Talk:Climate crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scope

This article is in breach of WP:Scope where it says "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view."

As a result of recent edits the article is now seriously in breach of WP:NPOV. It is no longer neutral because all references to the climate crisis have been deleted - despite hundreds of RS on the subject including the United Nations and the IPCC. Unfortunately the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers. Notagainst (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

As we've tried to explain before, we're not restricting the scope of this article Artificially or unnecessarily. We do it to prevent breaching our policy on WP:POVFORK. I can only attest for myself that I do see climate change as the (second?) biggest problem out there, and as such I think that labeling me, and others, as climate crisis deniers, feels like an ungrounded personal attack. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we can agree that without outside help, we won't make any progress. You could consider conflict resolution. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: please list the editors you perceive to be climate crisis deniers? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst:, you should be aware that making such accusations against other editors is in violation of several Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA. NightHeron (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: "Climate crisis" is a phrase, a term, a characterization. It does not cover the substance of climate change, its causes, and its effects—or any perceived denialism. Clearly, the other editors here are striving to maintain a NPOV about the phrase. Other Wikipedia articles, especially Global warming and maybe Climate change denial or Global warming controversy are the proper place for your content (if properly sourced, of course). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Femke Nijsse echos what other editors have said claiming the content of the article has been restricted to prevent breach of WP:POVFORK. You seem to be ignoring WP:CONTENTFORK which states: "As an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

That policy has led to multiple articles which could all be described as legitimate forks of the article on Climate Change , including Climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, climate change denial, global warming, global warming hiatus, global warming controversy. Why do these forks all get their own separate page while as article on Climate Crisis does not?

Bearing in mind that the page as it currently stands effectively denies there is a climate crisis. It says ""Climate crisis" is a phrase that some organizations are using as a descriptor for climate change and global warming." This suggests there is no crisis but that some organisations are simply choosing to call it a crisis in "an effort to reframe the issue to jump-start aggressive climate change mitigation". That is such a small part of the picture it amounts to a fundamental denial of reality.

There is no doubt in my mind that the scope of the article has been artificially and unnecessarily limited. As a result, it is now entirely in breach of WP:NPOV. Notagainst (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

As I and others have said repeatedly (but you seem not to be listening or not to be understanding), many climatologists and others who feel strongly about the need for aggressive mitigation of climate change prefer not to use "crisis" terminology because of the boy who cried wolf problem. The public usually interprets "crisis" to mean that the danger is short or medium term, and so when their lives are not much affected by climate change within a few years, those using alarmist language lose credibility. Many people, especially scientists, believe that strong facts are more convincing than strong language. It is illogical and insulting to accuse people who believe that of being climate change deniers. Both sides of the debate about terminology and framing need to be presented to comply with WP:NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"There seems to be an increasing impulse among many to make global warming more scary and thereby more salient.[33-Attempts to rename the problem as a “climate crisis” or “climate disruption” belong here as well.] Senior scientists and editors of flagship science journals deplore the inattention given to climate change, step outside familiar roles to pen editorials in mainstream magazines and newspapers, and on and off the record suggest that “a useful catastrophe or two” and other fear-provoking measures (such as terror alert systems for the state of the climate) are needed to motivate adequate policy response. Similarly, policy advisors and politicians compare the seriousness of climate change to that of currently more resonant fears, such as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and war. But can such appeals to fear generate a sustained and constructive engagement with the issue of climate change? The answer is usually not... Risk communication and psychological studies add weight to the cautious use of fear appeals. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: The second paragraph of your 19:51, 28 Sept post implies that others are arguing there should be no "Climate crisis" article; that perception is false since the argument is clearly about scope of content (and not about the existence of the article other than some discussion to start from scratch). Next, your third paragraph wrongly interprets the opening sentence of the article as "suggesting" there is no crisis; this interpretation is simply false since the sentence describes the phrase and is not about global warming itself. Please learn the distinctions. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that some people prefer NOT to use the term crisis does not alter the fact that just as many, if not more, do call it a crisis. The current page ignores all of the latter (which happens to include the United Nations).

