Talk:Willie Soon

Let's debate the term "denier"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Our manual of style gives little guidance on how to label people (except for gender identity). This is not terribly surprising — as an encyclopedia with the desire to be neutral it behooves us to document what people have done and leave labeling to others. That said, it is inevitable that we will use some labels — we are likely to talk about an individual as an actor, an acrobat, an athlete or an academic. Each of those terms is neutral, and if a preponderance of reliable sources use the term, we have no difficulty labeling the individual as such in Wikipedia's voice. In some cases, especially with pejorative terms, we might put the term in quotes and identify a source. For example Virginia Abernethy, who is in Category:American white supremacists isn't called a white supremacist in Wikipedia's voice. Instead the article states "In 2012, the Anti-Defamation League referred to Abernathy as an "unabashed white supremacist",..."

The use of neutral terms in Wikipedia's voice, if supported or supportable by multiple reliable sources is well accepted. Practice suggests that the use of pejorative terms is less common even when they can be found in reliable sources. This is as it should be. There are 256 entries in Category:American white supremacists. while I haven't looked at them all, a casual review suggests that the term "racist" in Wikipedia voice is exceedingly rare with labeling done, if at all, by quoting a reliable source.

We've all watched what happens when notable people are labeled as "racist". Many lose their jobs and some are canceled by society. Because of the stigma associated with the term, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use the term very carefully, and that generally seems to be the case.

For similar reasons, Wikipedia ought to be careful about labeling someone a denier as in "climate denial". We could debate which term carries more public opprobrium. I'm not here to argue that they occupy exactly the same relative niche, but both are pejoratives, serious enough that those so labeled are often threatened with death. I'm not the only one who sees parallels –this article in The Atlantic compares the denial of climate change to the denial of racism.

The entire point of a label is categorization. We can (and do) spent several paragraphs explaining what Bruce Jenner did in the Olympics, or we can use a label "decathlete". If the label is an accurate portrayal of some aspects of the subject's actions, and it is neutral, no harm is done by using the shorter label instead of the longer explanation. In the case of pejorative terms, we are better served by a lengthier explanation of their activities, allowing the reader to label (or not) as they so choose.

I think it is also relevant to note that the MOS discussion of gender identity suggests:

Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources.

While that advice is specific to gender designation, it sounds like useful advice for a broader variety of situations.

For this reason, I have removed the term "denier" as a label for this person. It is worth noting that while they were two sources, the New York Times article doesn't use the term. The Guardian does use the term, but I think we need to come to a consensus whether such a pejorative term can be used in Wikipedia's voice ever, and if so, how much support is necessary.

I don't think it was ever justified, but in the spirit of WP:BRD I accept it as a bold edit which I have reverted and now wish to engage in discussion before determining what further should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)

Sorry, that is not how WP:BRD works. The term has been in the article for months. And, without prejudice to the outcome, the state your edit left the article in is unacceptable. Piping "climate change" into "climate change denial"? Seriously? I'll revert your bold edit while we can discuss what an adequate form would be. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If you need a second source for "denier", there is this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: The "bold edit" was made here by Rockypedia, who is now banned. I think that when you said "Our manual of style gives little guidance on how to label people" you might have missed WP:LABEL, but I don't argue against "denier" on that basis. I also don't think this page is the natural spot for arguing about "denier" in general, it's merely appropriate to observe that it's poorly sourced and that this is a BLP (which is why I suggest that the removal was on good faith BLP grounds so WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies). We just had a short discussion on the Sallie Baliunas talk page with thread title Removed the word "denier" but it turned out to be an "experiment". Without supporting arguments about pejorative words, I support removal in this place in this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] By that reasoning, we should remove the word "climatologist" from articles about climatologists. It leads to them getting death threats. Michael MannMichael E. Mann gets daily death threats because of the lies denialists tell about him. Maybe we should delete the fact that he was the first who found that the temperature curve looks like a hockey stick! That could save him a few unwanted nightly phone calls per week.

You see the mistake? Of course deniers are not hated because someone calls them "denier" on Wikipedia. They are hated because they ruin our future by distorting facts, cherry-picking data, influencing politicians, spreading false rumors, hiding facts, and just being generally dishonest. By making a Wikipedia article call Willie Soon a "climate change scientist" and sourcing this to the Guardian, which called him a denier instead, you are helping them do that. "Denier" is an accurate portrayal for that man, and it is in the sources cited.

BTW, the "bold edit" you reverted was three years old: [1]. By the usual definition, your deletion itself is the bold edit and can be deleted per BRD. Redefining a situation like this is something an old-fashioned Englishman would call "not cricket".

There seems to have been a denialism whitewashing campaign in the past few weeks. Did a denialist outlet start this? In the winter, they say it's cold, therefore there is no global warming. In the summer, they start campaigns claiming they are a poor persecuted minority. (If Soon loses his job, he may have to live on the 1.3 million he got from fossil fuel companies for getting the result they wanted. Sad!)

