient especially since they are the first non-deadlink or the equiv off a compilation of all major American reviews at http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/crichtonmichael/stateoffear (which is referenced in the article).

I looked at the first. It didn't say "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people". You seem to be asserting it does, so you're wrong. Please be clear: to avoid OR, you need a source saying the 5 central points are; just finding those 5 points within the books; or finding ext sources that between them refer to those 5 points amongst others, is not good enough William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is as insane as telling someone who says the bible is a book of morals and ethics is incorrect because it is never directed stated in the book or it's "author(s)".... out the 6 speeches MC has given relating to SoF 5 of been on the exact topics above and the 6th was on critical thinking skills.

Specifically here is a speech by speech summary of the points (this is based on the official summary on MC's site):

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-mediasaurus.html (given 15 years ago but still completely valid today and on the topic of SoF).... topic: media elites and their effect on the truth

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-scienceviewsmedia.html (1999)... same topic as above

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-whyspeculate.html (2002)... same topic as above

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html (2003)... Politics doesn't mix with science (points 4&5) and critical thinking

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html (2003)... Points 1, 4 and 5 (Lack of concern for actual facts in modern enviromentalism movement)

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-sciencepolicy.html (2005).... Same topics as above

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html (2005)... Directly deals with points 1, 4 and 5 from policy point of view

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-senatetestimony.html (2005) [Congressional Testimony]... Same topics above

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html (2006)... Lack of appropriate use of the scientific method in wilderness (mis)management —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You will need to show 3 things I think to showo it is OR:

* A generally accepted theoryh of literary criticism that says for a "message" book such SoF, 1984, etc. that the thesis must be stated in the same way a non-fiction book would

* A generally accepted standard that says that author provided statements of intent are not valid (either in the text or before/after the publication)

* If none of the above provide proof equivelent to or above the quality I *AND* others have that this was not the author's thesis and/or source the title

The AAPG stuff is handled seperatly since it has nothing to do with MC or SoF directly --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not delved enough into SoF or MC's thought to have a precise opinion on what he does or does not intend to say, but I agree with Connolley on the fact that inferring the "thesis" of a fiction book from the book itself is OR. To make a voluntarily far-fetched example, if we considered a novel whose main character is an homicide or a raper who enjoys what he does, and the facts in the novel were presented by his viewpoint, we might techincally assert that the "thesis" is "murder is enjoyable". Or - you might say - of course we must take it backwards! the thesis would of course be "murder is horrible"; or perhaps just "somebody actually finds murder enjoyable"; or "somebody believes that somebody finds murder enjoyable" or who knows what else. Or let's take 1984 itself. It would be OR if we just read it, ignored third-party commentaries, and inferred it to be a "cautionary tale about big government". Why not "...about dictatorships" or "...about Soviet Union" or "...about Great Britain" or even "...about mass media"? By the way, each of these points have been actually made, and several more besides, so even an apparently straightforward example is not actually so. Goochelaar (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed sevral very important points here the author has specifically said (in cited work and in the book it self that is in fact the thesis) [and not in the fictional part either].... thus given:

1. MC has stated just those points in the afterword, interviews and other prominant places on his official site and has not refuted them in any manner

2. Every creditable print media review makes the same conclusions

3. The points are given on the dust cover of the hard copy and the official synopsis of the book on amazon, barneys and nobel, etc.

I don't see how anyone except someone who seeks to discredit the book would deny such overwelming evidence.... if this is not the case please provide equally compiling evidence.--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes. He has made those 5 points (amongst others). But he hasn't said "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people"

2 Is simply false

3 I don't see it: http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061015733/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220823676&sr=8-1 Indeed, according to amazon, the key phrases in the book are " cavitation generators, undersea landslide, bolt smashed, George Morton, Los Angeles, Peter Evans". Shall we put that in the article?

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I admit I have not followed every exchange of the debate. I am not in the least arguing with you or with the points you are making. I only found the distinction about authors' thesis in fiction and in non-fiction books interesting and wanted to comment about it. As for SoF, please describe its thesis with all the due details and all the due (non-primary, reliable) sources! Goochelaar (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is just the debate the thesis was already stated and then removed by people have no evidence to support the evidence of it being OR... in short the burden of proof is on them because every other editor has accepted it for the last month or so it has been in the article --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Small side point you do not dismiss that 1984 is a cuationary tell which in fact not allowing these points or the equiv in the polot summary denies --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point here, I am afraid. Goochelaar (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Do you mean that I agree that 1984 is a cautionary tale? I do, but if I were to write it in WP I should back it up with some source. In itself, 1984 is a novel about a man called Winston Smith and so on. Goochelaar (talk)

