Talk:Climate fiction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why Remove the History and Origin of Climate Fiction

This thread has to do with my removal of the following text

-- History and origin --

In the past, prior to current understandings of man-made global warming, authors such as JG Ballard, John Wyndham and Jules Verne delved into climate themes. In modern times, writers such as David Brin, John Atcheson and Liz Jensen have novels that could be deemed as working the climate-change fiction genre. When scientists began to develop current theories about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), modern climate-change fiction was born. An early example would be Arthur Herzog's Heat.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_fiction

References removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_fiction&diff=653840933&oldid=653840740 (the section did have citations for a) http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/climate_change (Science Fiction Encyclopedia's article about the history of climate change and climate themes in science fiction) and b) reference to an early example being the novel HEAT by popular author Arthur Herzog, with the citation being http://eco-fiction.com/cli-fi-short-essay-worlds-importance/. Gregers Andersen, the author, obtained his PhD at the Department of Arts and Cultural Studies at the University of Copenhagen. He has published articles in several Scandinavian journals and has recently also published an article in the American journal Symplokē. He is currently working on turning his PhD dissertation “Climate Changed Existence and its Worlds. Global Warming in Fiction and Philosophy” into a book on cli-fi.

It seems to me that this history and origin was well-referenced, though user Chiayi77 has an issue with it and kept removing references, which might have made it seem like there were no scholarly citations. LynnS79 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've no problem with the concept provided you can find true RSs. As stated in the edited summary, the two refs that were there were not RS, in my opinion. They were

• Eco-fiction looks non-RS to me. See WP:BLOGS
• sf-encyclopedia also, though it might be more in the nature of a wiki rather than a blog.

As a point of housekeeping, threads about improving this article should be posted here, and links to the discussion are what you post to user's talk pages.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I would argue that Eco-fiction.com is not a self-published blog, as should be evident when viewing it. It's a collaborative effort ([1]) with, I just counted 35, contributors ranging from artists to authors to scientists to academics. Its database ([2]) holds currently 281 titles. This is easily viewable by any visitor. Note, despite Chiayi77's many mistaken identity suggestions that I am the site's curater, I am not, and thank him also for his mea culpas when realizing his mistake. I am an avid enjoyer of this literature and found Eco-fiction when researching resources for a course I teach. Gregers Andersens, not the site's owner, is one of several guests authors and contributors who have contributed independent articles; he should not be considered a blogger but an independent author, who has enough notability, found in news articles and academic references about climate change themes in novels; he very importantly noted one of the first examples of modern AGW climate fictions, the novel HEAT by Arthur Herzog. Given that Gregers is one of the noted doctoral students actively studying this genre, I think his viewpoints should be allowed, and the article that has been removed is a summary of his findings and thesis, and the only place he published these findings at. I would argue that if Eco-fiction is not a true RS, it should be removed from the external links at the article as well, but a moderator added it there. If it is allowed to be an RS, I would not disclude its reference here. More on the notability of author and student Gregers Andersen:

* Reference to this study from Paper Blog: note that clifibooks.com changed to eco-fiction.com at some point in time

* Publishing Persepctives: Why Climate Fiction Has Gone Viral

* Earth Magazine: Geomedia, Books: A changing literary climate

* Doctoral Program Environment and Society: resource for the dissertation: Climate Change Fictions: Representations of Global Warming in American Literature

* How Fiction Helps Us Visualize A World Changed By Warming

There are several other resources in different languages, easily findable with a simple google search.