The point about crying wolf is relevant and should be discussed in the article, but cannot be used as an excuse to remove the RS voices of those who say there is a crisis. Doing so has led to a total lack balance and neutrality. By arbitrary selecting one interpretation of events (limited by your POV that those describing it as a crisis are crying wolf), the article now only carries the voices of those who see the term climate crisis as just another descriptor for climate change. Notagainst (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Notagainst, could you please stop grossly misinterpreting what I and others are saying? I did not say that people who use the term "crisis" are just crying wolf. Nor did I say that such an assertion should be made in Wikipedia's voice -- that would be pushing a POV. What I said was that some worry that the public might perceive the "crisis" terminology to be crying wolf if there's no short or medium term danger in their lives from climate change. For this reason some people prefer not to use the term "crisis". Others believe that strong language will help motivate the public to take action. Both views should be treated in this article. My own personal view, which is totally irrelevant, is that both sides have a valid point, and language depends on context. I have no problem with a speaker at a climate change protest rally using "crisis" and other dramatic language. I also have no problem with a scientist who, when describing new findings, prefers to avoid strong language and just give facts. You should learn to pay attention to what other editors say and not accuse other editors of holding views (such as climate change denial) that we don't have. NightHeron (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 As I have said before, an article which is about a phrase, but isn't about the reality it describes, is as non-nonsensical as an article about a forest, which doesn't mention the trees. Your distinctions are totally arbitrary and create the perception that there is no such thing as a climate crisis - just a manufactured phrase by people crying wolf. Notagainst (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: We already have other article(s) describing the trees with a considerably higher quality of content and for which much more thought has gone into the phrasing and diction to ensure NPOV. There is no shortage of coverage on this issue on wikipedia: this article is a narrow supplement covering a small aspect of the climate change policy debate. It does not need to contain every conceivable example of apocalypticism that can be cited just because the title has the word "crisis" in it. Personally, I don't see what you expect to get from arguing with everybody and making bad-faith accusations, the majority of editors who have rinsed through here, and what looks like everybody involved now, seem to disagree with you. If you think you have a solid case why not take the matter to conflict resolution? Zortwort (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst: My distinctions are not "arbitrary" (relates to WP:TITLE) and, if the article is neutrally written, do not "create" a perception; you, personally, are the one generating that inference. Distinguishing a descriptor from the thing it describes is not "nonsensical" (see Honest Abe, a couple of paragraphs below).

Normally, a "new" phrase warrants a simple Redirect, in this case, to Global warming (GW). Up until a few weeks ago, I myself thought that the term "global warming" is (or should be) interpreted literally—namely, a rise in global average temperature—but that simply is not the case! As the GW article has evolved in Wikipedia, given WP's policy to follow common RS usage, its lead now states: "The term (GW) commonly refers to the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation." That is the reality—distinguished from various names by which one can characterize it.

Paradoxically, since you are trying to inflate the present article to bolster the credibility of this ~new name, it is you, if anyone, who raise the suggestion there is no crisis! Be careful what you wish for. A simple redirect would by-pass the very inference you are trying to avoid! (Example: the very act of making Honest Abe into a standalone article with supporting evidence that he was honest, "creates the perception" that Abraham Lincoln might not be honest! A simple redirect has the effect of implying Abe is honest.)

At this point I'm open to making this article a simple redirect to Global warming and adding a contextualized description of the phrase "Climate crisis" in the lead of that GW article, which already explains terminology. It would streamline things for editors and readers alike. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09:, are you sure that "global warming" is the most commonly used term in RS? I would have said that there's been a tendency to use "climate change" in preference to "global warming", and that an argument could be made for changing the title of the global warming article to "Climate change (anthropogenic)" or "Climate change (human-caused)". In communication with the public the problem with the term "global warming" is that, as you say, the term is not being used in the literal sense of its common usage but rather refers to something much more complex. This discrepancy between scientific meaning and popular meaning causes confusion and plays into the hands of denialists who say foolish things like, "Look at all the snow that's falling in Montana in September. There's no global warming." Since Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for specialists, it's best to use terms that do not cause confusion. NightHeron (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

RCraig09 and NightHeron, please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh ...... do not talk about other articles names in this thread which is about the scope of this article. If you want to go there, FIRST read the talk archives at Climate change and the talk archives at Global warming, where "Global warming" vs "Climate change" this has been endlessly and repeatedly debated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: All good points, but a better place to discuss how GW and CChange should be merged or (re)named is in the planned discussion presently being developed by Femke Nijsse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Femkemilene/sandbox —RCraig09 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy and RCraig09, sorry, I'll do as you say. NightHeron (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and its not what I say... its the TPG. Otherwise threads would talk about everything at once and closing editors would be hard pressed to focus on one of the issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your lack of logic is simply astounding. Notagainst (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite your 77 edits on this talk page, your apparent inability to convince even a single editor here is noteworthy, as is your patent incivility to those who have spent hours trying to educate you. As suggested by others, you may take your arguments to conflict resolution if you imagine you'll have more luck there. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Opposed to redir. This is a bitter logjam but we have tools to resolve it. Endlessly repeating ourselves here is not one of those tools. If we simply redir to GW, then soon there will either be another editor who tries to write an article here, or alternatively NA or another editor will want to rename GW to "climate crisis". The only constructive way forward is to use our existing tools of WP:DR, WP:ARBCC#Principles, and (if necessary) WP:AE. And besides, the campaign to change the language is a real thing, and is notable in its own right, worthy of an article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: A disciplined narrowing of scope of this CCrisis article is currently as acceptable to me as a Redirect. I agree that the growing use of the term CCrisis is a "real thing". In fact, some day, RS usage of "Climate crisis" may well may become more common than "Global warming", requiring that the major GW article be renamed as CCrisis. But for our descendants' sake, hopefully the reality of climate change never gets that bad! —RCraig09 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

