Talk:Dennis Jensen

Sceptic

The guy is Australian, and most readers will be from Australia. The spelling should be sceptic, rather than skeptic (unless skeptic is a brand owned by Exxon, which seems possible). 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. Changed per strong national ties to the subject. Frickeg (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sceptic or denier?

There is a discussion that happens regularly around various WP biography pages about whether people should be referred to as climate change "sceptics" or climate change "deniers". One of the keys to choosing the right word is to look at what the article subject themselves has been reported as saying, and what independent reliable sources report. Jensen has described himself as a sceptic, but the article currently i don't think cites any independent reliable sources that indicate he denies climate change. In the absence of such sources, given the heated nature of climate change debate, "denier" becomes a kind of slur. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales's opinion:

The phrase "climate change denier" should be avoided in almost all cases, unless the person expresses that precise claim themselves, which will be almost never. The reason should be clear: the phrase is highly partisan and an attempt to tar people with association with the phrase "holocaust denier" - the only other common usage of that sort of phrase that I know about.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really see how Jimbo's position is relevant. The article is at climate change denial. Certainly a source would be helpful. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it isn't Wales's position that is relevant, so much as his reasoning, which I support. The article on denial is helpful in drawing attention to the distinction between denial, and debate over scientific conclusions, which is something else. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Over the years these editors have changed this article to say Jensen is a "denier", or reverted that change, or changed to "sceptic": User:211.26.93.235, User:220.253.184.16, User:58.7.153.46, User:99of9, User:AtholM, User:AusLondonder, User:Bobdyer54, User:Frickeg, User:Hamiltonstone, User:Hawiianbat, User:Peter Gulutzan, User:JzG, User:Widr. I have reverted the latest change to "denier" on the BLP basis that the claim is "contentious" and is "unsourced or poorly sourced". Please discuss rather than putting "denier" in without consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter, I know you hate the term denier and prefer the term skeptic. The problem here is twofold: first the source says he denies climate change. It's not a poor source, it's not contentious. Deny, as in denial, as in denialism, as in reject, for ideological reasons, the scientific consensus. Second, climate change "skeptics" are not skeptics. They are deniers. That is well established. Now, if you want to push for a third term that does not invoke the hated D-word, feel free - AP deprecates both, but if it must be one or the other, then denial is the only legitimate one here per out policies. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A headline is often tacked on by an editor not the author, and this article doesn't contain any variant of the word "denier", it only contains "sceptic" as an indirect quote of Jensen. That's not to say that some real source couldn't easily be found somewhere calling Jensen a denier, but it could easily be negated by finding articles calling Jensen "sceptic" not "denier" such as here and here. I see that you've re-inserted "denier" without waiting for other editors. I think it would be better to see who favours either term, both terms, a third term, or nothing. But a lack of consensus will mean back to the status quo ante pre-JzG. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is a climate denialist with zero expertise in the field on which to base his incorrect opinions. Oh, and he went the full Godwin too: [1]. Pick more rational denialists to defend, eh? Consensus is that we don't misrepresent denial as legitimate skepticism. That's consensus as in the true sense: long-term high level policies and guidelines, such as WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dennis Jensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829225512/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/scin/geosequestration/report.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dennis Jensen. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21303658-1702,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930095625/http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=231&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true to http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=231&Archived=true&Archived=true&Archived=true

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)