Talk:Climate fiction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changed first sentence[edit]

The first sentence was: "Cli-fi (or "cli fi") is short for climate fiction, a subgenre of science fiction that focuses on the Earth's climate, in particular emphasizing the effects of anthropogenic climate change and global warming at the end of the Holocene era." I changed it because (a) no evidence is presented that the sources consider this a subgenre of science fiction (instead of, say, thriller or fantasy or historical); (b) no evidence is presented that the sources consider that the subject must be about the Earth's climate (instead of, say, the planet Orbus as in Winterson's novel); (c) the Holocene hasn't ended; (d) Ballard's novel is about climate change, not anthropogenic climate change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree - LynnS79 says Wikipedia does not use slang, nicknames or jargon, but she is wrong. Both lab lit and chick lit articles on on Wikipedia. I would suggest that this article be renamed once more to "Cli-Fi" (genre}... or "Cli-Fi (disambiguation) and to continue that way. signed dan bloom
I quoted someone else for saying this. See "Can we rename the article to "climate fiction"? Because as an encyclopedia, we do not use slang, nicknames or jargon. Even the term "Sci fi" is common, but it's article is titled "Science fiction". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)" in this Talk area.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnS79 (talk • contribs)
I see now. You did not say that, someone else here at Talk did. Sorry, I misunderstood. thanks for clarification. But it's true that new genres and neolgisims like lab lit and chieck lit DO have their own articles here, and the mods have assured me now that as things pick up, I can get a new article focusing just in the cli fi motif as cultural prism and media headline term, not as a literary genre per se. does that sound good? Our pages can then complement each other. Compliment, too! (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Quoted creators of this term need to be verified or removed from article[edit]

There is no clearly cited evidence of either person being the originator of the topic's name. Personal blogs cannot be used as evidence since they can be manually back-dated. If either quoted person can not be verified, propose they be removed as unverifiable statements of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.249.93.251 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaned up several sections of the renamed "climate fiction" article[edit]

LynnS79, would it possible ( a mere query, a question, NOT A DEMAND TO GIVE ME HER EMAIL ADDRESS) to chat with you offline via email? I appreciate the time and energy you have put in here, and I know climate fiction genre is important to you. I do not know who you, but I would like to chat offline. Is it possible that we could chat by email some day soon?. I am more than happy to give you my address. RSVP Chiayi77 (Chiayi77 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I am not interested in anything but improving this article. After having read your comments last night on this wiki page which confused me with someone else ... please allow myself and others to honestly and positively try to improve this article. It strongly needs independent voices. I think it would help if you stepped back and allowed this article some consistency and non-contradictory statements and references. As it stands, this article has been confusing (in fact, one of my students led me here to begin with due to the confusion it causes), and I've been trying to improve it since.§
So Lynn, OKAY. I will step back. Good advice.(Chiayi77 (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
I will step back now. I agree. But let's keep talking.(Chiayi77 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
No, I have never emailed you at all. I am not sure what you are referring to. Edit, it appears that my talk section above was edited to say "email exchange". Whoever did that also put in four dots for an ellipsis, something I wouldn't do! I have edited my talk comment above back to what it said initially, that I read comments HERE on the wiki page. Please do not edit my talk comments. It's unprofessional and probably against Wikipedia's rules. LynnS79 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)LynnS79 (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiki admins -- another example here of being bullied. I have never emailed him. I told him this yesterday, but he keeps referring to me as someone else. LynnS79 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lynn, if it felt to u as if i was bullying you, i apologize and while I am not a bully and feel for sure I was not bullying you, if it FELT to you like I was, then it was doing the wrong kind of dance and I apologize. (Chiayi77 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Lynn, i see yr point here. Here on this page you are always LynnS79 and anon names are useful, especially in this crazy world of internet spam and privacy invasion. nice to know you here now. Cheers, and so I will always be Chiayi77. Fun! *** P.S.- Yes i removed the earlier comments from last night as I did not want to appear libelous or invasive of your privacy and took them down from this page. I respect yr privacy, of course. So i took all that down ... I am on your side, you are doing good, important work here. Glad to be aboard as occasional lurker here. signed (Chiayi77 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Again, you have me confused with someone else? We have never communicated by email before. I am having trouble following your logic here, and no, people at Wiki are free to remain anonymous as they wish. This helps avoid private stalking and such, which I have dealt with in the past and don't wish to again.LynnS79 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admins, another example.LynnS79 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admins and Lynn, USER CHIAYI77, Lynn is correrct. I was incorrectly confusing her with someone else MEA CULPA. signed by dan bloom (Chiayi77 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I know that Wikipedia works by consensus and I am all for that. Signed Chiayi 77(Chiayi77 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Climate fiction and cli-fi are one in the same. Today I added references where you have said so yourself. I want to also point out that I did not railroad you into deleting this article. I proposed that it would be deleted, due to its ongoing problematic nature. But, to be kind, I also proposed that it be renamed and offered that as a better suggestion. I did not give you a week to delete the article; this is Wikipedia's policy, not mine. §
Lynn, u are right and i stand corrected. You never railraoded me on this.(Chiayi77 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Lynn, we have a difference of POV on whether climate fiction and cli fi are one in the same. signed by (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Well, I added two sources where you yourself said that cli-fi is the abbreviation for climate fiction, so, really, my sources are what you and other popular media reporters have said. I'm not developing a personal PoV just for the heck of it.LynnS79 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lynn, just for the record. But not to argue. I see yr points. But please listen: i created cli fi not as a genre term for novels written before 2007 but for what i hope will be novels written in the future amd a few of them these new cli fi novels are now appaering am,ong them ANCHOR POINT by Alice Robinson in Australia and the upcoimg THE WATER KNIFE by Paolo B. im May. So please understand, cli fi, as created, as a new concept, CONCEPT, not a genre term, is for things to come. signed the NEW CHIAYI 77.(Chiayi77 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Moved people working in the field to the opening section of the article. These people could be in a separate section. I alphabetized them to be fair and just. Note that too many authors, writers, movers, and shakers are working in this genre for it to focus only on Dan Bloom, so I added others I could think of off the top of my head who have been working hard to write novels or curate works in this field. This has never been a solo effort; let's not go there again. There are many others working in this field, and they should be listed here and perhaps moved to a new section.

LynnS79, good idea, and i agree with the direction you are going in. The alphabet way was good way to go, and yes, this has never been a solo effort. (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Cleaned up the history and origins section as well--grammar issues and clarification needed.§

EDITED: I like the new content. signed, Chiayi77 aka Dan Bloon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiayi77 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Rationale for Removing Sections of renamed CLIMATE FICTION article[edit]

Removed the Cli-Fi Term section as it contradicts what media (see "Sources" section here in the Renaming section in the Talk area), such as the New York Times, NPR, and several other big media, have reported about cli-fi: it is an abbreviation or shortening of climate fiction. Introduced two sources where [Chiayi77], who has suddenly said that cli-fi is not an abbreviation of climate fiction, actually reported that it was very recently. If these articles are suddenly revised, I will provide further resources. signed Lynns79

The issue in a nutshell[edit]