Regarding the removal of the history and origins section, I thank you for the challenge to cite it better, and here we go. We need to be able to provide a good context about climate fiction, which has reported to have begun long ago, long before any of us modern types came on the scene trying to claim it. As far as science fiction's history with climate change, here are more references--though the SC Encyclopedia, which was not an acceptable link, offers a more in-depth look. My point is that this literature didn't suddenly begin one day when someone woke up and declared cli-fi as a new genre. While it is true that AGW novels reflecting modern science are newer on the scene, it is not an altogether novel concept (look at HEAT, which came out in 1977 and which the author collaborated with then on scientists who knew about modern AGW). Science fiction authors and experts have argued that these themes have already been around, and that they have merely evolved. I do think that there is an emergence of climate change fiction in the recent years, but literature evolves over-time, themes evolve over-time, and current AGW novels are, as well as older sci-fi climate novels have been, called "climate fiction". I will provide more evidence of this in a moment, but for now, let's start where climate fiction began, decades ago. I think this section is important and should be reverted. Not only does it give a background and beef up what climate fiction is, but it can be a well-referenced origins section of the genre section that will, if allowed back in, help readers understand more about climate change in literature.

Just a note that I am going to resurrect user Chiayi77's notions of what he envisions cli-fi to be, and then compare to how others perceive it in the media.

Lynn, i am onlyu going on and on ad nasseum ebacuse you are nOT listenin to me. CLI FI IS NOT AN ABRREGIATIOpn. is taht clear. C L E A R? i created cli fi as a concept. It is not a genre not yet. My hope is that someday it will ebcomea genre called CLL FI but those books have not been written yet, My breakthrough on this was to refreame the conveerstaiona nd come up with a CONCEPT that would LEAD to later cli fi novels.. NONE haev appaered yet. CLI FI is not the old oldfasionedf climte fcitoom anmd HERZOG's heat is not cli fi and dneithe ri JH BaLLRD cLI fI WRITER! see caps my annotations commentsw re Shouldn't we just talk about the fiction that makes up this genre? THIS GENRE OF CLI FI DOPES NOT EXIST YET LYNN AND I CREATED THE CONCEPT IN ORDER TO CREATA PLATFORM WHEREGEY TH GENRE MIGHT ARISE IN TEH FUTURE, SEE? I AM A VISIONARY NOT AN ACDAMDEIC LOOKING BACKWARDS. The authors maybe? THERE ARE NO CLI FI AUTHORS YET. TWO PAOLO N NEW BOOKL THE WATER KNIFE AND ALICE ROBINSPM AMCJOR POINT. JUST TWO SO FAR. MORE TO COME IN FUTURE. THAT IS MY VISIONM AS VISIONARY The way it affects culture? IT IS JUST BEGIING TO HIT THE CULTURE ITS THAT NEW. CLI FI IS NOT UOUR GRAND FATHJERS CLIMATE FCION> GET OVER IT,...How literature connects us to a changing art? YES BUT HASD NOT HAPPEND YET. No, all I see here is that you want to drown that important stuff out because you want to write a thousand words about an abbreviation. NOT AN ABRREVGIATION MY FRIEND. ASK ME. If saying this makes me have some kind of agenda, how about this? IT DOES. YOU ARE AN ACADEMIC LOOKINGBN BACKWARDS AND THAT IS COOL I RESPECT THAT. My agenda is to get people who learn about climate change in fiction interested in what's out there, not about a buzzword. CLI FI IS NOT A BUZZWORD. IT IS A CONCEPT. THERE IS NO CLI FI OUT THERE YET. TELL YOUR STUDENST THAT . REALLY TELL YOU STUENTS THAT BCEAUE ThAT IS THE TRUTH. CLI FI DOES NOT EXIST YET. i Am JUST GETING STARTED. .....Because that's meaningless. DONT UNDERSTAND LAST SENTEN WHATEG> syien DAN BLOOM. (Chiayi77 (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)).

(Please do not delete the above again, as it was said here and needs to be looked at when trying to decide the history and origin of climate fiction.) Note that Chiayi77 has deleted this twice now.LynnS79 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope my arguments reveal my genuine "agenda" of fairness and working with global ideas about the subject rather than relying on a self-proclaimed idea (as shown above): cli-fi is not an abbreviation? I have cited links that say otherwise; cli-fi does not exist yet? look at every single media source on climate fiction (aka cli-fi) that list already published books in the genre, including those that go back decades; no cli-fi authors yet? I've already provided sources that say opposite as has every source discussing this literature; literature has not connected us to culture or a changing world? of course it has; it always has, and so has climate fiction; JG Ballard's fiction was not cli-fi? What about this article from Voya Magazine that reports it is, or this article ([3] Australian Humanities Review) that says so as well. Or Vice, listed already in the Sources section, or this article that talks about the evolution of this literature, in regards to Ballard, [4] Fantasy-Faction. I could go on and on.

