This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
False balance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaackurubal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryananderson1290.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This piece reads like a high school essay of dubious quality, marked by many vaguely expressed opinions and few concrete facts, Is it possible to clean it up? Is it worth cleaning it up? Is anybody watching this page? -- TS 18:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Numerous examples on the internet and journalism use the term "False Equivalence" for precisely this topic. [1] [2] At the moment, the term " False equivalence" only leads to a mathematical topic. Perhaps a synonym/disambiguation should be added? Ghostkeeper ( talk) 20:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
References
The headline makes a statement so weak that it is unsurprising that there is a an overwhelming consensus. That something exists does not say whether it is interesting, important, or urgent. I don't know how to get rid of this tomfoolery statement of the obvious, or at least rephrase it so that it actually means something informative. Greglocock ( talk) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
According to Forbes fact-checking "the 97% consensus is false" https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=21645f2c1157 88.156.136.69 ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
not wikipedia's policyThat does not mean you should ignore it. It means you should check the reasoning how it ended up that way and either accept it, ask people to explain it, or challenge it. This is the wrong place to do that.
Do you think that Ritchie is a part of some conspiracyNo, I think that if someone's income depends upon rejecting a fact, they are more likely to do that. But it does not matter what I think. It only matters that 1. it's a journalistic source, 2. the guy is not even a scientist, let alone a climatologist.
Who are you to say that Forbes is a "crap"?I already explained that. It is irrelevant who I am, only what reasoning I use. Please consult literature about bad reasoning so you do not make such rookie mistakes anymore.
not among ALL papers but only those that express position. Otherwise, it would not make any sense. It would be like doing the "percentages of people" part not among climatologists but among the world population. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
False balance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaackurubal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 October 2017 and 17 November 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryananderson1290.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This piece reads like a high school essay of dubious quality, marked by many vaguely expressed opinions and few concrete facts, Is it possible to clean it up? Is it worth cleaning it up? Is anybody watching this page? -- TS 18:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Numerous examples on the internet and journalism use the term "False Equivalence" for precisely this topic. [1] [2] At the moment, the term " False equivalence" only leads to a mathematical topic. Perhaps a synonym/disambiguation should be added? Ghostkeeper ( talk) 20:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
References
The headline makes a statement so weak that it is unsurprising that there is a an overwhelming consensus. That something exists does not say whether it is interesting, important, or urgent. I don't know how to get rid of this tomfoolery statement of the obvious, or at least rephrase it so that it actually means something informative. Greglocock ( talk) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
According to Forbes fact-checking "the 97% consensus is false" https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=21645f2c1157 88.156.136.69 ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
not wikipedia's policyThat does not mean you should ignore it. It means you should check the reasoning how it ended up that way and either accept it, ask people to explain it, or challenge it. This is the wrong place to do that.
Do you think that Ritchie is a part of some conspiracyNo, I think that if someone's income depends upon rejecting a fact, they are more likely to do that. But it does not matter what I think. It only matters that 1. it's a journalistic source, 2. the guy is not even a scientist, let alone a climatologist.
Who are you to say that Forbes is a "crap"?I already explained that. It is irrelevant who I am, only what reasoning I use. Please consult literature about bad reasoning so you do not make such rookie mistakes anymore.
not among ALL papers but only those that express position. Otherwise, it would not make any sense. It would be like doing the "percentages of people" part not among climatologists but among the world population. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)