It is not OR if there is universal agreement on it such as there is for 1984 being a cautionary tale --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case, the way of determining if "universal agreement" is true or not is to provide some third party sources that say it. For SoF, you haven't managed to find anyone to say "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the above reference list is not complete enough for you to establish it is not OR nothing will be thus I here by declare this discussion at an impase and if any further debate is needed it should be done in a more formal setting --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, you haven't provided a single reference. You can take this to WP:DR if you want, but I suspect that your OR would be rather obvious to everyone else, even if not to yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AAPG Issues and Eugentics

Independance from industry:

"AAPG does not 'speak' for the oil industry, but for its individual members—explorationists who seek and find hydrocarbon resources." -- AAPG Annual (2007) Report (Introduction): http://www.aapg.org/business/annual/intro.cfm

Orginal Stand/Policy on GW:

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm (might have some server problems depending on where you attempting to access from but used as a ref on the same topic on WP's article on AAPG)

Revised statement:

http://www.aapg.org/business/annual/intro.cfm which clearly states they do not dispute that CO_2 and other GHG's cause GW just the amount and results of GW

Direct evidence that MC does link Eugenics to the Holocaust:

The Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was very quite about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II) [p. 634 1st paragraph]

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling efficient transport and killing of ten million undesirables. (p. 634, 3rd paragraph)

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

As said above we have clearly reached the stage where formal dispute resolution is needed.... if you rv the above changes I made then I will refer the entire matter to the formal process... please think very carefully if this is what you want --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since clearly you will not listen to reason I am adding these additional references for the DP people not to attempt to convince either William or Kim since both of your are obviously unable to see the following facts:

1) I am not the only person who has made these edits

2) Until yesterday these edits where accepted by the consensus of editors of the article as evidenced by their remaining unchallanged for nearly a month

3) I highly doubt any non-peer edited source would accept your modifications with out a much higher burden of proof then you have yet offered

4) Just in case the case is not strong enough I am adding even more references that completely show (unless you manage to present counter evidence) that a) this is the main stream interpretation, b) it is what the author indentend and c) any careful reader of the book would come to the same conclusion (btw I do not think either one of you *HAS* actually read the book since it is extremely clear that to not see any of these points and not be able to provide a single piece of counter evidence makes that fact clear [when in fact no creditable source {except you 2} disputes it]

Source of title:

As clearly stated in the sections above the title (*INCLUDING* the exact captilization and punctionation) comes directly from the narrative section of the book. But, to nail the coffin even more here go a few additional random sources I pulled off the web: Forbes Review [short but makes the poing very clearly] http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/0314/011_print.html, "National Review" Review http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/murray200412210839.asp, Wall Street Journal Review http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006022, The Age (Austrilian Daily) Review http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006022.... All source pulled from the first two pages of doing a google search for '"State of Fear" reviews" and skipping any about the documentary by the same name.

Thesis (direct quotes from author):

"My recent novel, State of Fear, concerns the politicisation of scientific research ... What I would like to emphasise to the committee today is the importance of the independent verification to science." -- Congressional Testimony as Quoted in The Guardian (UK Daily) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/29/comment.bookscomment

Continuation of narrative from the same Guardian article (immediadly following the above quote):

What followed was a detailed critique of one of the major studies into climate change, carried out by the American climate researcher Michael Mann in the late 1990s, effectively accusing the scientists of failing to adhere to proper scientific standards.

Drawing on what he said was experience from his medical background, he told the assembled senators that any study where a single team plans the research, carries it out, supervises the analysis, and writes their own final report carries a "very high risk " of undetected bias.

But despite his critique of what is commonly regarded to be one of the first - and most important - studies on the history of global warming, he said it was not his intention to debunk the theory of global warming.

From "Aliens Cause Global Warning" (speech cited several times in this dicussion): http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

From same speech drawing direct relationship between the media and bad science/policy:

But Sagan and his co-workers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?

On the general notion of scientific consensus (core of points 1,4 and 5 in the thesis arguement):

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

I see no need to go on or site any other sources because only a completely close minded person whould not see this as clear evidence of not being orginal research in any way shape or form.

The quotes given in the above section come from the non-fiction sections of the book and completely disprove that Critighton does not and/or did not mean to directly link Eugenics and the Holocoast

The same goes for the AAPG issues the AAPG itself has said it has reversed it self, end of story (as proven by the two statements they have made on climate change)

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced OR

I've cut this again:

As Crichton explains in the book and several speeches he did after the book's publication, the title refers to the notion that political, legal, intellectual and media elites deliberately induce a state of unreasonable fear in the general population to promote their agendas. The book plot is built around a group of eco-terrorists that are attempting to create this state of fear to further advance their agenda regarding global warming.

Unless this is substantiated via secondary sources - its completely original research. And please do not cite 15 different locations in Crichton's works - that doesn't make it better - we just end up with your personal synthesis of what you believe that Crichtons underlying idea is. Back it up with clear references to secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A) It was substatianted above by *FOUR* sources.