Neutrality Dispute Tag

I've tried to remove a lot of the offending material that contributed to the neutrality-in-dispute tag being added to the page. Can anyone here identify any other material with contentious neutrality that should be evaluated/removed from this page or can we go ahead and remove the tag? Zortwort (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yours is a noble effort, Zortwort.However, as described in my 03:26, 29 Sept 2019 post, above, I'm coming around to the opinion that a return to a simple Redirect to Global warming is best since it would send readers to the centralized substantive discussion. In this Climate Crisis article, I think almost all of the textual narrative content goes beyond a discussion of the phrase Climate Crisis (meandering to "climate emergency" etc.) and should be removed; what would validly remain would in effect constitute a stand-alone list — hopefully with reliably sourced organizations or usages, and an extremely brief notation of who/where/when/why/how the phrase was used. That's a massive and unending project—probably with an ultimately trivial result—so I'm favoring a Redirect. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ^{Reducing size of some text to focus normal-size text on issue related to neutrality, per NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion immediately following. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)}

@RCraig09, please see WP:TPG#Layout and in particular the part about sections and WP:MULTI. We now have two threads hijacked with a redir proposal when neither thread is about redir. If you want to agitate for it, please start a thread for that purpose. But I have already stated my objections in the prior thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted with thanks, and corrected above by reducing size of my text that was relating to possible Redirect. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I also favour a redirect/ deletion as I suggested in an earlier thread, but since the jury's still out on that I'm working to correct the article in case we do end up keeping it. I'll have a look at some of what you call the "meandering" narrative content and see what still needs to be removed. Zortwort (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zortwort: Examples of what I'm talking about are: about 90%+ of the Al Gore section (which expounds at length on the crisis itself rather than the term "crisis"), and hopping from "crisis" to "declarations of emergency" and other terms. Along the same lines, the "Alternative terminology" section describes "catastrophic terms without necessarily using the phrase climate crisis"! These discussions are of the thing described, rather than the descriptor ("climate crisis") that is the narrow subject of this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I agree about the Al Gore bit upon re-reading it and have removed that section. I'm undecided but leaning towards the opinion that the alternative terminology subsection is acceptable as context if kept short, but I wouldn't mind seeing it go if others think that's best. Zortwort (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Would it make sense to expand the "Concerns" section by adding the interesting comment quoted above by NAEG (ref [1] just above this thread)? NightHeron (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Essentially done. ✔ Summarizing discussion concisely so as not to bloat article with verbiage. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Essentially, the raw lists of organizations that use the term Climate Crisis violate Wikipedia:No original research. They use WP to "make a case". It is acceptable, instead, to cite reliable sources or two that describe the growing number of organizations that use the term. Absent convincing counter-arguments, I plan to delete the lists. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Good observation. I don't anticipate anybody will argue against that, I certainly won't personally. Zortwort (talk)

Wikivoice and "climate crisis"

QUESTION - Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• No When we have sufficient RSs to use this phrasing in the text at scientific consensus on climate change then sure, we can do that. Until then, in my view, we must restrict ourselves to reporting on the language used by others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. An absolutely (pretentiously) objective voice would continue to use "climate change" and "global warming"; a realist would use "climate crisis", which is the conclusion all sources point to. However, we're not allowed to draw conclusions, so we must follow others':

• Carrington, Damian (2019-05-17). "Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.
• Redlener, Caleb; Jenkins, Charlotte; Redlener, Irwin (2019-07-31). "Our planet is in crisis. But until we call it a crisis, no one will listen | Caleb Redlener, Charlotte Jenkins and Irwin Redlener". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-09-01.