More on the history and origins in science fiction.

* Wiki's own page of science fiction themes lists climate as one: [5]

* Financial Times: "Climate change has figured in sci-fi for decades" by Andy Sawyer, Science Fiction Librarian, University of Liverpool Library, UK, June 7, 2013, 11:03 pm This mentions novels going back to Fowler Wright's Deluge (1927) and John Wyndham's The Kraken Wakens (1953).

* Grist: "Climate change: The hottest thing in science fiction" This lists Atwood's MaddAddam trilogy and Kin Stanley Robinson's Science in the Capital series (began in 2004).

* UPPSALA Unviersity "Science fiction: not just entertainment".

* Strange Horizons Writing Climate Change: A Round Table Discussion", 27 February 2012" This roundtable discussion is a great example of why we cannot concentrate on just a cli-fi label when discussing climate change themes and implications and cultural prisms and effects--which this article should be doing; climate themes have happened in literature before now and continue to evolve. This round-table discussion includes interesting looks at the actual literature, with such esteemed panelists as authors Julie Bertanga, Tobias Buckell, Maggie Gee, Glenda Larke, Kim Stanley Robinson, Vandana Singh, and Joan Slonczewski. Robinson, for instance, in talking about these themes points to his Mars trilogy (from the 1990s), comparing it, as AGW on purpose to his Science in the Capital trilogy (AGW on accident).

This is why I feel we cannot say that there is a new phrase that will, during some vague time in the future, begin this sudden concept that climate fiction will catch on and become popular. Sorry, it was there before us and will continue to evolve--perhaps evolve into different areas, sure, but it's very important to have a history and origins section. Not one that blandly claims cli-fi was invented in 2008 or 2013 or whenever it is decided upon, but one that acknowledges the authors who have been writing in this genre for decades, who cannot be ignored, who give modern AGW novels context.

Now I have taken up an entire afternoon to hopefully cite why this section should be restored. I would propose these same ideas about climate themes in literature expand far past some vague concept of cli-fi, which Chiayi77 has been contradictory about (I can provide more sources on this when I have time). Looking at climate change themes in literature could be a beautiful start to building this article, and I'm willing to help write and source it.

But we must get past this fundamental argument of what cli-fi is: one man's self-proclaimed vision that begins when he says so, or started when he said so in the past? Or a literary concept that is a natural response from hundreds or possibly thousands of authors and artists as they individually treat climate change as subjects in their novels, films, and other fiction-based media--this fiction following the evolution of similar themes found in older science/speculative fiction? I can't decide this myself. Others will need to help decide and form a consensus about this article. LynnS79 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(A) If you can convince the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard that the two sources I objected to are RS after all, then we can restore what I reverted.

(B) Otherwise, long winded lecturish rationale is a poor way to propose article text. The vastly superior way is to write a draft including RSs, post it here, and conclude with Template:Reflist talk. I've already said that a history section based on RSs would be fine with me. The problem is writing text supported by RELIABLE SOURCES (as defined by us, for guidance run it by the noticeboard).