B) You're the one claiming it is OR and since your the one that started this whole debate (see mediation case) the burden of proof is on you

C) Your violating the agreed apon standard of no major changes during mediation and thus techinical your changes is vandialism

--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No - it was not substantiated above by 4 sources. None of them make this particular argument. For it not to be original research: You will have to provide one (preferrably more) sources, that make the exact argument about Crichton's notions (all of them at once). And i haven't seen any mediation going on here (ie. what mediation? By whom?) - all i've seen is you revert back to the same original research again and again - without referencing sources that make the connection between the 5 points and SoF. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To expand on your sources: Bailey makes no connections with either of the 5 items in the "notions". Kirschling doesn't either. Memmott doesn't either (the closest is "He blames the "politico-legal-media complex" for turning us into misinformed scaredy-cats who live in "a state of fear" about many aspects of our lives, including the environment."). And finally the metacritic where i hope you will point out the specific review - because taking them all and connecting them into a synthesized idea is original research as well.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just now noticed that you've requested mediation - a good move. But please do not misrepresent things by stating that it is/was ongoing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If I did say something to imply it was anything but pending sorry.... note to mediation commitee Mar (don't have tabed browsing so can't look up his full name) privately asked me to give him til this weekend (personal schedule on his behalf) to make a full set of ciatations and such also.... When I get home tonight I will answer the actual issues you raise but those 4 sources I sited where not from the reviews on that site you mentioned (I detailed specifically how they where found) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you did cause the words "This article, State of Fear, is currently the subject of informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal." which some might consider misleading. Did you bother notify the other folk of the med request? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even more

Its become clear that A is never going to provide sources for his OR, because it is OR, so I've removed the cn and instead rewritten the text there so its no longer OR.

(Can't login for some reason on this machine... will counter sign this statement when I can to prove authenticity)... please read the mediation dispute case where it is clear your the one who is inapporiate editing content that had been up for a fair amount of time with complaint

<sarcasm>Oh sorry... I hadn't realised you had conclusively proved I was in the wrong. Do pardon me</sarcasm>. Do you expect me to take you seriously? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When every other editor except you and perhaps your roommate (sorry for thinking of Kim that way but defently a side kick ;-)) has allowed the edits to stand with the least bit of challenge plus the evidence given it very clear... in order to avoid a holier then though edit war (which your actually deserive) I will hold of anything more then token rv's until such time other action will be come clear... I ask you to do the same (this is a request for a cease fire until the other 2 peolpe in the debate way in [don't be surprised if there are more then 2 though]) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, the intro had transmogrified into "Like his latest fictional work, this novel contains a real bibliography..." which I presume is vandalism. I'm sure it'll get lost in the edit wars though.

Defently garbled

The book has had the opposite effect (Crichton's attempt to get some objectivity into the public debate) in many situations in that it has created a debate as to the real agenda behind the book, how accurately Crichton uses his sources and does he give the neutral point of view on the subject that he claims was his goal in the Author's Afterword. is also OR and has to go.

That was something that was said a long time ago and since removed for being non-NPOV (even though I know M and a few others would like to keep it)

So is Even though not overtly stated the secondary message Crichton attempts to make is a, while entertaining, frontal attack on what he believes to be a lack of critical thinking skills among the citizenry of the West. He uses several minor characters to make this point as well as Kenner's (aka Crichton) refusal to take any personal stand on the central thesis.

Incorrect please read the whole text of the speech both me and M refered tg

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I also chopped the bolded part out of The entire debate over Global Warming is based on climate models and not actually using the Scientific Method, specifically no direct observations and/or experiments are performed. Namely it is based on speculation and not science. because thats obviously twaddle, I assume added by an interpolator. I don't think even C is badly informed enough to say that, but I could be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong again will get the full quote (kenner says this specifically so does morton) and you have yet to refute either one metaphorical role.

Gosh. C *is* even worse informed than I'd thought. OK, it can go back then William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Procedural matter

I am going to revert to right before the edit war started.... this is not meant to imply disagreement and/or or anything else but since the article it self has clearly gotten garbled (either because of edit errors or db ones or what eever) the only way to accurately de-garble it is do this rv since I don't know what version of stuff the "other side" wants I will not reintroduce your changes...' please do so your selvees... again this is meant as a procedure thing only and not any note as to either of our points --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you didn't bother to check that your "procedural" revert actually fixed any problems. And it didn't: you reverted back to "Like his latest fictional work, this novel contains a real bibliography..." which is wrong, and you removed "Unlike his other novels, the book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, ..." which is right.

By bizarre co-incidence, your revert just happened to re-introduce all your OR, but I imagine that was just an accident.Oh, and PLEASE DON'T SHOUT William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It was the last edit made before you started your series of edits --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeeessss... so are you going to admit to reverting back to a broken version or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent

What does "The author claims via a the plot line that political, legal and media elites have found fomenting an unreasonable states of fear in the population is a mutually beneficial and self-reinforcing form of social control." mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at compromise language on the fact that SoF is also about the State of Fear described by Hoffman in the quotes above.