And so, in the very least, we should allow regular use of "climate crisis" by editors. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Re the conclusion all sources point to.... I rarely characterize fact assertions as seriously ridiculous but that is nonsense. The sources, so far, abundantly show disagreement on this framing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "framing", I said "conclusion", and the IPCC's latest lists some pretty catastrophic ones. François Robere (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• No as per OP. We can be guided by how other crises are handled in Wikipedia's voice. For example, in the article Opioid epidemic in the United States, "epidemic" rather than "crisis" is used in Wikipedia's voice, but the first sentence of the lead does say that it's also often referred to as a "crisis", and the article Opioid epidemic quotes the U.S. Surgeon General calling it a "crisis". Similarly, editors are free to quote RS calling climate change a "crisis" as much as we want, but until a consensus of scientists adopts "crisis" as a standard term it's best for us in our role as editors to choose neutral-sounding terminology. NightHeron (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I lean towards saying no. We need to be wary of neologisms and media hype. For wikivoice we should stick to the terminology used by the majority climatologists in academic writing. It is fine to mention other terms, but they should be attributed. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• (Supplemental) The IPCC's most recent "special report" contains three instances of the phrase "climate crisis" and each one is in the title of a bibliographic reference. The forward to the report, signed by head of the WMO and acting head of UNEP, comes the closest when they write Without increased and urgent mitigation ambition in the coming years, leading to a sharp decline in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, global warming will surpass 1.5°C in the following decades, leading to irreversible loss of the most fragile ecosystems, and crisis after crisis for the most vulnerable people and societies." (bold added) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also 20,500 Google Scholar search results for "climate crisis".[1] François Robere (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The language here is still kind of developing, so I can see a case for waiting here. That said, I'm not sure that this is necessarily a question for climatologists. Ultimately, the meaning of a "crisis" is more of a public policy question than a scientific one. @NightHeron: We do have articles on the European debt crisis, the Sunda Straits Crisis, and the Venezuelan refugee crisis, (all Good Articles) which all use the term "crisis" in text, so it's not necessarily prohibited, at least. Nblund ^talk 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Nblund: Yes, you're right, and I didn't mean to suggest that "climate crisis" in the text is prohibited. Note that your three examples of crises are political or economic ones and not issues where we would turn to scientists for a consensus on the language to be used. In those political/economic cases I believe there was consensus on calling them crises, and the disagreement was about who was to blame and what should be done. In the case of climate change, it's appropriate to look to scientists for consensus on the language. If we view it as a policy issue rather than a scientific one and wait for all mainstream media and policy think tanks (including conservative media and think tanks) to agree on calling climate change a crisis, we'll have to wait a lot longer. NightHeron (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• There's also an issue of norms here: "hard" scientists are trained to make narrow, well-defined observations, and are often wary of (and ill-equipped for) the media aspects of their work. It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word "crisis" among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of "scaring off the public" (I suggest listening to this interview with David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth). You're more likely to see this use by social scientists, who deal with the human aspects of this crisis; indeed, a cursory look at the leading results of the relevant GS query shows just that: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science, psychology, and human geography. François Robere (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason why many hard scientists are hesitant to use the word "crisis" is the same as the reason why we should not rush to use the word in Wikipedia's voice: they see their job as to present facts, and they fear that the use of a loaded term that has not (yet) become standard will diminish their credibility as scientists, especially among the readers who need to be convinced of the urgency of the issue. They believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public. The same goes for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No-no, that is certainly not the case,[2][3][4] and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that. To quote Marcus Du Sautoy, Prof. of Mathematics and Simonyi Prof. for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford:

We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate.[5]

François Robere (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Your response to me contradicts what you wrote just before. I wrote that "many hard scientists...believe that strong language is not as effective as strong facts in educating the public," and you responded "No-no, that is certainly not the case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious academic who still believes that." But just before you wrote "It is unlikely you'll find frequent use of the word `crisis' among climatologists - in fact, some of them may even object to it for fear of `scaring off the public.'" What we are debating here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but rather whether or not the term "climate crisis" is at this point in time a standard, NPOV-compliant term.

I don't see a contradiction there, but agree about the latter. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, could we agree to keep this discussion either to this page or to the WP:NPOV page, so as not to have to repeat everything twice? Probably WP:NPOV is a better place, since more editors are watching that. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This is funny. François Robere (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

On process, I agree and have asked an uninvolved admin to close one or the other, I don't care which. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund and François Robere, thanks for your very thoughtful comments! I too agree that the balance of the RSs may tip the scales, because there's nothing in policy to vaporize "climate crisis" just out of hand. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - although I think its a strange question. NAEG asked: "Can Wikipedia describe global warming (aka climate change) as "the climate crisis" in WP:WIKIVOICE, without violating WP:Neutrality?"

The question is strange because the terms climate change, global warming and climate crisis are not interchangeable (as if they all meant the same thing). In simple terms, climate change (the release of greenhouse gases) leads to global warming which leads to rising sea levels (and more climate change) and the perception that we have a climate crisis. All three terms are valid, each with its own meaning and context.

I also think its strange because I don't see that Wikipedia has "a voice". If wiki does have a voice, that voice needs to be neutral - which requires all relevant voices to be presented. WP is an encyclopedia with thousands of editors who rely on RS to add material from a variety of different sources. If editors find RS which refer to a climate crisis (of which there are plenty), the need for balance and neutrality requires the addition of those references in order to counter balance other sources which only refer to climate change or global warming.

Using the term climate crisis does not mean that wiki is stating as a fact, that we are facing a climate crisis. I agree with Nblund and Francois Robere that whether or not we are facing a crisis is largely a matter of language and perception, suggesting the need for urgent action. Isn't that exactly what the IPCC is saying - that we need to take urgent action? How urgent it needs to be is perhaps a matter of opinion. But opinions are valid contributions on WP when backed by RS. Notagainst (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll need an RS for the premise that climate change means release of GHG. But don't bother looking because you won't find one. The technical distinction between climate change and global warming is abundantly annually discussed on the talk page archives for those articles. As is their synonymous lay (common language) use. "climate crisis" is a sufficiently recent contributio9n to the lexicon that I don't believe the RSs have really zeroed in on a definition, unless its another synonym for the common language label for the issue. But then again, I didn't cite any RSs either, so there's no real reason for a discussion closure to put much weight on either comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm truly puzzled that you answered "yes" given that the pieces of your rationale appears to be that these are not the same terms. This isn't my synthesis of your argument, you specifically stated that "the terms climate change, global warming and climate crisis are not interchangeable". Why would you then say yes to the question?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You make a valid point. What I believe NAEG was actually saying is "There is no scientific consensus that there is a climate crisis". What I therefore think he was actually asking is "Can we use the term climate crisis on WP at all?" Perhaps I misunderstood his intention - but I don't think so.Notagainst (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong on Part1 What I actually said is that we lack sufficient RSs to assert that there is a scientific consensus there is a crisis. This subtle difference (Truth vs Verification... or if you prefer PERSONAL OPINION vs SOURCES) lies at the heart of Wikipedia.