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am off for a week for spring break, so if anyone else has time to make a draft? Considering this is the only "long-winded" anything I've contributed to this wall of text page of otherwise very long, irrelevant religious parables, personal attacks, and other insane ramblings--and that my contributions have at least been made in attempts to stay relevant to sections being added/removed, I'm going to just hope that others see the logic I presented (not a lecture, not even close) and maybe help in providing a draft with credible sources. I'm hoping other scholars, rather than just mods who don't have time to really investigate or research this article, will come in and decide how to proceed. As it stands now, we have a good start, but it's an empty shell of an article still and does disservice to the great things going on in this field of literature. LynnS79 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lynn, have a good and relaxing vacation during spring break, i mean that sincerely, this has been a long and taxing week for all of us conceredn with these issues, and there are good points on both sides, i see that, and I hope you see that. I was elated to see NewsAndEventsGuy post that in his POV, quote unquote: "I've no problem with the concept provided you can find true RSs. As stated in the edited summary, the two refs that were there were not RS, in my opinion. They were Eco-fiction looks non-RS to me sf-encyclopedia also, though it might be more in the nature of a wiki rather than a blog. As a point of housekeeping, threads about improving this article should be posted here, and links to the discussion are what you post to user's talk pages. ....NewsAndEventsGuy said it well and i agree 100 percent with what he said and good to see an admin editor here with sense, finally. LynnS79 means well here and all her points are well taken but a NewsAndEventsGuy said: the two refs that were there were not RS, in my opinion. They were Eco-fiction looks non-RS to me. sf-encyclopedia also, though it might be more in the nature of a wiki rather than a blog. So there migth be some light at the end of the tunnel. I am glad to see this new development. Lynn does not have a lock on this by any means, even with very good intentions which i acknowledge. (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).

Admins and other eds here, Lynn too: I would argue contray to what Lynn "thinks" that some site is a self-published blog. It is run by one person who serves as an archivist and does a very good job. I like her and i see her as my colleague. I also published other peoples' essays on my blogs, some of them with different pOv than mine, as I am open minded person. So that very good and comprehensive site is not proper for purposes of Wiki sourcing as NEWS AND EVENTS GUYS suggests. he is right.(Chiayi77 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).

I was mistaken about the site, and can accept it's not an RS. However, it was not the only site I mentioned. I just thought I would mention it since it had Andersens' study. There are plenty more sources on Herzog and early climate fiction, which should not be overlooked, one of which I already mentioned (Financial Times), which seems like a RS, and which mentions Heat as an early climate fiction . Another is the University of Florida , which has an academic paper discussing Herzog's Heat along with Kim Stanley Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke, and others. This article discusses global warming and terraforming. An upcoming book, Anthropocene Fictions: The Novel in a Time of Climate Change, by Adam Trexler, also discusses Herzog as one of the forerunners of modern AGW fiction . Another book mentioning some of these earlier novels, including Herzog, is The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction edited by Mark Bould, Andrew Butler, Adam Roberts, and Sherryl Vint . Anyway, I see that this section has been expanded quite a bit, and looks good. I just don't see any reason to leave out Herzog when he's included in other studies and articles that discuss early climate change novels.LynnS79 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I really had hoped to stay out of this mess, but as the owner of Eco - fiction I am requesting that you stop spreading these baseless rumors everywhere. The spread of such false claims can demean the site's (and associates business's) reputation. Duendeseco (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I dislike when others use my words to tilt at their windmills, and disavow any spin Chiayi77 puts on my words. For what I know, the eco-fiction site looks to be quite excellent, it just isn't what a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes. Neither is ClimateProgress (for the hawks) or the Climate Depot (for the denialists, errrrrrr, I mean skeptics). A specific post at any of these sites has the potential to qualify for an exception under our WP:BLOGS rule, but generally blogs - even exceptionally high quality blogs - are not considered a "reliable source" under our definition of that term. As for whatever Chiayi77 says, no one in these talk pages is taking these verbose posts very seriously, and I suggest you don't either. If the sun is shining where you are, take a walk! Enjoy the day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you. I understand that it's not a reliable source. It is a blog, after all. I was surprised to see it had been added as an external link when Dan led me to this article himself last week. Anyway, it is raining in my part of the world, but thanks for your kind wishes. Enjoy your day too.Duendeseco (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

And Lynn even Greggers Anderson who i know personally and have comminciated with by email ... he calls the genre CLI FI in the very title of his essay for crying loud! and he does not call it CLIMATE FICTION in the title of his learned essay. Read his title, Lynn: see? SIOGNED CHIAYI 77

Her site is very good and comprehensive site and i am big fan of it, depsite our differences of opinoon. Go CREAM, go TOMMY! db.(Chiayi77 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).