Also except for publishing and sales figures what does the preamble contain not in the Overview? --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

5 points edit war now over?

It seems that A has now abandoned his central claim that the novel has 5 keys points as its thesis [1]. I don't understand how this can be; this assertion was backed up by numerous references, which only I could never find. But now the central points are down to 3! This is most mysterious. An explanation is awaited... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not abandoned it just don't have time to fight it until this weekend (they are the centeral points.... eventhough I am not 100% of the pairing down to 3 I am fine with it for now). Oh, and making a distinction between skeptics and deniers is important since I do nto agree with Sen. Inhoe or the ex-CEO of ExxonMobil for example --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when has this article been here to reflect *your* opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor should it but there are clear shades of grew in the skeptic community (just as there are in the proponent side) and attempting to lump us all together is as wrong as say my attempt to link you to Ralph Nadar or something --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews quotations and a proposal to end the edit war

Last year discussion regarding the lack of NPOV made clear that the article needed balance, with favorable opinions/reviews from RS. When Aryeh M. Friedman recently joint in, it is my interpretation he was trying to fill this gap. However, this started an edit war particularly with William M. Connolley. The edit I made today is an attempt to provide that balance with lengthly quotations, from RS and includes at least a couple of reviews from outside the US. I kindly ask all regulars to make suggestions and to propose changes here before begining another edit war. I myself proposed the following:

• The order of the reviews might be changed, I just tried to follow closely the order in the Metacritic.com piece, from "outstanding" to "terrible." We might alternate positive and negative reviews, or list them in order of publication.
• Since Metacritic includes 18 reviews, a more direct proportion of the reviews would imply to include 9 instead of the 6 I included. I just think that six reviews already looks too long. Also, I have other 3 or 4 reviews not listed, and a more comprehensive review made as a Chapter of the book "The Science of Michael Crichton", which covers 11 of his novels.
• The current lenght of most of the quotations is too long, but I tried not to summarize more to avoid "cherry picking" claims. I think a neutral editor (other than those involve in the edit wars, and I exclude myself right now) might give it a shot in shortening the quotations but keeping the central ideas and criticism.
• These quotations include most of the points AMF and WMC have been struggling about, so I suggest we roll back the article to the pre-war content, leaving only new and undisputed content. The Overview section is one of the prime candidates for such roll back, but I'll be nice if these changes are discussed here first.
• I think there is merit for having a short section with Crichton's opinion/defense regarding the controversy. There is not only the materials in the books's Author Message, but also all the speeches he gave before and right after publication of the novel (all transcripts available in his website). In the case of "Next", the novel that followed SoF, he used the same style and as a follow up, Crichton is actully advocating and leading a movement to make some changes in the US laws regarding genetic engineering. In the case of SoF, because the issue is global warming controversy, such type of edit has less likelihood to survive. Therefore, I refrain to do so because of the recurrent edit wars and the sensibility of the issue, but I would like to hear comments on this idea of having this section.
• Finally, we need to remember this is a novel, not a scientific paper, so I think it should be treated as such, and clearly, without OR form either side of the issue, nor with hastened reversions as of lately.

--Mariordo (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly like sticking them in the literary review section only because each of the quotes does substantiate one of the 5 original points that we have been fighting about all along but if this is the only way to get a balanced NPOV I have no issue, but we should defently make the rest of the article agree with the quotes instead them being totally out of context. If we get this settled then the only thing that is left is to have a balanced NPOV science criticism section (which will make the current edit war look like fire crackers I suspect). --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, its a fantasy novel, not a scientific paper. But if its going to contain lines like " is a fictional work that uses actual science and technical non-fictional material to support the storyline." then alas we're bound to end up discussing the science content. If you want to revert to a prior version, say which: AMF had a go and that wasn't happy. I'm not convinced a roll back is a good idea. The reviews are, as you say, too long William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the science needs a ground up rewrite and either one from me or someone else is in progress... as to the reviews I think M said specifically it should not be one of the combatants that should shorten them --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Complete Inapporiate RV

It doesn't matter if a user is banned or not if an edit they made is apporiate and does not violate any other WP policy.... therefor it is completely inappropriate to rv it --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Reverting edits of banned users is so widely accepted that doing so doesn't even count toward the three-revert rule: at Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions you will see Reverting actions performed by banned users. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, he reverted me, an active user, this content was re-included by two non-banned editors because it is legit and already the same source was used in the article, and I added the proper ref to this quote just to avoid any doubts. So a banned user does not make a source ilegitimate and there is no justification for keep deleting that info. Only the first rv was valid, thereafter, WC is just fooling around and sanitizing content as usual.--Mariordo (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The fact that an editor was acting in bad faith - by sockpuppeting - while inserting text may provide guidance on whether the text is worthy of inclusion, but when balancing the summary of a well, unscientific survey, it seems relevant. John Nevard (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By my count, AMF reverted it back in [2] on clearly mistaken grounds, twice [3]. M has reverted it back in once [4], on unclear grounds. If you want it back in because you are now sponsoring the text of a banned user (not a good sign, might just possibly give you pause for thought, don't you think?) please be clear about it in the edit summary. It would be nice if AMF could take back his unjustified accusations of "clear abuse", but I'm not holding my breath William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No I am not taking them back... why is it that your goal in life seems to be to make it so every GW article on WP has only your take on the issue in it (which is 100% non-NPOV) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

References please?