Also wrong on Part 2 Since you stated above you don't believe that WP:WIKIVOICE exists you aren't really able to understand the question or the concept of inline attribution. I'm not sure you're going to because I've already laid out the example to show this but I will do so again. Maybe you just didn't read it last time. There is a whopping difference between

• NAEG is a jerk and
• NAEG's wife sometimes says he is a jerk

In the first one, WIKIVOICE is used to declare this as fact, without the slightest reservation or doubt, as a condition that exists everywhere all the time under all circumstances. In the second one, inline attribution is used to convey to the reader who thinks this, and how often, and - thank god - also imples that every once in a while she also thinks he's sort of a decent fellow. As you can see these are very different meanings. The question I have posed is can we use WIKIVOICE to describe anthropogenic global warming and its effects as the "climate crisis" without violating our WP:Neutrality policy? The question can only be answered by diving into the sources and assessing their content and quality and due WP:WEIGHT. I believe climate crisis must be covered. But I think our policies (so far) require us to use inline attribution instead of WIKIVOICE to do it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added a few new users of the term to the lists in the article. They currently number about 235 media outlets and institutions, several political bodies and senior climate researchers. François Robere (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do not use climate crisis - I came here from the NPOV noticeboard, but I'm not sure it's really an NPOV issue at heart. "Climate crisis" is a fairly new term that is not yet widely adopted by academic sources. Perhaps it will be in 2020, but at this time, no. That's my primary reason for saying that we should continue to use climate change as the term. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you ok with reporting on the efforts to reframe the issue, using inline attribution, similar to an earlier version of this article? For example, I had built up a stub to this point before others took it in the WIKIVOICE direction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a totally different issue entirely and it's potentially acceptable as long as there are reliable sources that provide significant independent coverage of the naming shift. The naming shift may not be wide-spread enough as of September 2019 to merit using it in Wikipedia's voice, but if the controversy is notable enough, then it could deserve it's own article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, Quoting myself from the NPOV discussion, Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change. Springee (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Great turn of phrase! But per WP:WEIGHT we should be in the line of cars about 2/3 the way back from the locomotive, not the very very very last stubborn relic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes A vast panoply of sources make reference to the current situation with regard to anthropogenic climate change as the Climate Crisis - it would be non-neutral for us to not call it that just because some denialists still exist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"A vast panoply of sources" is not the same as a consensus. As soon as it becomes true that, as you seem to be saying, only the denialists are not using the term "climate crisis", I'll change my vote from no to yes. NightHeron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Excessive rushing and excessive lethargy are opposites of the same problematic extreme. I laughed aloud when @Springee: commented that Wikipedia is the caboose of the train but in reality per WP:WEIGHT we should be at about the 2/3 point in line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I think we should allow it, but not impose it. François Robere (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfect recipe for enouraging POVFORKING, in my view. Either there is sufficient weight to say it in Wikivoice, or there isn't. Policy hawks are swearming this phrase. Scientists are not (yet). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, "hard" scientists are not trained to do that, regardless of the subject. Those concerned with the human condition and science communication, however, are doing so, as evident by the GS results and some of the names listed on the Climate crisis#Other users. François Robere (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• No Never seen "climate crisis" used in any scientific literature. Zortwort (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zortwort: [6] François Robere (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: I would suggest you actually read through these sources you've linked: just because Google Scholar turns up results for the search "climate crisis" does not mean that any of these papers are relevant. Having looked at a substantial number of these, I have yet to find a single paper that is related to hard science or has been produced by any actual climate scientist, physicist, or applied mathematician. These are predominantly social science articles related to the psychology of the term "climate crisis", or are completely speculative pieces also produced by social scientists. Another large element of them were made before the term "climate crisis" was widespread and before global warming was widely studied, and are in fact not claiming that there is an ongoing climate crisis, but are talking about how reliably a climate crisis may be detected or modeled. So my claim, that I've never seen the term, as it's defined for this article, used in actual scientific literature, still stands. Zortwort (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Not just psychology: ethics, media, public administration, economy, political science and human geography, all of which are sciences which are relevant to the framing of the issue as a "crisis". Climatologists shouldn't be expected to use that term in a paper, because that's not what their write papers about. Who does? Crisis researchers, economists, political scientists, geographers etc. That being said, in less official settings some senior climatologists do use that term.[7][8] François Robere (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't sciences actually. They're valid areas of research, but are not by definition "sciences." They are humanities. The predominant reliable sources on "climate science" are bona fide science articles, none of which use the term "crisis". Zortwort (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually they're social sciences, with geography bracing the line between that and geoscience. These are who you'd expect to write about a "crisis", which is a human notion. The Earth itself doesn't care either way, right? François Robere (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. As per previous comments, climate change and the potential climate crisis are differring concepts; that's why we have different pages for them. This page refers to the literal language being used by mass media and activists like the aforementioned Greta Thunberg. In addition, guys, we're literally seeing the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists referring to Climate Change as a reason for the Doomsday Clock being 2 minutes to midnight. Pretty sure that qualifies this as a crisis, in any event. india.OHC (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether or not there's a climate crisis, but whether or not the term "crisis" should be used in Wikipedia's voice. By comparison, look at how Wikipedia handles the Opioid epidemic and, in particular, the Opioid epidemic in the United States. The word "crisis" is not used in Wikipedia's voice, although the latter article starts out: "The opioid epidemic or opioid crisis is a term that generally refers to the rapid increase in the use of..." Note that a Google Scholar search for "opioid crisis" leads to articles from the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal with the word "crisis" in the title. So the case for claiming scientific use of the term "crisis" seems to be stronger than in the case of the climate crisis. Nevertheless, Wikipedia proceeds cautiously and avoids using the term in its editorial voice. The same should apply here. NightHeron (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It is a neutral statement to refer to the climate as a crisis. There is no scientific data to support the idea that things will be okay. Or even merely inconvenient. The climate is becoming worse, there is already mass extinction going on around the globe and so on. Vision Insider (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References for this thread