Professor, lets be friends and talk about like matture adults.(Chiayi77 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Her M.0.? to undermine my work with cli fi, since she is relying on an website for her sources and anger. why the eff does she care what I am doing wioth my creative life? Do i critizsne or mitigate her academic papers? No, i let her be. She should let me be. UPDATED: now we know, she has admitted today relying on a webstie for her sources and data and anger. (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Wrong about my identity again. I've written to the administrators about your detailing of personal information. Uncool. Who the heck is Professor W?LynnS79 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE EDIT: I was wrong about your ID but i was right that you had an agenda that relied on a certain blog site. (Chiayi77 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Deleted. How is this relevant to climate fiction?LynnS79 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh Lynn, i only put taht up there so you and the admins could VISUALIZE waht a sepate cli fi page might look like. (Chiayi77 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Deleted. Personal attacks not allowed, and Wiki policy doesn't allow two articles on the same subject.LynnS79 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lynn, thanks for your understandiong. now we have found out your true agenda, which you yourself disclosd on Sunday. (Chiayi77 (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]


Lynn you sound like you dont undestand how the internet works. I didnt post those items to stay up . i psoted them to maek a point. Sahying you want your own bailiwick is not a personal attack for crying out loud? You are senstibve and i like senitige peopel and i empath3athise with sensitive people but mu god, wanting your own bailicik is not a personal ATTACK. are you tone deaf to languge? just asking, i am not attacking yio but i am sure you tell admins he is tatacking ma gain and saying i am tone deaf? i am not sahying youa re done deaf. I am asking ARE YOU TONE DEAF ABOUT LEANGUGAE? you amagazine me profesosr x but i see now yiou are harmless and a good eggg, so i am going to stop fighjtiong you here, let yuou have yoyur waym, and get mh won page later. We are both working for the same goal. So be it. Good to you and have a happ life my Wiki pal. (Chiayi77 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I apologize[edit]

TO START: Professor , do you accept my apology or not? UPDATTE: SHE HAS ACCEPTED FINALLY MY APOLOGY SHE SAID IN ANOTHER SECTION. (Chiayi77 (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Help us[edit]

Please help me with the following problem. I have been trying to improve this article since late last year. In the past couple weeks, ever since I proposed renaming it, the seeming originator of the article, Chiayi77, has been picking on me because he is claiming that he knows me and I should ID myself. This started after he asked for my email. I did not want to give him my email address because he seemed pushy and aggressive. He then went on to tell me that we had an email exchange (we did not). He then said I run a popular website and have my own agenda. I do not. Now, every time I make any comments or edits, he comes off accusing me of being someone else. He is baiting me unfairly and using this public area to do it. Why is he doing this? To make someone else look bad? To pick on me because I have a slightly different opinion? I find this highly unprofessional. He has a case of mistaken identity about me and will not just let it go despite me trying to correct him every time. Chiayi77 has said that a mod is watching this debate; if so, please ensure that personal attacks and accusations are not part of our discussion. They have nothing to do with the article itself, which should be the subject of this discussion. There is also the case of one of my talk areas being edited. I corrected it earlier and took a screenshot of what I actually said, which I will have to do from now on so that words aren't being put into my mouth. There are five (edit: at least seven) examples of this problem below that I've pointed out. LynnS79 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, LynnS79 – this is, of course, the right place to discuss improvements to this article; however, if you have a dispute with another editor, then Wikipedia has a number of steps to take to resolve your differences, especially if you feel that a dispute cannot be resolved through discussion, either here on this talk page or on either your user talk page or the other user's talk page. You may click the "Wikipedia" link above to begin the process. It is hoped that you will find a solution in this manner. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 09:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your information, and I will look into a dispute. But this Talk page needs to be moderatod and watched. I have read Talk page policies, and Chiayi77 is not following your policies on this page. What's more I have made several suggestions on this page as far as deleting or improving sections, and nobody is really following up. LynnS79 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paine, see my solution to all this in the top section here now. I hope we can find a solution the current impasse by either renaming the article that I originated here in 2013 back to its original tile, Cli Fi, and I have copied DDG on this. He told me by email that he only agreed to change the name because he thought there was a consensus to change the name, as it looked as if I also agreed with the group to change the title. However, I explained to DGG by email that i only "agreed" (square quotes for emphasis) in order to save the page from being completely deleted, which was the goup "leader's" (square quotes for emphasis) position, that we should either agree on a name change within a week or ask the mods to delete the page entirely. Like the story of the baby who was claimed by two people in the Bible, and where the wise judge, I think it was Solomon with his Solomonic decision, asked what should be done and one person said cut the baby in half, (it was not her baby, of course, but she wanted to win the argument, and the other person said, if it will come to cutting the baby in half, well, to save its life, since it really is my baby, I say don't the baby in half and give it to that other person who so vehemntly claims it is her. That is what this broyhaha is all about, Paine and DGG. Lynn was willing to delete the page completely rather than see it continue under the earlier title of cli fi. In order to save my baby, of course, i opted to say that I agreed to change the title, but it was not of course by true feelings. (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
One bit of protocol you may learn, Chiayi77, is that on Wikipedia talk pages, one places one's response after previous responses in a chronological, orderly manner and not before them. Also, you should be the last to make personal accusations of others such as "stubborn", but I suppose you see yourself (rather than "stubborn") as being "persistent" in your endeavors? The important thing here is for you, me, and all editors on this talk page to begin to or continue to assume good faith, a fundamental principle here on Wikipedia! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paine, I stand corrected. I am completely new to these wiki talk pages and as you can see i am not the best typist in the nation, and i don't know how to navigate these talk pages. But I do apologize and I am glad to take pointers from you, Paine. One bit of protocol I do need learn, sicne I was not aware of this before Paine told me, is that on Wikipedia talk pages, one places one's response after previous responses in a chronological, orderly manner and not before them. Also, it's true as Paine rightly says I should be the last to make personal accusations of others such as "stubborn" since I can be just as stubborn myself, mea culpa, and while I know I am stubborn, not a good characteristic all the time, I also see myself (in addition to being a "stubborn" mule sometimes) as being, yes, "persistent" in my endeavors. I didn't get to where I am in life by not being persistent or as the case required stubborn. But at the same time, I acknowledge my faults and am open to what you said, Paine. I am really a nice person! And Lynn is really a nice person, too! I really believe that. The important thing here now is for me, for you and all editors on this talk page to begin to or continue to assume good faith, a fundamental principle here on Wikipedia. I appreciate your good words on all this Paine, and while I can be stubborn and persistent at times, I can also sit back and see with reason what others are saying and see their points. So i am learning here. Thanks. I am looking forward to the resolution of these issues, in whatever way the ball drops. I will respect the decision of the mods. (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Lynn, youvve read my MEA CULPA now and I hope you will forgive me now that you have it. SHE LATER SAID SHE ACCEPTED MY APOLOGY. It would be nice if you would either say you accept my apology or that you don't accept it. Where I come from, we respond to hearfelt apologies by acknowledging that we either accept them or don't. Peace. (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).. Your silence is stunning! (Chiayi77 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)). (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

a dash of detail[edit]