To support this reversion, [5]. As it stands now the text is at best ambiguous on this point and at worst claims that ALL climate scientists, ALL science journalists, and ALL environmental groups adhere to these claims. Without such a reference for each group this is WP:OR and/or intentionally misleading wording in violation of WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we need a reference that justifies the use of 'scientists','science journalists', and 'environmental groups' versus 'some scientists', 'some science journalists' and 'some environmental groups'. I rather ask you to provide a reference for including 'some'. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:BURDEN. My addition of 'some' is already supported by the list of references included in the article for each group. Thus, I have met my burden. By restoring the text to its original form you open up the additional possibility (some would claim implication) that ALL members of these groups uniformly hold these views. So, consistent with WP:BURDEN please provide references to support that additional claim. --GoRight (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Splette. Interpreting an unqualified collective noun as representing each and every single member of the class without exception is not standard practice in the English language. Just look at the usage in any textbook, news magazine, or -- encyclopedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you the following questions:

1. Does the unqualified text mean 'some' scientists, journalists, or groups?
2. Does the unqualified text mean 'all' scientists, journalists, or groups?
3. Is the unqualified text ambiguous on this point?

--GoRight (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mu. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is supposed to mean what? Come on, these aren't exactly hard questions. A simple yes/no will suffice for each. Why the reluctance to respond? --GoRight (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes/no will suffice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How is your analogy even vaguely applicable here? These questions are neither "tricky" nor "pointedly offensive". If there is some possible interpretation I have not covered then please call it out so we can discuss it. Otherwise I believe my point has obviously been made. --GoRight (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hansen's self-published source

Quoting from WP:SELFPUB:

Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This article is not about James Hansen so please explain how the reference I removed satisfies the above policy.

Quoting from WP:RS:

Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is helpful to refer to the appropriate policy.

Given that this content guideline is urging caution, please provide a justification for why James Hansen's self-published source warrants an exception in this context, especially when multiple other WP:RS are already cited. --GoRight (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

James Hansen is not a questionable source. He is a prominent and notable climate scientist. Also 'Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so.' doesn't apply here. I think there is no doubt here about the fact that Hansen opposes Chichton. So, whether he does that on his own website or in a newspaper article is irrelevant in this case. So, these are not reasons to drop the Hansen ref, however it is true that there are already three other refs for this particular statement. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Globe reference

The Boston Globe reference I removed is being used to support the following contention:

This, in several commentator's opinion, is a reference to State of Fear.

in which Al Gore is purportedly (unambiguously and definitively) referring State of Fear

However, the article in question is actually arguing that Gore might have been referring to other fictional works:

But Michael Crichton isn't the only science fiction writer who's taken catastrophic climatic change, real or imagined, as his theme. During the early Cold War, his predecessors dreamed up one apocalyptic scenario after another. Many of these involved greenhouse gases, but others were a good bit more creative, involving everything from meteors to the bomb. Might Al Gore have had one of these works of fiction in mind?

How, exactly, does an article that argues against the premise it is supposed to be supporting considered a valid reference? Surely you must be able to come up with a better reference than this to support the contention. --GoRight (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets see. About Gore's fever remark the Bosten Globe ref says:

Liberal commentators relished the soundbite. "Hmm," wrote The New Republic's Michael Crowley, at that magazine's political blog, The Plank. "I wonder what that might have been a reference to." Gore, everyone assumed, was taking a shot at Michael Crichton's 2004 techno-thriller, "State of Fear...

This is support enough to claim that there are commentators that think Gore's fever remark was a reference to the book (even though the article's author gives also an additional alternative explanation). I really don't see the problem here. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 06:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Who are they?

Are you really going to try and now claim (as does the quote you are relying upon) that literally everyone held this same opinion? I think the fact than the author of the piece being quoted is actually arguing against that opinion sort of refutes that position right out of the gate, doesn't it? And note that you don't have any ambiguous language to hide behind here, it explicitly states everyone. --GoRight (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Gore, everyone assumed, was taking a shot at Michael Crichton's 2004 techno-thriller, "State of Fear"", alone settles the question. Few words in the English languages are more unambiguous than "everyone". So this is what a RS says, and we may abide by it.