Now that Lynn has admitted that was relying almost exclusively on a very good and comprensive website, which I suspected all along. . I sgugest Lynn start her own page at WIKI page and do her own thing there and admit, finally, that she carried out this campiogn with a non-neutral agenda, which was against Wiki rules.(Chiayi77 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).

References

External links

Isn't this section getting out-of-hand? I suggest a severe pruning.Rwood128 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

First reference doesn't support the crucial first line of this article?

Hello. Sorry to bumble into what appears to be some kind of editing battle? I am writing a paper for school about climate change and media and observed that the very first reference has nothing to do with the critical initiating sentence Climate fiction, or climate change fiction, sometimes abbreviated to cli-fi, is a subgenre of fiction that deals with the topics of climate change and global warming.

I really need to use citeable sources for my paper from credentialed authors. It's okay, I will find a reliable source elsewhere (Highbeam, here I come!) I don't know who added that first reference but it is not relevant to the opening sentence. Wanted to mention this to the powers-that-be on this page for your editing purposes. 208.163.200.85 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, IP 208.163.200.85 – not sure what your concern is above. First you say that the sentence is not supported by the reference source, which of course appears to be incorrect since the source goes on and on about cli-fi, to include what it stands for: Climate fiction. Then you seem to indicate that the reference source is not a reliable source apparently because the author, Dan Bloom, is not "credentialed"? In any case, if you could clarify your concerns, that might enable someone here to more effectively address them. – Paine  21:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I stopped back in here to share what I found out from my instructor. I emailed him this wiki article and said that I wasn't a hundred percent that I could use the first reference and asked him to clarify for me what he meant by "credentialed." He said that for a source to be cite-able the author must have some expertise in the subject. While his email was really long I can shrink it down for you. In summary he said that a reporter could be sourced for journalistic subject matters (their particular field of expertise) but the reporter themselves cannot be considered an "expert" on the subject that they are reporting on. Oh that and also he, in so many words, said that a freelance reporter is not anything since anyone can say they are such. Anyhoo I sent him the NPR article and asked if that was cite-able and he said yes because the author Angela Evancie is a credentialed editor who works for NPR. He also mentioned that this article would probably better serve the opening "defining" of climate fiction since it actually talks about the subject alone and whose premise is not about the side topic of teaching climate fiction in classrooms. Sorry I was too vague this is the first time I have typed anything on a WP talk page! Got it all ironed out though. Best of luck on your article here. Hope it succeeds! 208.163.200.85 (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Hello again, IP 208.163.200.85 – Sorry to hear that your instructor has such a low opinion of freelance reporters. I know several who can outshine many staff reporters in that they feel compelled to become experts on the subjects about which they write. That is one of the pillars of any journalist. Instead of disregarding whole components of a profession, Wikipedia tends to take each case individually. It is surprising how much one can learn about the expertise of journalists just by reading them – of course, that does not happen if one is biased against the type of journalist they happen to be, thereby tending not to read them at all. In any case, thank you for the NPR story, and I'm sure it will be scrutinized and possibly used in the article. To meet your hope, this encyclopedia project has been a success for more than a decade; it has been built upon discussions just like this one. Continued success is much like freedom – they both take vigilance to maintain. For helping this encyclopedia remain vigilant... Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. I just remembered that the NPR page is already used in the article in the External links section. It's hell growing old – I really actually love it, but sometimes it's hell. PS left by – Paine 

No mention of Paolo Bacigalupi?

No mention of Paolo Bacigalupi? I also noticed his page describes his works as "biopunk" when The Windup Girl, Ship Breakers, The Drowned Cities, and The Water Knife are all climate fiction. Seems like he should be included here. Locutus4242 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Locutus4242: Very much agree - could you please add some info on his works? The Windup Girl is probably the epitome of biopunk literature as of right now. --Fixuture (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Should "climate fiction" be a category?