A good faith copy edit was just made that inserts a hyphen into "climate change", in one place where that compound noun is serving as an adjective "climate change themes". I'm not a grammarian with knowledge of arcane hyphenation rules, but I frequently see compound nouns serving as adjectives with no hyphen. The hyphen is important when needed to make the meaning clear, as in "man-eating alligator" (see funny illustration here). There is no ambiguity when we say "climate change task force" or "climate change accord". Indeed, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change uses no hyphen. (see 2015 example here). Small thing, but our articles are rife with examples of "climate change" and "global warming" serving as adjectives, so we should be consistent, and this isn't done anywhere else that I know of. Should we lose the hyphen? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, very well said and I like the edits. BTW, that is the very reason I call this term as climate-change fiction and not climate fiction for that very reason, that cli-fi also called by some people as climate-change fiction is not FICTION about the climate science as some climate denialists claim (and the rightwing attack dogs in the deniaist camp do try to mock Al Gore and Dr Hansen with cat calls of saying their books and essays are "climate fiction" and they use this "cli-fi" term this way too, to denigreate climate science writers as writing cli fi or climate fiction, and since i have been following this meme personally 24/7 that is why I never -- almost never -- use the term CLIMATE FICTION (except when some media interviews require me to, for reasons of clarifying and explaining the cli fi term) and that is why I feel this page title should be Climate-change fiction and not Climate ficiton. There is a big difference in perception. I am glad you said that, and I hope Lynn and other eds and mods will agree to this when she returns from spring break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiayi77 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Need to Detail "Cli-fi" terminology[edit]

Lynn, please help keep this article democtratic and neutral rather than just promoting your own agenda and biases as a professional. I am asking Kailish here and David Reid to listen on on this converstaion and weigh in when they wish on how to proceeed. And their POV on the name change to climate-change fiction and the way you keep censoring the short cli fi segment even though the science fiction page does the same thing for sci fi. (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Wiki admins, here is another example of this user baiting me and assuming I have an agenda. I do not. Well, I guess we all have agendas, and I think they are pretty similar--and that's to get the world to know more about climate change in writings. My only point is that, and I will reiterate, is that cli-fi, regardless of what Chiayi77 wants it to be, has always been an abbreviation and shortening of another term. I am not censoring your section here. In Wikipedia, it's called improving and revising. Everyone does this; it's how Wikipedia works. You are really baiting me here and trying to make me look bad, but my only point is that the term cli-fi is a genre abbreviation. That is how it is reported in the media. I don't how I am being un-neutral by pointing this out. Note that genres can be bigger than genres, especially this one. I will say once again that talking about an abbreviation, however, is completely superfluous and unnecessary.
aDMINS AND lYNN, FROM Chiayi77: if i mitsook Lynn here for someone else, i made a mistake. I apologize. Lynn does SEEM to have an agenda, and she later admitted it herselF. i was mistaking her with someone else, If it felt to Lyunn like i was baitig HEr, Lynn, then i do apolgize because if it FELt that way, it was my fault MEA CULPA . Sgined DAN BLOOM the new dan blom

Threads about terms cli-fi vs climate fiction (also related to title or terminology sections)[edit]

Problematic references and claims[edit]

More research needs to be done on when this abbreviation was first used. Films are referenced, but none of the directors has called their movies cli-fi or even climate fiction, only science fiction. Same with the novels. Very few creators of this work recognize the term. Media has only repeated Dan Bloom's claims. This is a phrase he abbreviated one day. Wiki's policies clearly states in deletion policy:

6. "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" - Not enough reliable sourcing in this article. The author cannot link to his own blog or his own journalism as an independent reliable source. Even the media that has picked this up is just repeating this author's claims without popular nods from authors and directors.

11. "Categories representing overcategorization" See [1], [2]

It also clearly states in the rules and policy:

  • Notability and referencing. "These include (but are not limited to) books published by vanity presses, self-published 'zines', blogs, web forums, usenet discussions, BBSes, fan sites, vanity websites that permit the creation of self-promotional articles, and other similar venues." Several links and references have been deleted (yet are still added) that simply lead to Dan Bloom's own blogs or articles.
  • Things to avoid: "Articles about yourself, your friends, your website, a band you're in, your teacher, a word you made up, or a story you wrote." This entire article is about an abbreviation that the article's author thought of one day and has persistently promoted to media as a new genre. Nothing else.
  • Articles that contain different definitions of the topic: "Articles are primarily about what something is, not any term(s). If the article is just about a word or phrase and especially if there are very different ways that a term is used, it usually belongs in Wiktionary. Instead, try to write a good short first paragraph that defines one subject as well as some more material to go with it." This article is just about a phrase. It has gone through a ton of revisions because the phrase is constantly being revisited. This is just an article about an abbreviation, and the person who wrote the article keeps breaking Wiki's policies and changing the definition. What's more, now that the original phrase "climate fiction" (a phrase that was around before the abbreviation), is catching on, it is because multiple authors are independently writing about it and all of them have their own opinions. Most would say that it can be science fiction. Some say it cannot. This entire phrase needs researched, studied, and allowed to breathe instead of Chiayi77b constantly editing this article so that he can claim that the thing he abbreviated (and there's really no proof he was the first to do it) is his own thing. This approach and control is backfiring for many serious authors writing about climate change who want to have their work looked at, instead of the phrase or Chiayi77.

Example links problems[edit]

So far none of the authors or links shown as examples in this article have stated that their works are cli-fi, but they do state that they are science fiction or speculative fiction. I tried to note that to be the case, but Chiayi77 kept editing the note to say differently, alluding to the fact that originally these works were called cli-fi, and another edit to say that some of these creators called their works cli-fi. None of these claims are true. This is problematic given that Chiayi77 keeps changing his mind (see revision history) about whether cli-fi is or is not related to sci-fi. Since Chiayi77 keeps claiming that some authors claim their works are cli-fi, here's some reference to state otherwise. The works do have to do with climate change to an extent, but establishing this term as a genre would require that the authors themselves use the term, which they do not. It does not count that Chiayi77 has assigned this term to others' work in various private blogs, personal media articles that he himself writes, wiki pages that he has edited, the few media that have rewritten his own claims, etc. The authors and creators must agree to call their works this term in order for this Wikipedia to claim these as examples as this so-called genre. If we're going to establish a new genre, great, but let's do it with the creators of the work, not as a PR gimmick. Therefore, I will delete these examples that are not agreed far and wide by their own creators to be cli-fi.

The history and origin of this article currently states:

The term "cli-fi" was originally abbreviated from the phrase "climate fiction" in 2008 in a movie-themed blog post by climate activist and book packager Danny Bloom [1]. This abbreviation was also used independently in two movie reviews in 2009 and 2010 by Wired reporter Scott Thill.[2][3] Margaret Atwood sent out a brief retweet of a Danny Bloom tweet about cli-fi in 2011.[4] In December 2012, American climatologist Judith Curry wrote about the term on her blog, "Climate Etc." Bernie Bulkin, Former Chief Scientist of BP; Chair, the UK Office of Renewable Energy, writing for the Huffington Post, also published a piece on cli-fi in November 2013: "'Cli-fi: one answer to a climate problem'."

The Drowned World (1962) by J.G. Ballard is often cited as one of the first cli-fi novels,[5] although it is not about global warming (i.e. man-made) rather from natural solar radiation (i.e. climate change).

Note that this Wikipedia article was originated by Chiayi77. He is also the author of the blog pcillu101.blogspot.ca, which is the "reference" for the Atwood tweet. He is using his own blog to verify and reference his claims. The given link does not even say anything about Margaret Atwood. Judith Curry's blog simply references Chiayi77 claims. I removed these links.