Moreover, the author of the Boston Globe article was not arguing against attributing Gore sentence to Crichton: he was just showing that "Michael Crichton isn't the only science fiction writer who's taken catastrophic climatic change, real or imagined, as his theme", proceeding to enumerate past istances of the same theme in literature and comics. Otherwise we should suppose that the author of the article is referring Gore's words to 1946 Belgian comics "Tintin and the Shooting Star", or one of the other ones. Goochelaar (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias

I have had a discussion on my talk page and a user requested that the there is a negative bias in this article. More speficly the book reviews. Hda3ku (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How very nice of you. Please, before tagging a page for bias, make some effort to improve the page. And talk in public, not on your own page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Sometimes a user may see a fault in a page, but not be able to improve it because of limited knowledge of the subject, lack of time, or many other reasons. In such a case to draw attention to the fault so that others may improve it is a very helpful step.
2. Another user made a comment on Hda3ku's talk page, and responses were made to it there. User talk pages are perfectly publicly visible: the only objection I can see to responding on the user talk page is that others may be less likely to find the discussion than if it were on the article's talk page, but in this case Hda3ku has placed a note here to call attention to it, so I see no problem.
3. Use of irony such as "How very nice of you" does not appear to be fully in the spirit of WP:CIVIL.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Lindzen

Regarding the following:

Lindzen has been critisized for his ties to OPEC, Exxon, and Western Energy, a coal mining company.

Oriana Zill de Granados. "The Doubters of Global Warming". PBS. Retrieved 2007-11-24.

This is not about the book. This is not about the author of the book. The book is a work of fiction. There is no reason to include this in this article. Move it to Lindzen's BLP, assuming it is not already there. --GoRight (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

It's me or this article has the biggest criticism section ever for a book on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.72.146 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I added a neutrality tag. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Metaphorical Use of Characters section

This section reeks of OR. The subjective hypothesis "To allow the reader to clearly follow the various positions portrayed in the book, Crichton uses the major characters as proxies for differing viewpoints on the topic of global warming" is pinned up by six opinion articles, at least one of which is not even available for reference without a subscription to an online journal site, and none of which were written or substantiated by Crichton himself.

While I like the idea of suggesting to the reader that the characters might have been used metaphorically, or referencing op-ed writers' conclusions of same, the way this section is presented is authoritative, which it should not be. Even if it seems glaringly obvious (which I agree this does), opinion (even several people's opinion; even the opinion of reputable sources) should never be presented as fact on Wiki. If Crichton didn't explicitly state these characters' metaphorical nature, the Wiki page should not imply it.

I have slightly altered the wording of the opening sentence and the presentation of the bullet points (and have also entirely removed the point about Morton, which is completely unsubstantiated), but I strongly feel that more attention is needed. However, due to the volume of unrest already present in this page's editing history, I will leave it at that for now. --Tarminagaia (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag

I feel like this article really bashes the books and its scientific basis, literally half the page is criticism and controversy. Due to this, I added a tag. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The book is unique in in the amount of controversy generated, the amount of scientific criticism, and the degree to which its BAD science has been used as a reference, notably in the political arena. This justifies the portion of the article that deals with these issues. It is not the most negative article about a work, see The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The tag should be removed.

This issue will never be resolved. The POV tag has appeared and then been removed by consensus numerous times. 174.39.249.57 (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Some words need to be changed. For example, the article calls the people that agree with Crichton "dissenters". It makes it sound like they're scientific heretics or something. Not to mention there is three quotes from someone who agrees and several pages paper equivalent of people criticizing it. The unbalance of information disrupts the equality. You don't need every single quote of people saying "Global Warming is real! This book sucks!" You only need one or two, and certain relevant ones like the US Senate's. With ten against, three and a half for, and one neutral, that's hardly a neutral article. --71.209.9.203 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is not about giving "equal time" - but about giving proportional weight to each. If there is significantly more scientific critique than scientific praise - then the article should reflect that, by giving presenting it (weight) accordingly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If we go by the Knight Ridder article the proportion is 9:1 In other words, remove the POV tag. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Impression of scientific authority

"which have given many people the impression that the book has scientific authority." This does not say false impression, or accurate impression, and perhaps it should say false impression.

The most notable thing about this book is the large number of people, so many of whom are notable for their political position, who do believe that the book contains good science. The book is unusual for a science fiction novel in having the graphs, footnotes, and two appendices, but it is the effects of these that are of the most importance. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sagredo, I think that the sentence following this actually explains this better in more precise and footnoted language. The clause is way too vague and is not sourced. That's why I'm in favor of removing it. Madman (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence says nothing about the numbers of people who have been deceived. So I added the reference which already appears elsewhere in the article. It states:"Many readers will find this thesis entirely plausible,..." and "Surveys of public opinion conducted before and after the film was released found that it made people think climate change is less likely." This book is not all that unusual in having bad science, it is unusual in that many people have believed the bad science. Having re-read the reference, I feel more strongly that it should say false impression. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Three edits by TS

I've performed three edits to clean up the article a bit.