Seems like there is enough material/pages to warrant a category. What say ye? Locutus4242 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Locutus4242: Well, actually I created Category:Climate change in fiction a while back - haven't added it to the page yet but I catched up on it now. Could you please help out with that category? --Fixuture (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Chiayi77

Dear NewsandEventsGuy, after three years, regarding A special case is outing, that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question).." If an editor has information later on that reveals that one person was using two different Wiki Pseudonyms as Wiki IDs and using one ID on Talk Wiki to insist that he/him/her/they were NOT the same person and saying one thing via one ID and a completely different thing on the other day and therefore in so doing actually lying about their motives for conducting an editing campaign that lasted six months, and the two IDs in fact belong to the same person, should that be reported or just ignored? I do not intend to out anyone. My hope is that this person who I will not name will out themselves. But how to pursue this? I have no quarrels with the editing now. But I have recently discovered who that the two IDs, both pseudonyms but easily traced once one puts two and two together belong to the same editor, and she always insisted on WikiTalk that she did not know the other editor and had no connection with that other person, when in fact, as I have now learned, there were the same person. How does one fix this so that people do not use two different pseudonym IDS to pretend that they are not related to the same person pushing an exact similar agenda? RSVP. thanks, Chiayi 77 in 2017. (Chiayi77

Gorthian in 2017 -- after three years, regarding A special case is outing, that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question).." If an editor has information later on that reveals that one person was using two different Wiki Pseudonyms as Wiki IDs and using one ID on Talk Wiki to insist that he/him/her/they were NOT the same person and saying one thing via one ID and a completely different thing on the other day and therefore in so doing actually lying about their motives for conducting an editing campaign that lasted six months, and the two IDs in fact belong to the same person, should that be reported or just ignored? I do not intend to out anyone. My hope is that this person who I will not name will out themselves. But how to pursue this? I have no quarrels with the editing now. But I have recently discovered who that the two IDs, both pseudonyms but easily traced once one puts two and two together belong to the same editor, and she always insisted on WikiTalk that she did not know the other editor and had no connection with that other person, when in fact, as I have now learned, there were the same person. How does one fix this so that people do not use two different pseudonym IDS to pretend that they are not related to the same person pushing an exact similar agenda? RSVP. thanks, Chiayi 77 in 2017. (Chiayi77

Dear Gorthian, after three years, regarding A special case is outing, that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question).." If an editor has information later on that reveals that one person was using two different Wiki Pseudonyms as Wiki IDs and using one ID on Talk Wiki to insist that he/him/her/they were NOT the same person and saying one thing via one ID and a completely different thing on the other day and therefore in so doing actually lying about their motives for conducting an editing campaign that lasted six months, and the two IDs in fact belong to the same person, should that be reported or just ignored? I do not intend to out anyone. My hope is that this person who I will not name will out themselves. But how to pursue this? I have no quarrels with the editing now. But I have recently discovered who that the two IDs, both pseudonyms but easily traced once one puts two and two together belong to the same editor, and she always insisted on WikiTalk that she did not know the other editor and had no connection with that other person, when in fact, as I have now learned, there were the same person. How does one fix this so that people do not use two different pseudonym IDS to pretend that they are not related to the same person pushing an exact similar agenda? RSVP. thanks, Chiayi 77 in 2017. (Chiayi77

One person as an articles editor using three separate pseudonyms, which is permitted, even encouraged here, but using one Wiki ID (their 3rd one) to contradict one of their other 2 Wiki IDs and pretending (even insisting on Wiki Talk) that they have never met and do not know that the user of the first two ids: And everyone fell for the lies and the deception, even the mods.