Note that there this history says that the term was first used in 2008. The reference leading to Vice says it was 2007, but this article was written in 2013 and provides no reference nor proof of when the term cli-fi was first used.§

The fact that a work predates the origin of the term cli fi doesn't preclude it from being retrospectively classified as cli fi. For example, the page for steampunk says, "The term steampunk's first known appearance was in 1987, though it now retroactively refers to many works of fiction created even as far back as the 1950s or 1960s." It may also be the case that some authors consider their work to be literary fiction, yet they can still be classified as science fiction if they meet certain criteria. Davidreid (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that a genre can post-date works within, but these examples were removed when the article originator (Chiayi77) claimed that these the example authors were referring to their works as being cli-fi. Can you give evidence of this? I scoured through the works and references online and could not find one place where this was true. I feel that articles on Wikipedia should be independently supported if claims are given, and this whole cli-fi entry has been wrought with problems. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnS79 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Merchant, Brian (June 1, 2013). "Behold the Rise of Dystopian 'Cli-Fi'". VICE - Motherboard. Retrieved 2013-06-02. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ By Scott Thill   (2014-07-07). "Review: The Age of Stupid Gets Smart on Enviropocalypse | Underwire". WIRED. Retrieved 2014-07-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  3. ^ Thill, Scott. "Methane Apocalypse Threatens World in Syfy Schlocker Ice Quake | Underwire | Wired.com". Archive.wired.com. Retrieved 2014-07-18.
  4. ^ Posted by DANIELBLOOM (2013-04-29). "CLI FLY CENTRAL : Ecotopian fiction". Pcillu101.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2014-07-18.
  5. ^ "Cli-Fi | Climate Etc". Judithcurry.com. 2012-12-23. Retrieved 2014-07-18.

Can films be listed here?[edit]

I disagree with this good faith edit which removed "films" on grounds that they are supposedly "drama" and not "fiction". With affection, that's hypertechnical hogwash and we're a WP:COMMONNAME encyclopedia, not a literature textbook. Our first sentence makes this clear, with its use of "cli-fi" as synonymous with "climate fiction".

In my view, this article covers the entire spectrum of climate fiction / cli-fi, as with the second meaning in the lead at our article "Fiction". The Christian Science Monitor embraces this notion, editorially speaking, in this RS. Before trying to add climate fiction films, whaddya think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, almost all the sources include cinema as part of the genre, whether it's called cli-fi as TIME magazine did on May 9th issue last year or the New York Times in its Room for Debate forum on July 29 last year. So whoever was trying to add the cinema mention, you are to right to try to add that. Good luck. (Chiayi77 (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Definitely cli-fi includes films. -- haminoon (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the term fiction is applied to films, but "Types of literature in the fiction genre include the novel, short story, and novella" ('Encyclopaedia Btriannica), and "The species of literature which is concerned with the narration of imaginary events and the portraiture of imaginary characters; fictitious composition. Now usually, prose novels and stories collectively; the composition of works of this class" (Oxford Dictionary). I'm not an expert on genre, but it looks that the word "fiction" is frequently being mis-used. Can prose fiction and films belong to the same genre, unless the meaning of genre is totally re-written. This is an interesting question, not affectation, not "hogwash", but a matter of correct usage. I have previously accepted this usage, but now believe it is incorrect. Films are of course "fictional" and "narratives" and this is where I'm guessing the confusion has arisen. Anyhow I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but from experts on genre preferably.
Wouldn't it be better to describe what is being dealt with in this article as a theme rather than a genre? i.e. '"The theme of climate change in the novel and film": "In the arts, a theme is a broad idea or a message conveyed by a work, such as a performance, a painting, a motion picture, or a video game" (Wikipedia).

Rwood128 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add, to be honest, that I began working yesterday on the article Fiction, which badly needs improvement. The reference to the "second meaning" of fiction above, by editor NewsAndEventsGuy, may refer to my revision there, which now suggests that films, etc. are not fiction but "fictional". Rwood128 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yeah???????? Well my dictionary is bigger than your dictionary. that was humor, by the way. For fiction, Definition 1a it says

"The category of literature, drama, film, or other creative work whose content is imagined and is not necessarily based on fact."

— From the American Heritage Dictionary I just linked to
Besides that, I think we'd agree we should follow the sources. Do you have a single source that talks about both climate fiction and climate change themes in films? How do you analyze that source's treatement, compared and contrasted to the treatment in the CSM that I linked in the first post, where they review a film, and say in the headline that its the newest entry in cli-fi? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always thought that climate fiction was like science fiction, which may include both visual and written narratives.

"Genre" or "theme" or "category" or "_____"?[edit]

Is this a quibble, but it inserted by NAEG, I think "it" means the American Heritage Dictionary definition in the prior threadNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC) does say category not genre? We need to look to better sources to clarify this once and for all. I still think that this topic relates rather to a theme than a genre, despite what various sources might imply. Rwood128 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to agree various sources at least imply we're talking about a "genre" and that we do not currently have any sources to the contrary. Does that mean we're done for now? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to look to better sources, than those used so far, to clarify this once and for all. Though that is really more a matter for the Fiction and Genre articles.
I suggest changing sub genre (that's the version my computer wants) to "category of literature, novel, film, etc.", until the question has been properly researched and resolved. Is that a good compromise? By the way is anyone ever going to add any content to the actual article?
Also perhaps the idea of making this a theme or topic based article should be seriously considered, especially as it would avoid controversy. This still has not been discussed. Rwood128 (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since we follow sources, and since you have no sources for anything other than "genre", I am opposed to changing genre to category so far. Meanwhile -
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS Regarding your "also" paragraph... How would things change if we made this a "theme or topic-based article" as oppoosed to a genre/category oriented one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might be helpful,: "Fiction. A vague and general term for an imaginative work, usually in prose. At any rate, it does not usually cover poetry and drama though both are forms of fiction in that they are moulded and contrived or feigned. Fiction is now used in general of the novel, the short story, the novella and related genres" (The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms (1999), ed. Cuddon, p.320). The "vague" use creates the problem here.Rwood128 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That definition also uses "genre" (see last word you quoted). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the last phrase "and related genres" is vague but it's the main point of this definition that is important – as well as the reference to fiction being "a vague and general term".
I do not understand "you have no sources for anything other than 'genre'", because I thought that was what this discussion was about. That various people refer to a genre called climate change fiction doesn't make it a genre, because these may be examples of the way that "fiction" is used, as "a vague and general term"?
Fiction, films, plays, etc., which deal with the theme or topic of climate change are examples, presumably, of dystopias, and this may be a genre, though that's unclear. By the way I hope you understand that I'm just trying to be helpful. An answer might be to include this controversy within the article, at least for now. The subject of dystopias needs to also be discussed, to give the article more body, along with the works of the writers mentioned. The Talk page has become more important than the article!!!! Rwood128 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before I reply, please elaborate. To you, what is the "main point" of the definition you found in the Dictionary of Literary Terms? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. But just go ahead and edit the article as you see fit. I have done my bit to help. Rwood128 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK... but if you later find sources to support your opinion that it isn't a "genre" please let us know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not invested in "genre", "theme", "category", or other, but I'd like to point out that the correct spelling is "subgenre", not "sub-genre" or (Heaven forfend) "sub genre". I've made the correction thrice in the last nine days, and I'm hoping to not to have to make it again (please?).—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for your attenshun to Thai-pos!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC) PS, I'm also not invested in any of these terms... just invested in WP:Verification. Hope my insistence on RS-based reasons is seen as advocating quality! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural threads[edit]

STOP[edit]

UDPATE : -- So I received today an email telling me in no uncertain terms to STOP. Or action might ensue. STOP. That was the subject line in CAP letters.

So given the way this discussion has become so heated of late, my lawyer has counselled me to do as asked and STOP.


I am also deleting all my walls of text as some have called them, and any words and names that might have been offensive to some people here, as it was never my intention to libel anyone anywhere. I still remain hopeful free speech and freedom of expression will remain an honored value in our culture and at Wiki without threats of actionablle actions.