1. [6] Tweaked some clumsy wording , removing the superfluous phrase "that supports or does not support the theory"
2. [7] Separated out a paragraph that confused the opinions of working scientists and that of the UCS which (despite the name) is basically an advocacy group. Gave precedence to the former.
3. [8] Removed external links that only seem to be there because they didn't get used in the article. In appropriate context and subject to neutral point of view, some of these links might be useful as references in the body of the article, so I list them below:
   • "The Case For Skepticism on Global Warming" by Michael Crichton (speech to the National Press Club, Washington DC, 25 January 2005)
   • Slate review of book
   • Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear – Pew Center on Global Climate Change
   • "Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton's State of Fear" by David Deming, Journal of Scientific Exploration Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 247-256, 2005

--TS 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that so extraordinarily much of this "Wiki-bloody-pedia" page on State of Fear is taken up by excerpts from hostile reviews attacking Dr. Crichton's premises, intentions, methods, and approach to the subject of anthropogenic global warming, it is puzzling that not a single excerpt from any truly positive review is permitted, and even an external link to the author's own words on the central subject - uttered in a speech given shortly after the book's publication, during the height of the controversy over this novel - is instantly removed. That not even the dead man himself can be permitted to refute his critics seems eloquently to support the contention that there is blatant bigotry operating here. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, indeed.
71.251.140.124 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I say above, you or somebody else may want to re-use the external link you mention and write it into the article, explaining the context that relates the speech to the novel. --TS 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ELF

He took the initials and nothing else from the Earth Liberation Front. They don't kill people or start disasters. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

RC is fine, per innumerable discussions elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for an external link to RC in this article. You also reverted back in a dead link to a site which is in no way reliable mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're shifting your ground. "There is no need" is rather different to "remove link to blog". I disagree. OTOH, we could move the link+text from the EL into the sci-crit section, perhaps. As to the dead link: I've re-found the link (which you could easily have done) and who says it isn't reliable? Just you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well lets see about the source you think a blog post on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is reliable? I think not and i suspect if i has used such a source you`d be screaming for my head. And remove link to blog is kinda obvious that there is no need for it, just some guy posting on his blog, why is it there? mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it is a blog? (it isn't) It is a published article from the Skeptical Inquirer by Chris Mooney (a reasonably reputed author on this particular subject). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

NERF is "modeled after the Sierra Club"? Nah!

There is an unsupported assertion in the article to the effect that the warmist[9] "bad guy" organization (the National Environmental Resource Fund or NERF) is author Crichton's swipe at the Sierra Club. There is reason to doubt this, particularly when one considers another 'viro aggregation commonly known by its four-letter acronym, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Warmist reviews snarking at State of Fear shortly after its publication repeatedly conflated the real-world NRDC with Dr. Crichton's NERF,[10] and while the author included the Sierra Club in his lambasting of global warming fellahin throughout the remaining years of his life ("Let’s have the NRDC, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?"[11]), it seems far more likely that in State of Fear he modeled NERF upon the NRDC, not the Sierra Club.
-- Tucci78 (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"A Majority of Climate Scientists Dispute..."

I love how of the six sources that supposedly constitute "scientific dispute," three are from newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check here!

Can someone please check the validity of the page numbers of the special paperback edition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.254.54 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The book did indeed give many readers an incorrect view of the science.

The most notable thing about this book is the large number of people, so many of whom are notable for their political position, who do believe that the book contains good science. The book is unusual for a science fiction novel in having the graphs, footnotes, and two appendices, and it is the effects of these that are of the most importance. Read the reference by Myles Allen published in Nature "Book Reviewed: State of Fear" "Many readers will find this thesis entirely plausible,..." and "Surveys of public opinion conducted before and after the film was released found that it made people think climate change is less likely." This book is not all that unusual in having bad science, it is unusual in that many people have believed the bad science. The reference is here

References

Political bickering

I have removed the political bickering between the Senators on the Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Works. The New York times is cited correct, but misrepresented the quote itself. Senator Clinton was addressing the chairman Inhofe and his way of organizing the hearing when she said that, not Crichtons testimony, as this youtube video shows (from 0:25 to 0:35). As such, the entire second paragraph of that section was about political bickering between the Senators, and the CBS article was the very same. --Amazeroth (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Some climate scientists...

Tbh, I don't have a massive opinion on which is correct, but seeing as the proposed changes have been reverted - they need to be discussed rather than flip-flopped back and forth.

I had a look at a couple of sources, and while they individually disagree with Crichton's science - they don't state that all scientists refute his claims, which is what the changes would then imply. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact one of the cited sources quotes an MIT meteorology professor saying "the science was handled intelligently and responsibly". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to this edit, and the related summaries of whetehr the particular editor was reverted - ok the editor wasn't, but it is clear the the subject of reversion - "some" had already been broached, and that not only was it a contentious issue, but discussion had been started regarding it. Rather than simply reverting, the discussion here should be joined. As I said - I have no real issue either way, but I dislike editors promoting and (sometimes) discussing change, yet at the same time insisting that the changed text stays in place. That's not how it works.