Also, you laid an easter egg: The link in "climate change scientist" does not link to the place it seems to link to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

[2], from [3]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Apologies for the link mistake. I noticed it and thought I click on the X to remove the pipe but I must've done it wrong. That was not my intention. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I'm interested in serious arguments but claiming that " we should remove the word "climatologist" from articles about climatologists" is about as silly an argument as I'd seen today. I'm sorry to hear that Michael Mann is getting death threats but they are not remotely because he is a climatologist and you know that. Make a serious point and I will take you seriously. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I have seen Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, but I did miss it. It very clearly identifies "denialist" as a word to avoid. I don't doubt there are several sources but to doesn't exactly qualify as "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" and even if that can be substantiated, the guideline says "...in which case use in-text attribution." S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Thanks for conceding that deniers are hated. While it probably wasn't your intention, I'm not (generally) in favor of taking actions that increase hate. Why do you support this? S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: With respect to the last, may I request that you retract it as an obviously inflammatory and irrelevant rhetorical device, and replace it with something that has some hope of being productive? --JBL (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, Huh? Hob Gadling said

Of course deniers are not hated because someone calls them "denier" on Wikipedia. They are hated because ...

Stating that "deniers are hated" logically follows. Do you disagree? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page, and for striking. --JBL (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to annoy me by pinging, repinging, triple-pringing, and then quadruple-pinging me to a page which I am watching anyway?

they are not remotely because he is a climatologist and you know that I do not know anything like that. He is getting death threats because despicable liars picked him out of the climatologist crowd and falsely accused him of faking his data, although everybody else who looked at the same place found the same thing. That could have happened to every other climatologist. The fact that you claim he is getting death threats for other reasons than doing his job shows me that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead in order to make false insinuations against serious scientists because you do not like their results. And with that, you used up the little WP:AGF I still had for you. I do not think you are capable of making or recognizing serious arguments. Go play devil's advocate somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Couple of points: don't know if Michael Mann has received any death threats, but mainstream scientists such as Michael E. Mann have had to deal with harassment, including death threats.[4][5] We should also note that the latter Mann is a skeptic, a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Soon isn't a skeptic in the same sense. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to annoy you. I use a feature which adds a reply link to all posts. When I click on it, it automatically formats and adds a ping to the name of the editor to whom I am responding. . It is automatically added, and I consider it polite to let someone know when I respond to them. While it will be more work, I'll try to remember to remove your name from the responses, but as it is automatic, I may occasionally forget. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know anything like that.

I'm sorry I made the mistake of assuming you knew something that's blindingly obvious. I'll try not to assume that in the future. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It was actually $60K per year max if you're willing to do your own original arithmetic. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I think we need to come to a consensus whether such a pejorative term can be used in Wikipedia's voice ever makes sense. Firstly, this isn't the place for such discussion, and secondly it is used in multiple articles and I think we've already had that discussion (though I doubt I can find it). The answer, of course, is that yes it can be used, if supported by reliable sources. So you need to rein in your ambitions to discussing whether it is appropriate in this article. Which will again turn on RS. Speaking of not RS, are you aware of the IPCC = Gangster "Science" talk he gave? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPQSlHbnXv0. 1:26 is particularly good William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I agree with you that this is probably not the best place to have a definitive discussion. I won't be surprised to see if this issue has been discussed elsewhere, but like you I don't know where it might be. If you or anyone has thoughts on where to have the general discussion about how "denier" should be used in articles, I'm happy to start a discussion there and provide a link here. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is a joke and anti-Soon editors jokers

Many of the claims against Soons conflict of interest scandal have been refuted by the Heartland Institute. You can use facts and determine whether something is true or not. Here are many quotes, all based in *fact*:

• Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

• Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

• The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.

• By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

• Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.

These are facts that directly challenge all the claims on this article about alleged conflict of interest. Now that this lie has been disproven, how fast will wookiepedians make this paragraph disappear? These points reveal the lies that wikipedia has become, while asking for donations, everything that challenges the lies gets deleted. Addeps3 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Without a reliable source for those claims, you will not get far. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your problem. The Heartland Institute is the leading source of climate denial in the US, and is tasked with generating propaganda and disinformation by its fossil fuel funders. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Soon and Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, also some early history

The article mentions DDP, but doesn't note that Soon was one of the most popular speakers there. Was Willie Soon Paid For Science…Or Anti-Science? "Willie Soon at DDP 2000-2014, #18-#32." there lists 15 talks, 2000-2014, i.e., he spoke every year. Of course, that's not not RS, but if someone cares, past history is listed at DDP Events, showing speakers for 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023. Soon spoke at all of those. Anyway, Soon has a long relationship with DDP. Of course, Fred Singer spoke a few times as well.

Willie Soon And Friends In The Early Days Before Climate Science Denial is also not itself RS, but has sourcves on more details on Soon's PhD advisor Joseph Kunc, mentioned in the page. Unfortunately, someone deleted the video where Art Robinson explained how he and Soon got connected (leading to some of the work for the Oregon Petition). JohnMashey (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)