References

Normalize usage on Wikipedia

See here. François Robere (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Good on you for trying. Unfortunately some of the editors you have been battling with seem to be climate crisis deniers. They simply do not understand that there is a crisis, and will not accept the reality described by 11,000 scientists, the IPCC and the United Nations that there is a crisis.

One of your antagonists even wrote: "We know that the 'crisis' terminology is still controversial in the mainstream". No its not. When it comes to climate science, the IPCC, the UN and all these other scientists are the mainstream. These editors you are arguing with are pushing their own agenda in breach of WP:NPOV and WP guidelines on reliable sources. Notagainst (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Notagainst:, please read WP:CIVIL. Suggesting editors who don't agree with you might be "deniers" is not WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that "Unless you can show that there is a clear consensus among scientist and researchers, then we should use terms with a neutral tone" ignores (ie denies) the overwhelming consensus that exists within the scientific and international community that the world is facing an existential crisis. As Donald Trump demonstrates, it is very difficult to have a civil conversation with those who deny reality. Notagainst (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, the scope of this article is about the usage of the term etc. It is not a list of who used it or what the newest paper with the term happens to be. And, yes, since Wikipedia is meant to be on the trailing edge of such linguistic changes the fact that we are debating this at all says it's too soon. Springee (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is truely remarkable that you think it is possible to separate the usage of the term from the meaning of the term. So you would discuss the usage of the term 'forest' without acknowledging that a forest is made up of trees. In order to make such an arbitrary distinction, you would have to ignore (ie deny) that the trees exist. Notagainst (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm clearly not the only one who feels that way nor the only one not convinced by your arguments. Springee (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - well birds of a feather flock together don't they. And editing decisions are not supposed to be based on feelings. They should be based on WP guidelines and rules - which you and your flock are ignoring. Notagainst (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• - Do you not understand how it's "possible to separate the usage of the term from the meaning of the term"? It's simple. Here's an example:

1. "Tricky Dick" is one name for Richard Nixon.
2. The subject matter of that subject is in the article titled "Richard Nixon".
3. One could, in principle, write a standalone article called "Tricky Dick", which would talk about the term, Tricky Dick.
4. The fact that the subject matter remains in the Richard Nixon article, does not imply Dick was not tricky.

- Here, the subject matter with which you are concerned, is presently in the Global warming article. Placing it there, does not imply Wikipedians are climate change deniers.

- The controversiality of the term climate crisis, is discussed in sourced content in "Climate_crisis#Concerns about crisis terminology.

- Other editors have bent over backwards trying to explain these simple concepts. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Paging Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), do you have any sage advice for participants here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 You say the subject matter with which I am concerned, "is presently in the Global warming article." No its not. The Global warming article contains one sentence which is marginally relevant to the climate crisis as follows: "People who regard climate change as catastrophic, irreversible, or rapid might label climate change as a climate crisis or a climate emergency." (Followed by a second sentence about the Guardian's use of the term). There is not one sentence on the entire Global warming page which actually describes the crisis we are facing. The GW article ignores hundreds of reliable scientific sources that say there is a crisis (ie editors are denying there is a crisis). It also fails to provide any of the content that defines or describes what makes it a crisis (still more denial). The GW page doesn't even acknowledge that GW contributes to the crisis. You are even in denial about your own denial. Notagainst (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Global warming article describes this subject matter extensively (see especially Global_warming#Effects and its various sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, and the entire linked article Effects of global warming). You @Notagainst fail to see that the word "crisis" is a subjective characterization that is discussed in Global warming's "Terminology" section; "crisis" is simply not an objective description like global warming or climate change.