So I am outta here, and regret that I could not continue to be part of the resolution of this issue, but I must stop here for the above reason. (Chiayi77 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]


UPDATE: I told a top New York Times reporter ......who herself has championed my use of the cli fi term and written about it in the NY Times.....about all this today and she emailed me back just now: Dear dan.... that's so silly of them . cli-fi is what it is.. ... - (Chiayi77 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Deletion of content on this talkpage[edit]

Just passing by via the admin notice board (wp:AN/I), and just pointing out that a party involved in the rather terse discussions over this page has deleted about 1/5 of this talkpages' content, see here. 220 of Borg 12:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:REDACT seems to be the applicable policy.220 of Borg 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, and thanks for pointing it out for sake of others who take a quick peek. I'll elaborate further. My ANI complaint, being based on
  • COI
  • Vague legal threat
is not impacted by redaction of some or even all of the personal attacks. For that matter, whether redacted or not, admissions of COI or legal consultations regarding interactions with other users are not something that can be taken back via redaction anyway. If the subject of the attacks, LynnS79, wants to add such grounds to this or other proceeding, that will be up to her when she's back from her spring break,but analysis of the COI and NO LEGAL THREATS should proceed without bothering with the redaction.

One final over riding point.... the Chiayi77 has already said he thinks he should be banned. My complaint simply asks that it happen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only meant I should be banned if Lynn is also banned. She had COI too and was abusive and harassing and picking too. - dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.127.242.151 (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, part of the threat to take action which i received by email objected to some words i had used and i was asked to delete them in order to take the even slightest iota of libel away from these pages. The full text remains at wiki archives forever. I never want to see those words again since they hurt an innocent person's feelings. and i dont not want people reading here to see them because they COULD BE taken in the wwrong way as the legal threat against me suggested. that's all.
Signed - DB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiayi77 (talk contribs) 01:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I have started archiving threads that have impossible noise-to-signal ratio. If anyone thinks I acted prematurely, they can manually cut and paste a thread back, but if they do so, I hope they have the courtesy to also include a 'succinct (30 words or less) description of the remaining article-improvement issue they think the thread is discussing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPDATE - OK, I'm done with my talk page resuscitation effort. Hopefully I did not archive the only mention of a potentially valuable RS, but if I did and its not already in the article or another active thread please make a mention of it here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Per WP:MULTI please do not discuss the merge proposal here. Instead, use the main thread for that purpose which is located at the other article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History section and WP:SYNTH[edit]

The reason I added a CN tag there was because I read your provided reference and it did not contextualize Verne vis a vis any other fiction at all. Therefore using it, alone, would have constituted WP:SYNTH - but that's a minor quibble, which is why I did not delete the statement, simply requested additional citations.

That being said, your second reference is now bleeding into the first and appears as only a single reference. If you've added a second reference which provides the necessary context, I'm happy to let it lie, but I'd ask you to please fix the formatting of the reference tags for ease of review. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides, its a bibliography, not a discussion of the historical evolution of climate fiction.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense, NewsAndEventsGuy, you clearly have little understanding of what a bibliography is -- but I agree that the heading is imperfect and you might indeed try and find a better one. Don't be such a fusspot --Wikipedia is a work in progress -- please try and be more helpful.

Rwood128 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Climate fiction#History or annotated bibliography? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Climate change in popular culture[edit]

I think that I was in error in suggesting that a main article for "Climate fiction" was Climate change in popular culture, by adding the Main article link at some point. See the merge discussion and my question re high culture [3]. But I'm not an expert in this field. Rwood128 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History or annotated bibliography?[edit]

Excellent material is being added to the article about individual works of climate fiction. Thanks for doing that!

Elsewhere a comment was made I'll ping the editor separately that this article might become eligible for WP:Good article submission. I'd like to point out that so far the "history" section looks a whole lot like an annotated bibliography to me.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Annotations and compare how similar discussion-like comments are handled at the Bibliography of biology.

See also, examples 3 and 4 under "Sourcing bibliographic entries" at WP:WikiProject Bibliographies#Topical bibliographies. (Note that these examples do not follow the indentation formatting recommended by the other section I linked)

So what do you think? Are we slowly building an annotated bibliography, or is the "history" section better characterized as something else and if so what?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Annotated bibliography seems like a good categorization. Also, I wanted to echo NewsAndEventsGuy in saying that the transformation of this article is a day and night situation. Such improvement. Much better. Wow. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to see this discussion. I certainly agree that this article should be far more than a list of titles and authors, a bibliography, or brief discussion of titles and authors, an annotated bibliography. The "History section" wasn't added, however, as an annotated bibliography, but with the intention of getting things moving and off the Talk page. I think that. therefore, it wouldn't help by re-naming the 'History section' as an annotated bibliography. I'm sorry that editor NewsAndEventsGuy and I got into a kerfuffle -- we were both probably just too impatient. The main problem with using the current heading is probably that this topic is so new, other than for Jules Verne. But expanding content is the most important thing for now. Rwood128 (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two kinds of writers. Those who rush to write, and the patient sort who think about the material well enough to organize the ideas into an outline first. Wikipedia works because there's room for both, provided neither gets mad when they bump heads, or when one sort asks direct questions such as "Where's the RS?" or "Does that belong in this section?" Rwood, your edit summary said "neither" (presumably in response to the heading 'History or annotated bibliography?') Well OK.... what's your alternative suggestion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw "neither". The current title will suffice for now. I cannot think of a more appropriate one, and I've checked around. See Graphic novel for example. The discussion of the theme, authors and works needs to be thoroughly developed. If the title is changed to "Annotated Bibliography" it would alter the original intention.
I also need to explain something else. One reason we probably butted heads is that I originally came to this page because another editor asked my advice on a minor editing matter, got drawn in to further editing, but then resented being asked to do more. This was because I thought that editors, like you, who were engaged with this topic should be doing this. You obviously didn't know why I was here, which was fertile ground for a misunderstanding. I feel that as a guest, just passing by, I have done my bit, but I'll keep an eye on things. However, I cannot do what is really required, which apparently also includes reassessing earlier discarded material. I'd like to but it's impossible. I'm currently busy trying to help another editor work on Middlemarch as part of the WP:Core Contest. Rwood128 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can best avoid similar head-butting by refraining from comment on others' ability, knowledge, comprehension, etc. Be very sparse with the use of "you" and instead use PREVIEW to think before posting and ensure careful WP:Focus on content instead of others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for parallels between this article at Graphic novel, the text at the other article uses RSs explore the evolution of the graphic novel. Our text does a great job of providing a short comment on individual works, but the text says nothing about climate fiction's evolution. That's ok, too. But disjointed comments about individual works is not "history". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but as I think I noted before, Wikipedia is very much a work in progress. I was too naïve in thinking someone would come along, and quickly develop the scaffolding I'd speedily constructed. I better understand now why this has been misconscrued as an annotated bibliography. But am I right in thinking that another editor is in fact working off-line? See reference above to two kinds of editor and conflict above. Rwood128 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politics[edit]

Margaret Attwood describes herself as a Red Tory and supports the Canadian Green Party, while Kim Stanley Robinson has been described as "our greatest political novelist" thinker[4]. Which suggests that this is a topic that can be developed here.Rwood128 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threads about article title[edit]

Propose renaming title of article to "Cli-Fi (disambiguation)"[edit]

Matthew Dann MaDann at Talk Wiki, Wikipedia information team info-en@wikimedia.org is monitoring this not-neutrual brouhaha over this page of climate change fiction, and he wrote to me today: Dear Dan Bloom, 

You need to follow the onwiki dispute resolution process - those edits were made outside my OTRS capacity, so I'm unable to help mentor the dispute.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Dann....User:Chiayi77|Chiayi77]] (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

And DGG, the main editor here, who was the person who pushed the Wiki control edit buttons that officialy changed the title of the page from cli fi its present unclear name, and he did this without know the background of the person with an agenda pushing to get name chagned so she could control this page for her own ends, I asked DDG what i could do about her and he said : Dear Dan, vWikipedia works by consensus. All that I or any administrator have power to do is observe what the consensus is and to do what it necessary to enact it. I'm sorry, but this is not really my field in any case, andI am not going to involve myself further, except to repeat my advice, which is general advice from many years working on many sort of articles: in disputes of this sort, the best way to proceed is to add content, and only after substantial content is added, then raise the question of dividing the article. 