Please discuss. It's civil enough to do, rather than relying on edit summaries to put across an opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So. That's almost an apology for having reverted me for the wrong reason, and having done so purely in an edit summary, rather than via discussion; but not quite. Never mind William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As to the substance: no, absence of "some" does not imply "all", just "vast majority" or somesuch. That's what it means in everyday life, and it's what in means on wiki. At least, that's what it means everywhere *except* where people want to insert weasel words like "some" before statements. See scientific opinion on climate change for example William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, now let's be clear - the above is no way intended to be an apology. I don't want you to misunderstand that at all. You are going against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and edit warring quite obviously. It's been made absolutely clear to you (via both edit summaries and talk page discussion,) what process is trying to be followed here, and have blatantly decided to ignore that.

1. Initial (SamJanowiak) edit to remove "some"[12]
2. reversion by editor (Peter Gulutzan) to reinstate "some"[13]
3. reversion by editor (William M. Connolley) to again remove "some"[14]
4. reversion by editor (Chaheel Riens) back to reinstate "some"
5. talk page discussion initiated. (Chaheel Riens)
6. reversion by editor (William M. Connolley) to again remove "some"[15] - no talk page discussion
7. reversion by editor (Chaheel Riens) to reinstate "some" and reminder of the need to discuss changes prior to insertion[16]
8. additional comment on WP:BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss
9. reversion by editor (William M. Connolley)[17]
10. Discussion by editor(William M. Connolley)

Now, you may be correct. And indeed if you can find sources to back up your claim, I'll be happy to promote and include your proposed changes, but the fact remains that the change has been questioned, and reverted. Discussion - such as this - needs to take place, and I'm not a difficult person to persuade, but while we do so - you need to revert back to the initial version.

If you are so positive that your changes are correct you shouldn't have any qualms about reverting back while the discussion carries on - what have you got to lose? Heck - you might even look like a decent person while you do so?

You know, I wouldn't even be against the term "Many" rather than "some", but despite your claim above, removing the qualifier "some" does default to meaning "all":

• "Some apples on the tree are green"
• "Apples on the tree are green"

compromise:

• "Most of the apples on the tree are green"

Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just being dishonest. Look at your chronicle above. Notice how you provide careful links to all the reverts. Except to one of yours. This one: [18]. I wonder why you forgot that one? Oh, because it's the one you got wrong. Because the reason for your revert was "if you've been reverted, please start a discussion before reverting again". But I hadn't been.

It's been made absolutely clear to you - what's with this patronising speaking of yourself in the third person nonsense?

As for removing the qualifier "some" does default to meaning "all" - no, this is nonsense. Repeating it does not make it true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence for the accusation that Chaheel Riens has been "dishonest" or has emitted "nonsense". Unless new arguments or new people come along, WP:NOCONSENSUS as I interpret it means normally we will return to the version of the article as it was prior to the removal of "some". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't get to write in your preferred version by using policy as your sledgehammer; that just doesn't work. You should know that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't get to write in your preferred version by using policy as your sledgehammer; that just doesn't work. You should know that. Do you get the irony that I can use your exact same post to defend my own position? This is exactly what WP:BRD states. And yes, I did forget to include the link to my reversion - just as I forgot to include the link to your reversion as well here. Funny how you didn't pick up on that one, eh?

If William M. Connolley reverted more than once without going to the talk page, he violated the rule according to a fellow named William M. Connolley: "After the first revert, you really must start discussing on the talk page, not via edit comments". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're accepting me as an authority? Excellent. Also, I congratulate you on your diligence - trawling though my edits back to 2009. You must be very very bored William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you genuinely believe that the statement "Apples on the tree are green" also means that some apples on the tree are not green? Is that your understanding of the English language? I think it important that you clarify your belief there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Denialism Versus Skepticism

I just corrected the misuse of skeptic in the article. A skeptic refuses to accept claims without evidence, but when one has sufficient evidence accepts it. Deniers refuse to accept claims no matter how well supported they are.

Skepticism has many tools but the best known are the Razors of Sagan and Hitchen:

Sagan's Razor: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Hitchen's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur)."

Deniers got a bad name for refusing to accept the well-supported claim that Nazis murdered a dozen million people (atheists, jews, disabled, gypsies, et al) in the Holocaust, which they claim never happened. They started calling themselves by the well-respected term skeptics. As a skeptic, I say no. One cannot be a skeptic unless one does not accept claims without supporting evidence, but if one has supporting evidence, accepts the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:C120:11E5:77E2:3248:A81D (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on State of Fear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211081457/http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf to http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Author's afterword/appendices / Global warming

The two sections appear to have been conceived by different authors and different periods. The repeat certain aspects and have a feel of redundancy. As the sections can be viewed as contentious I'm reluctant to make any modifications here.Theking2 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)