+ As a suggestion: it may be permissible to add to this Climate crisis article, reliably sourced content of what "defines or describes what makes it a crisis" (your words)—provided it's written as such: that is, as a definition or description of the term and is not itself a polemic or an exhortation to action. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The objective reality of climate change and global warming have been hotly disputed for 30 years. As more and more evidence became available, more and more people began to accept it as a reality. There is now a consensus amongst 97% of the scientific community that global warming is real and caused by human beings. However, the reality is that global warming was happening whether there was a consensus or not. Right-wing media and climate deniers in particular were the slow to catch up with reality. Donald Trump has still not caught up. It was not until most people did catch up did that global warming was seen as an objective reality by the mainstream. But that's not what made it objective. Global warming was already happening whether anyone realised that or not. The same applies to climate crisis. It is already happening, and described as such by thousands of scientists, whether you and your fellow editors realise it.

By refusing to allow material to be posted on the Climate Crisis artilce linking to reliable sources, you and your fellow editors are in breach of one of Wikipedia five key pillars which says "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial .." Whether there is a crisis might be controversial. But there are reliable, authoritative sources which can be supplied. You and your fellow editors are breaching a key Wikipedia policy. You are censoring Wikipedia. Notagainst (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also your attempt to use Richard Nixon to explain your argument, has no merit.

1. The article on Richard Nixon does not even mention Tricky Dick. No one has attempted to create a separate article called Tricky Dick. Clearly the fact that he was called Tricky Dick does not reach the required level of notability.
2. Richard Nixon and Tricky Dick are one and the same person. Global warming and climate crisis are not one and the same thing. Global warming contributes to and even creates the climate crisis. But in and of itself global warming is not the same thing as the climate crisis. It just means the world is warmer.
3. Tricky Dick is a nickname designed to cast aspersions on Nixon's character. Climate crisis is not a nickname. It is phrase that describes an impending reality, endorsed by hundreds of reliable sources.

Your comparison with Richard Nixon has no relevance. Notagainst (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You @Notagainst completely missed the point: the Nixon description was an analogy to describe the difference between a subject matter and one of various terms used to describe the subject matter. This analogy was in response to your earlier statement: "It is truely remarkable that you think it is possible to separate the usage of the term from the meaning of the term." You're really not following things, which is why you're having a hard time here with all the imagined "denialists". —RCraig09 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What I'm following is WP pillars, rules and guidelines. It would help if you did the same. Notagainst (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You state, properly, "Whether there is a crisis might be controversial." Your quotation "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy" is part of the Pillar, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view which implies that any one controversial characterization to be presented as a controversial characterization. You don't seem to be understanding much of this at all. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please stop making snide personal comments about what I do or don't understand.

For arguments sake, let's say that climate crisis is a controversial characterisation. You say that's how it should be presented. Then why don't you let @François Robere and I present it. Everything we put up, you and your colleagues delete. You are not following your own advice - let alone Wikipedia rules. Notagainst (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

My statement about your manifest lack of understanding was an observation, not a snide remark. "Snide remarks" would include your statements such as "Your lack of logic is simply astounding" and "That's nonsense" and "You are not following your own advice - let alone Wikipedia rules".

The reason "Everything (you) put up, (I) and (my) colleagues delete" is that you do not present what you earlier admitted is a controversial characterization as a controversial characterization. And you still haven't shown a sliver of recognition of the basic concept that a subject, and the subject's name(s), are different things! If you don't understand these basic principles, nothing will change. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again you make personal attack on me and entirely avoid responding to my point that you are not following WP rules. The 11,000 scientists who say there is a crisis do not say this is controversial. They simply describe it as a crisis. Calling it controversial is WP:SYNTH. If you think it is controversial, find a source that says so. But stop deleting material with solid reliable sources that describes it as a crisis. Start following the WP rules instead of imposing your own agenda on the subject to suit your personal POV. Notagainst (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

● Quoting your own insults against me, and trying to correct your repeated manifest lack of understanding, are not "personal attacks against you". ● That 11,000 scientists characterize climate change as a crisis, does not make the characterization uncontroversial (you have admitted "Whether there is a crisis might be controversial") and I have already pointed out some of the controversy in the sourced content at Climate_crisis#Concerns_about_crisis_terminology. ● I've shown at 05:09, 7 Nov how I am following "WP rules" and you are not. ● You have admitted that "Everything (you and Francois) put up" gets deleted, which should inspire a reality check as to who is following the rules, and who doesn't understand them. ● As of this instant, I am through trying to communicate them to you. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You wrote: "a subject, and the subject's name(s), are different things! If you don't understand these basic principles, nothing will change". The problem with that line of argument is that it is not a WP principle. It just a semantic argument. Notagainst (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Better late than never, please consider trying one of the dispute resolution options. There's a place for prevention and teaching, (see WP:DONTBITE) but once it becomes obvious the other party isn't receiving your sage advice that way, a wise editor will stop trying and move on to something else. Maybe 3O or mediation? And if that doesn't help, then instead of accusing each other of disruptively violating policies, try convincing an admin of the other guy(s) sins. See also WP:Tendentious editing and WP:Don't take the bait. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

PS Also, please note I have given the DS alert for climate change to all participants here, I think. So unless I missed someone we are all "aware" that DS applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What's a DS alert?Notagainst (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