.... Sincerely DGG. (Chiayi77 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Note that Chiayi77 deleted Talk history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_fiction&action=history), specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_fiction&diff=653844467&oldid=653844433, where I support the reasoning behind the MPR article indeed being about a genre. See the following two paragraphs:LynnS79 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GOOD LINK cli fi term at @MPRnews : Cli-Fi meet, reality." not speaking of 'genre' but as 'cultural prism' http://blogs.mprnews.org/updraft/2015/03/climate-cast-earths-lungs-inhaling-less-carbon/ SEE? there is more here than just YOUR work. Be democratic and let others speak. Not just your POV. You have your right to speak, so do we. That is democracy.(Chiayi77 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I finally had a chance to look at the article that you referenced, and that sentence clearly ties ci-fi with the climate fiction film "Day After Tomorrow", which does mean that the reference is talking about genre. It's clear to me that the sentence is saying: Oh look, a fictional scenario could be reality. The fictional scenario is cli-fi, or climate fiction. I am not sure what you mean by cultural prism other than fictional works allow us to see our connection to the world--if this is the case, this is part of the broad reality of fiction, and in this case, this particular genre. I don't understand what you mean by letting others speak. I have not stopped anyone from speaking, in fact hope that this article has more voices and input. I would ask you to point out anywhere that I've "not allowed others to speak". Please tell me how I'm doing this, or redact your baseless claims. And who is "we"? You are the only one who has tried to intimidate with personal attacks. I am trying to clean up this article, which is a very important topic in today's world. LynnS79 (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Propose renaming[edit]

Diagree with the name change. signed, Chiayi77 (Chiayi77 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I have provided a list of big media who report cli-fi as an abbreviation of climate fiction, including two articles in which you, yourself, claimed this to be true. Nobody's rushing to judgment. I, for one, am trying to be rational and logical and providing references to everything I edit. You may, of course, have your own opinion about what climate fiction is, or isn't, but, to me, and this is my personal opinion, you have contradicted yourself in the media often about this genre, and this back-and-forth has also been reflected here in this article. It makes those of us actually working in this genre want to improve this article. The bottom line it seems is that you are trying very hard to promote a label called "cli-fi" and focusing on it rather than the actual genre of works within climate fiction. The latter is what is worthy of a Wikipedia article, not a simple abbreviation, which you are focusing on. This article needs fundamental structure that gets away from your abbreviation to the actual genre itself. What's happening in the world of cli-fi IS wonderful, but you have to focus on it and quit making the majority of focus on the abbreviation--because it's just not that important. Can you agree? §
Lynn, after this very good chat above, see all comments new today, I ...whole...heartedly...can agree. And I am aboard with this new page and new chapter in our friendship. Go go go. signed (Chiayi77 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Can we rename the article to "climate fiction"? Because as an encyclopedia, we do not use slang, nicknames or jargon. Even the term "Sci fi" is common, but it's article is titled "Science fiction". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I pointed out in the section below, I agree. The term climate fiction was there before the label cli-fi. The person claiming to have first abbreviated the phrase cli-fi out of climate fiction twists the focus from the actual work in the genre to himself as the brilliant inventor of this new genre. It's a false claim that needs to stop; the focus needs to be on the growing bundle of this otherwise meaningful literature. In order to take this genre seriously, authors and readers alike need to be presented with an honest and natural evolution of this genre, reported correctly, independently, and fairly, with the focus of the genre itself, not just the term "cli-fi". No one person invented this genre; it came about naturally. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnS79 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with change to climate fiction. Then the article can focus more on the genre and less on the name. It is worth mentioning the origin and popularisation of the term "cli fi" but that should not be the main focus of the article. Davidreid (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As I pointed out in the section below, I agree. The term climate fiction was there before the label cli-fi. The person claiming to have first abbreviated the phrase cli-fi out of climate fiction twists the focus from the actual work in the genre to himself as the brilliant inventor of this new genre. It's a false claim that needs to stop; the focus needs to be on the growing bundle of this otherwise meaningful literature. In order to take this genre seriously, authors and readers alike need to be presented with an honest and natural evolution of this genre, reported correctly, independently, and fairly, with the focus of the genre itself, not just the term "cli-fi". No one person invented this genre; it came about naturally. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnS79 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree with renaming[edit]

EDITED: I disagree but now i also agree, sort of. SEE COMMENT BELOW HERE:. Media reports erroneously report cli-fi as being shortened from climate fiction. This was not the case. Cli fi is a new standalone genre term on its own. The term is a coinage, and it's also a riff on the sci fi term. It not an abbreviation of climate fiction, never was and never will be, not matter what the media reports. It was never abbreviated at some point in time from the phrase of climate fiction. To claim it was is wrong. Cli fi was born with just five letters and as a standalone term, that stands for itself, and for nothing else. Otherwise, someone might have come up with cli-fic or "climafic." That was not the case. Cli-fi is a term that stands for itself. This needs to be understood and recognized. Someday. Signed by Chiayi77 aka Dan Bloom (Chiayi77 (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I agree. Media reports cli-fi as being shortened from climate fiction. The term is not a coinage. It was simply abbreviated at one point in time from the phrase of climate fiction. To claim otherwise is purely disingenuous.