What does one do in a case like this, Mods, and other editors here, when one person (a well-known articles editor) is using three separate pseudonyms for their Wiki ID in Wiki Talk, which is permitted, but using one Wiki ID (their 3rd one, set up two years after the first one and set up as a third ID merely to push a specific agenda and engineer a name change to a Wiki page which they succeded in doing) and using the third ID (which they deny has any connection to the person using their first two IDs, to contradict one of their other 2 Wiki IDs and pretending (even insisting on Wiki Talk) that they have never met, and do not know and have never met or received any emails from a user involved in a editing battle they are slamming and even outing that other editor by their real name, and using the 3rd ID to pretend they have nothing to do with a certain website in the middle of the editing battle which they themselves using their 2nd ID on WikiTalk to admit they indeed created and run website? In other words, while in this discussion I have no intention of outing the person, nor of asking that earlier changes to the page be changed since I love the new page, is it kosher or permissible to deceive and lie to other Wiki editors by using a third ID that is actually connected that editor's two earlier IDs created one in 2012 and one on 2015 while the 3rd ID was created in 2014 just to attack a certain wiki page but to pretend that they have nothing to do with either their first two IDs, or the person they are attacking in a six month 24/7 attack with over 100 edits and then suddenly disappearing in 2016 when they realize they can be traced by the ID they registered for their 3rd "attack" Id? I say this and ask this because I have now traced very easily the 3rd id back to the original owner, who also uses two other IDS currently and both also easily traceable back to the person's real name. So, is using a pseudonym to pretend to be not be the person behind their first two ids, when in fact, they are, or were, since that editor now deleted the third ID forever, although archives still retain their posts and lies and deceptions. Again, I am not going to out that person. They will out themselves when they are ready to, but only then. For now, I want to know when does using a pseudonym for ID cross the line when used to deceive fellow editors and to deceive mods?Chiayi77 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Chiayi77

External Links

I was looking at this article again and noticed that someone removed the external link to Eco-fiction.com, which is the biggest resource on the web for novels with climate change and other environmental themes. I was watching in the past, when there was a lot of argument going back and forth, when this link was removed by the article's creator and readded by a mod. I'm curious about why it was removed again when smaller blogs remain in that section? The blogger Dan Bloom removed the Eco-fiction link and added a link to Huffington Post. See revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_fiction&diff=736102987&oldid=735931120. The link originally also was "Eco-fiction.com: Climate change and eco-themes in literature and the arts." I believe previously the same user had changed "climate change" to "science fiction," which is not what the site focuses on. It's fine if it stays removed, but to remove the biggest resource out there based upon someoene else's personal bias presents another's conflict of interest. I thought the mods fixed the bias in this article long ago. It really needs to be continually watched so that big resources are not arbitrarily removed just because the article creator doesn't like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duende Sands (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Duende Sands (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking that the external links section has gotten very bloated and out of date, but haven't had the time to review everything. If you'd like to tackle that, it'd be good for the article. And add back the site you mentioned; it sounds perfect for an external-links section. Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. — Gorthian (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have readded it. For full disclosure, I am the owner of eco-fiction.com and it is a current site and continually updated with new book listings, reviews, interviews, and requests by publishers and agents. Duende Sands (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Be sure you are thoroughly versed in Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Disclosure is a good thing, but if there's an edit that might be construed as one that benefits you or your site, be sure to ask someone else to make the edit for you. Also, please don't be a one-purpose account; try your hand at small edits on articles that are totally outside your expertise—typos, grammar fixes, etc. It helps the community see you as a real contributor instead of a potential spammer. And, it's fun! :-) — Gorthian (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added another article so am learning more about Wikipedia and expanding my horizons. The link in question was originally added by a different editor. The article creator removed it without saying why. A moderator added it back in. I noticed it was gone again when I was working on a different article yesterday, so I came to Talk to ask why. Eco-fiction.com is just a resource that is voluntary driven and doesn't benefit from having a link on this article or not. Who benefits is the reader or writer of climate fiction, because the site is the internet's biggest resource. There is a question of conflict or interest when this link continues to be removed arbitrarily. Duende Sands (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the site looks like it's highly relevant here and should probably included in the external links. I'd like to ask people to first post here before removing it. It might get removed once / if there are more resourceful websites on the topic. But currently the ext. links should rather be cleaned from all those articles - I just moved them to a "Further reading" section. --Fixuture (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that it was removed again in revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_fiction&diff=743306990&oldid=743142692. Is there a reason for this? Duende Sands (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted that edit, since no explanation was given. — Gorthian (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It has been removed again both here and in the "See Also" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duendeseco (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

First Reformed 2018 should be here listed

It deal with terrorism and climate and suicide, in country setting. its however only called drama, likely since clifi is new Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 08:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)