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.
A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are:
A 2009 article spuriously proposes
His thesis, incorrectly
In both cases it could be argued that a source is needed for the word I have stricken out. Those were the most obvious, please go through and check, letting the sourced material tell the story -- which is clearly very strong. Please let me know when you are done
Ldm1954 (
talk)
11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But I believe “incorrectly” is not OR. We always describe
climate change denialism in such terms. The cited source verifies it as well: ” For example, in its “research journal” is this flat statement: [climate thesis].Simple, eh? Completely wrong, but simple.
Dr. Swag Lord (
talk)
20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ldm1954: So besides those two examples, do you have any other concerns? I’m not seeing much instances of non-neutral language. Certainly, the reception is pretty negative but all those statements are attributed, so it complies with NPOV. Do you have objections to “not scientifically sound”; “unscientific”; “journal's objective is not scientific inquiry”? We have to remember that
WP:FRINGE comes into play here.
Dr. Swag Lord (
talk)
20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Finishing up the review as a Pass. The only slightly questionable point is 6a, images. The journal has graphic pages at the top of each article, many of which are from Wikimedia Commons so might be useable. Something to think about for later.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.