For some reason LynnS79 does not want to believe that the name of the term addressed in this article is CLI-FI and not climate fiction. So I cannot argue with her. When Lynn uses the word "media," which media does she mean? Dozens of media outlets have reported the rise of the cli fi genre, and they have used the word in headlines, too. The term of CLI FI is a coinage. It was never "abbreviated' from the the term climate fiction. It was created as a stand alone term. I know because i was there when it was conceived. SCott Thill also did not abbreviate it from the term Climate Fiction when he used it in his two reports at Wired or on his recent HuffPo piece titled CLI FI IS REAL. This page article, althg Lynn might not like the title, it is the title that best fits since it is about cli fi the new genre and cultural prism rocking the literary world. This article was never about climate fiction. Just as LAb Lit and Chick Lit have their own articles it makes sense that CLI FI should have its own article even if some people don't appreciate the coinage. Let them go elsewhere. I have no idea who this Lynns79 is, male or female, but they are entitled to their POV as I am. Since I originated the article, I believe I should have some say in its title. Otherwise people can go around and start renaming everything. [signed Chiayi77 aka real name Dan Bloom] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiayi77 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to point out again the resources we already have about climate fiction that say "cli-fi" is its abbreviation. See the "Sources" list below, which I have already provided. The only resources we have on the subject say that cli-fi is an abbreviation of climate fiction. None say that it is a neologism (that's pushing it) or a stand-alone term--until now--and I feel that this is a ploy to keep the old title, which I and others proposed to rename. Dan Bloom, originator of this article, has, he himself, also said that cli-fi is simply an abbreviation for climate fiction. Here are two such claims he made recently:
  • [5] "INTERVIEW: Dan Bloom on CliFi – Climate Fiction". Author of article, David Thorpe. January 27, 2015. Quote by Dan: "Cli-fi is a new genre term for novels, short stories and movies that stands for works of art and storytelling that deal with climate change and global warming concerns: "cli" stands for the first thee letters of climate, and "fi" stands for the first two letters of fiction. Just as sci-fi stands for science fiction, cli-fi stands for what might be called "clience fiction," or novels and movies where climate change is a major theme, although not always the main theme.
  • [6] "‘Cli-Fi’ Reaches into Literature Classrooms Worldwide" Author Dan Bloom. Claim in article: "Cli-fi is a catchy abbreviation for the genre of “climate fiction,” much in the same way that “sci-fi” is a nickname for “science fiction.” March 10, 2015.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnS79 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LynnS79, yes, good sources, and i see your point. But you need to understand something: Lynn, I am not sure if you understand how newspapers and media reporters work. Sometimes I do say, and have said, in order to help explain and introduce the cli-fi term to readers or reporters who may be hearing for the first time, that to help them and reportters and editors, see what I am doing with cli-fi term, I do say, sometimes, as an explainer, that cli-fi is an abbreviatoon of the two words climate fiction. Of course cli comes from cli-mate and fi comes from fi-ction, so I Do SOMETIMES say that and it helps readers grasp the news story better. I dont mind being quoted that way if it helps the story read better. Sure. But I *never* have said or say that cli fi is an abrreviation of the climate fiction TERM, never have said that. Because cli fi was not set up that way. It was set up as a stand alone genre TERM, for use, first, for media workers [reporters] and headline writers and newspaper editors, and secondly for general readers. Cli fi was not set up to create a new genre. It was first set up as a media and headline term. It caught on! Now it's real. Now it's all over the media and has taken on a life of its own. ....Lynn, the more I hear from you here, the more i feel I've known you like for a long time. Did we ever know each other in some past life? SMILE. (Chiayi77 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)).
Being a reader all my life, I am aware of how media works. Thanks for pointing out I'm not aware, I guess. I have provided multiple sources--as has this article (and other people addressing this article) about climate fiction, which is what this article is about. You are continuing to focus on the abbreviation, cli-fi, which I hope is resolved as unnecessary to expand upon more than it already is. I'm not saying it shouldn't be part of the article, but it shouldn't be the focus. You cannot own this term, sorry. Climate fiction is something written independently by authors, is it not? Do they write because you made up an abbreviation one day, because you have your own ideas about the genre? No, absolutely not. Can they, and the authors who have written about climate change, going back to the 1970s, before you came along, use this genre name? Of course. It's only reserved for authors after your divine conceptional idea? Preposterous. Wikipedia is very clear about no one person controlling articles or making up their own rules about terms. I can see, going through the revisions, that you yourself have changed the wording so much it contradicts itself after a while. This article is not yours to control. Wikipedia is very clear about the freedom to provide multiple citations and having various experts to come to compromise on an article. You are basically saying that you made the term up one day and created the concept, but you haven't. Climate change in art and literature is a natural response to what's happening in our world--it is not a response to your abbreviation a phrase at some point in time. Wikipedia is also very clear on stating out policies against personal attacks; there are still places in this Talk section, after your mea culpa, that you insinuate you were not trying to attack me but were trying to make someone (who you thought was myself) look badly. That does not belong here, and shame on you for using Wikipedia for personal attacks on anyone, including me. This was, what you might call an experiment in my classroom, in showing my students the democratic and independent source-use of Wikipedia. All I can say is that this was the worst example of how Wikipedia should work, and your rantings are embarrassing. LynnS79 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources:


Lynn, not all sources are not accurate. i creatively modelled the cli fi term, from sci fi term. why don't yuou ask me what cli fi is instead of running to your safe SOURCES and useing them to bolster yuour arugments. ask the true source, me. but even teh media does. i know how this happens, every true pioneer in whatever field has to deal with this. i don't mind. water under the bridge. I soldier on. But don';t use SOURES against me. ASK ME, talk to me . SMILE. signed the DAn bloom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiayi77 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an old-fashioned school marm, and your further attacks on me are uncalled for. Might I acquaint you with these Wikipedia policies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines?

-Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

-Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it.

The policy calls for reliable sources. That's what I presented, unless you are going to say that resources like the New York Times are not accurate but that you are.

-Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

You keep commenting on me, or others, not on the content.

-Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.

You have ruined this page by contributing long-winded, barely readable rants.

[I'm not quoting all of the rules, just the ones you are breaking.]

-No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This includes:

--No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. --Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.

You make personal attacks and have done the 'ol "admins you know" trick more than once.

-Do not ask for another's personal details

Hello? This whole argument began when I told you no when you asked for my personal details. This is my last response to your behavior before opening an arbitration case, unless you just stop doing this, and that includes breaking other Wiki policies by trying to control articles despite a boat-load of resources that disprove your switching claims about this genre. LynnS79 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello? YOU were not listening to me, or reading what I wrote, Lynn. I did not ASK or DEMANd your personal details, if you re-read what i wrote, you will see that I merely ASKED ifr it might be POSSIBLE to chat by email privately, so that we could discuss the issue quietly and privately out of this public space, and is was merely a QUESTION, would you like to do that and you turn this into "HE ASKED FOR MY PERSONAL DETAILS." You see things the wat your emotions tell you to see them, but they are not always what the person said to you. Again, the Men are from mars women are from venus memem. Although equal in IQ and EQ, we men and women do perceive the world and argue abput things in different way, Not superiopt opr inferior ways, but diffent ways. Lynn i never ASKED for yiour personal deatails . read that atain, i merely wanted to chat with you offline by email. yuou took that the wrogn way and twisted it. You called some of my posts as "insane ramblings". IS that not attacking mode, harassing mode, picking on me, mode. You can give but you cannot take. Is that not a personal attack on me? Yes it is. But do i run the the admins and complain that Lynn is picking on me, harrassing me, attacking me? No. because men are from mars and men are from women. I think the adms and you yourself understand the meme I am talking about. This is life in the male/female caldron! SMILE. I love it.(Chiayi77 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

The issue in 25 words or less?[edit]

I might be interested in helping here, but what I see is WP:WALLOFTEXT.... see also WP:Too long, didn't read.