DS=Discretionary sanctions; Alerts in general are part of the DS procedure (this subsection). If Mother Theresa herself does work in a topic area subject to DS, any editor can give her the DS alert. After all, they are FYI only and do not indicate a problem. I post it on my own talk page on a regular basis, and I posted one on yours here. They are used to show evidence that a user is "aware" of the fact that DS applies. Once awareness is shown, then admins can intervene anytime there is a problem. Sometimes it takes someone to complain, sometimes the admins suddenly speak up out of the blue (usually with a caution on your talk page first). Just click and read links in the DS Alert template on your talk page for more detailsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Citing of neurological study

It's not very clear what the significance is of a single neurological study of level of emotion in reaction to various terms. To provide balance I added material from the same source saying that the study suggested that a strong emotional reaction can in some cases be counter-productive, among other reasons because of provoking stronger pushback. Has there been any commentary on this study by scientists in the field of psychology? NightHeron (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Excellent point. I was literally on my way back to this "Concerns..." section to explain downside of tripling Republicans' neurological response! I don't know if the study has been reviewed, so I put the study results in context by specifying N=120 subjects. Also, I've since realized that this CBS News article reported on the same study reported in the "Why your brain doesn't register the words 'climate change'" article in Grist (magazine). Thanks for your vigilance. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Thanks for your comment. I have one minor problem with your rewording. The words "visceral intensity can backfire" should not be a direct quote from the CEO because they are the words of the article's author, who is paraphrasing the CEO. NightHeron (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I had inferred the article writer was directly quoting the interviewee, but you are correct. I've removed the quotation marks. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Scope of article (yet again) - conflating the TERM "climate crisis" with other crisis-related terms

I have reverted this evening's additions that pertain uniquely to "climate emergency", cognizant of the existence of a more pertinent article, Climate emergency declaration, where such content may possibly belong. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The term "climate emergency" appears to be among the most used of numerous alternative terms employed to urge action on anthropogenic global warming and climate change. However, emphatically, the present article is about the term "climate crisis". If content about one additional term, "climate emergency", were allowed more than an in-context passing mention here (in the "Alternative terminology" section), then the floodgates would be open to include content about the 13^{(my quick count)} other similar terms already in this article: it would balloon to a confused, trivia-filled mess. Meanwhile, the substantive discussion of this issue continues to be hosted at Global warming;^{(or whatever it may soon be renamed)} content about the substantive issue itself, should be pursued there. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no discussion of the climate crisis on the global warming page, let alone substantive discussion. As far as I can see, the term climate crisis is not even mentioned. Notagainst (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

>Read this again (click)< . If you finally understand (or choose to stop ignoring) the basic fact that substantive content is essentially distinct from the various termS characterizing that content, you may be able to make a positive contribution to these encyclopedia articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"Climate emergency"

FYI possible RS, Undersigned by 11,000 and peer reviewed.

• Grist article about this
• Original paper

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, NAEG. Content is already essentially included in the Alternative terminologysection, with a more recent Bioscience article and reported by CNET. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oversimplification, misrepresentation, biased sources

The term is applied by those who "believe it [...] can help spur [...] political willpower [...]". They believe that [...] calling climate change a crisis "could have an even punchier impact"."

There are several things wrong with this.

1) The way this is written, it means that everyone who uses the term does so exclusively because they want more oomph in their language. This is obviously misrepresenting the facts in that it's not possible to assert what everyone who uses the phrase believes.

2) The second sentence ("calling climate change a crisis") implies that "climate change" is the correct phrasing.

3) How is the given source for all of this, "E&E News", reputable? By their own description they are publishing "news for energy and environment professionals". On their contact page they're offering interviews with their reporters, which I'll tentatively take to imply that there are other interests involved than mere reporting on facts. I would question their suitability as providers of a definition for the article summary. At the very least this should be made explicit with something like "E&E News, a site that does X, assumes Y," but even then it shouldn't be the only definitive description.

--79.202.104.78 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC), edited by 79.202.104.78 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The current phrasing does not imply that it is used "exclusively" because "they want more oomph". That is your personal inference.
2. "Climate change" is the neutral, objective description. There is no implication that characterizing climate change as a crisis is not "correct".
3. I ran across E&E News as a Google news source, prima facie evidence that it is reliable under Wikipedia standards. The content sourced to E&E is in accord with other sources I encountered; I simply found E&E expressed itself concisely. What a Wikipedia editor personally "will tentatively take to imply", does not render a source unreliable. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

   I think I agree here with the anonymous editor that the current language can imply that climate change is the correct phrasing, and that we've downplayed scientific reasons (as opposed to political oomph) in our attempt to counteract previous POV pushing. See proposal below. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

   Discussion continued through this diff in the section "Scientific argumentation why it's a crisis", below. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editor and Femkemilene. Phrasing such as applied by those who "believe it [...] can help spur [...] political willpower [...]" means wikivoice believes climate change is the correct term. Such phrasing involves the use of weasel words - words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Using weasel words may allow the audience to later deny any specific meaning if the statement is challenged, because the statement was never specific in the first place.. just as RCraig has done. Notagainst (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)