In 25 words or less, or maybe 50, what's the issue?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same request. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is that cli-fi has been presented in the news media (and by this article, see revision history) as a genre, short for climate fiction. I have provided sources for this above. Three of us proposed to rename the article from Cli-Fi to Climate Fiction, on similar grounds that Wikipedia has an article for Science Fiction but not for sci-fi. The originator of the article first agreed with this decision to rename the article, but then went on to deliver several personal attacks on me (for suggesting to rename it)--including later apologies to me for confusing me with someone else. But then went further on to say that cli-fi was not, in fact (despite what all the news media reports, and what the originator he himself has said--resources above), a genre term, that it was a new concept and a neologism that wasn't genre-related but that will be for future books only, and that no books have yet been published in the genre. It's confusing to me, but clear that this user is more concerned with promoting an abbreviation as some novel concept rather than the important works that media is already reporting within the climate fiction genre. This is about as TL:DR as I can get; sorry it goes over 25 words.LynnS79 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, then, the best thing to do would be to remove all claims that are not reliably sourced? I can get started on that right away, if that is what would resolve all dispute issues. And what is with the § symbols at the end of some paragraphs? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 23:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Eds disagree whether Cli-fi should be the article title or a redirect to Climate fiction. Just 15 words! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, as somebody pretty involved in SFF circles, I've heard the phrase Climate fiction, I've never heard cli-fi before today. Looking at the article as it stands, if I stripped it down to WP:RS supported material it would be a stub, so if there are RSes for Climate Fiction, considering how much of this article is un-substantiated currently, I'd say go for it. Simonm223 (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But Simon223, and i am glad you have finally heard of the cli fi term, see more at The CLi FI report, a private website set up by an IT firm in Calfoprnmoa for me, and full of nothiognt but linsk to articles and acedemics papers for reseach to mull over, at cli-fi.net --- how about we let this page stand as it, with the current title but give me a page title for anew stub that reads....Cli-Fi (disambiguation) ....which DGG has already said was a good idea. Let me disambiguate and let Professor pontificate, on different pages with differen titels and all is good, no? Professor could set up her own private wbstie on climate ficiton if she wants, but she prefers to be a bossy Wikipedian ed here and waste both her time and my time, although I must say this has been an interesting case study about how Wiki works and how arugments and disagreemnts are finally...settled... or abirated. I have learned a lot here and I ap;ogize for my poor typing skills and any misfires i might have said in the heat of any of the arugmetns that have ensued. NOTE: I am no longer going to address Prof. directly here. game over. Whatever i say, no matter what i say, she just goes on and on with her PHD bravado thinking she knows More about cli fi than I do. The nerve! The chutzpah! See you in Arbitration, Professor. !(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
I will take "Cli-Fi (disambiguation)" as a title for a new stub, and I will stop pestering the learned professor here whose views i respect but disagree with. Can't we all get along? (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
The best thing to do to bring peace to Wikipedians would be to either [1.] retitle this page back to its original title but at the same keep all the new links and content that Professor and others have added, myself included, or keep building the page by consensus with the first title put back on and maybe ask DGG for decision on this since he is the mod who pushed the controls to change the title a few weeks ago, or [2.] ask Professor since she is an acknowledged expert on many genres of literature, which she teaches at her top tier university in her part of the world, and of course an expert on the history of the so-called genre she calls climate ficiton, and let her build a climate fictiong genre page to her heart's delight. (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Now, you see? Your words above can easily be seen as a "personal attack" on another editor; and all it does is make YOU appear in a bad light to other editors. So thank you for your kind words in my direction; however, please refrain from any and all personal attacks against any other editor on this encyclopedia project. Even if everything else you do is right, just one personal attack makes it all wrong. Understand? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paine, I do understand thanks for your coaching here. I apprecite. Will behave from now on, and see Solomonic wisdom post above top now. What say you now? Can do? SIgned CHIAYI77
PAINE, i dont know how to find you at your own talk page so i will post this here. as you since you rectified it, Lynn deleted my addition fo the clI FI reprot at an extreanl refernce ust today about 3 hours ago. Why delete my site by she leaves a site up? Agenda, anyone? But i am glad Paine came right behind her abd put my site back up there. That was the scond time SHE has done that to that link here. Is that right? Do we condone that? (Chiayi77 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Rationale for Retitling this page but keeping the new content[edit]

Now that LynnS79 has admitted that she did have a non-neutral agenda all along, as I had suspected from the get go, by admitting here in Wiki Talk today that she came here to Wiki after gettign to know a differnt site, and that she relied on many sources and quotse and data from taht site, and came here initially to clean up my page -- a good idea and I thank her for that, i can always use editorial and scholarlu help -- and then got carried away and called for the page to be retitled after seeing some other eds, i think it was just one, who also called for a retutle. So Lynn led the charge to get the page retitled all under a agenda which she never divulged until today. This seems to be a good enuf reason to change the title of this page back to CLI FI or rename it Cl-Fi (disambiguation) if mods think that makes better sense. Lynn should and has complete freedom to start her own page now at Wiki and call it CLIMATE FICTION. she is a good person and a very thorough scholar. But she was not honest about her intetions to "clean up" this page and ram a name change through if she could. DGG, what say you now? MaDann, Paine, NewsGUY? (Chiayi77 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I never said that I had a non-neutral agenda. Where did I say that? I did visit Eco-fiction.com, which you seem to dislike, but that is only one of many sources I have cited here. I have admitted only to seeking multiple sources and staying neutral. LynnS79 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposed You yourself added "cli-fi" to Neologism and are quite blatantly and in WP:NOTHERE manner playing cheerleader for increased usage of that term, in contravention of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, NewsandEventsGuy, i accept and understand your OPPOSED note. (Chiayi77 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
  • Opposed Cli-fi is a neologism and an ambiguous one at that. Climate fiction, on the other hand, is clear, concise and not claimed as the singular invention of anyone on this talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict of interest and Topic Ban[edit]

What think I now? I think you merit a topic ban. That's one of the best statements of a WP:COI I've ever heard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teach me. What's a topic ban? Means I should not be allowed to CREATE a topic ever again in my existence on planet Earth, ever ever, or that I should not even be allowed to edit a topic? I will abide by whatever the mods think is the best ruling. I admit I was using the cli fi page i created as a PR shout out to the world. I thought that would be a good way to do it. But now that you tell me that was a no no, i see your point and plead guilty. (Chiayi77 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Banning policy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, of course, i had COI, i admit it. At the time, 2013, i did not know how Wiki pages were created and how COI was a nono. I thought all pages were created by people who were excited about something, like Al Gore's page Al Gore was created by Al Gore's team, no? So you mean the best way for cli fi to have its own page would be for someone not conneted to the cli fi movement at all to start it and maintain it and build, with eds invited to improve it. I can see that and i like that idea. I guess, i see now, i should not created the pages since I was too connected to seeing the term succeed. In same way, Lynn should not have been allowed to force a name change through, since she was too close to some stuff too. So what to do? Thanks for these great lessiosn this week. and Lynn, thanks too. we both Lynn and I, should be banned. From this criteria, i agree and plead mea culpa, apologies too, but wrong is wrong, i didn';t know all this but that is no excuse. ban us both. (Chiayi77 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
Read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Banning policy . Both Chiayi77 and LynnS79 had major conflicts of interests I see now, we all see now, and I feel we both should be banned for life -- and just allowed to lurk and read. (Chiayi77 (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
The alternative might be that anytime you want to do more than copyedit the article, that is, when you want to add or subtract something that is significant to the subject, just bring it to this talk page to get opinions from other editors. COI content is a form of "advertising", a huge no-no on Wikipedia. As long as you're willing to be helpful, informative and cooperative with other editors, I see no reason for any kind of "ban", topic or otherwise. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK by me, but only if we proceed with due regard to the WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:ARBCC#PRINCIPLES to name a few. I intend to enforce further violations of that stuff by seeking blocks or renewed call for page ban via WP:AE if future contribs warrant, and my goal is prevention only, not punishment. If the players can vigorosuly disagree within our behavioral guidelines, then this article could be wonderful. But I'd rather have a nearly empty stub than a silly fracas. By the way, I have already applied for topic block at ANI. If it happens I would support an appeal upon demonstration of effort to learn what these things mean and assurance to abide by them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_fiction/Archive_1&oldid=721337134"