Talk:Naomi Seibt

Climate change denialist or self-proclaimed "Climate Realist"?

The text currently refers to Naomi Seibt as a climate change denialist, but IPs are changing this to "Climate Realist". Can we establish a consensus on this, based on what reliable sources have to say? It reminds me of 9/11 denialists who call themselves "Truthers". Esowteric+Talk 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

From my understanding, Wikipedia doesn't go with what a person or group calls themself if it is politically controversial in this way, unless it is a widely established term or something like a person's gender. Take the Abortion-rights movements -- most people in this movement call it the "pro choice movement," but that name is politically specific, so it's not the article's title. On the other hand, the article on climate change denial is named just that -- it's a widely used term and movement.

I personally haven't ever heard a reputable source calling a person a "climate realist" unless they were quoting what that person called themself -- and a quick Google news search seems to confirm this, since typing in "climate realist" seems to use that term almost exclusively in quotes: see Business Insider The Guardian Bloomberg. All of these just say she is a self-proclaimed climate denialist realist, so I think there can be a sentence saying she calls herself this, but so far, it's a name she gave herself. Using a term that she advocates and isn't widely used seems like a WP:SOAPBOX. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, no source call her "climate change denialist". Sources call her climate change skeptic. Here is an example Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative... [1]. This is not just a BLP but also a biography of a child, we need sources for everything. I also noticed that her opinion is followed by the fact that she was employed by bluh bluh institution. This juxtaposition needs to be avioded.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, folks. Esowteric+Talk 18:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam I'm sorry, I mis-typed one word. Thank you for catching that - I changed it above for clarity, since it made my point confusing. I meant to say those sources said she was a self-proclaimed climate realist, not denialist (my mistake). I was just saying she should not be called only a climate realist since it's a term she gave herself. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If many reliable sources say that she calls herself "climate realist" then we can say that she calls herself a climate realist. I wasn't actually referring to your comment. I was referring to the lede paragraph that says she is a "climate change denialist", I checked the sources and I didn't find any of them calling her "climate change denialist", I found that sources are calling her climate change skeptic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ixocactus, why did you revert back to the unsourced wording?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SharabSalam! Because "Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.". The sources are in the original entry. And, after all, we are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ixocactus, no, we don't do original research (WP:SYNTH). See what reliable sources are saying,

Washington Post: [2] Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...

Business insider: [3] Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...

There is no reliable source that calls her climate change denialist... see?

We will only say what sources say. We dont want to do WP:SNYTH, especially in a biography of a living person.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Ok. I think that both SYNTH and BPV can be used now to delay her caracterization as a denialist. I think that "self proclaimed climate realists" and other creations by Heartland and others are only smookscreens to climate denialism. But feel free to change it according your opinion. I do not intend edit war or sealioning this. Probably I will ask for help in noticeboards, if necessary. bye! Ixocactus (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Ixocactus ... "I think that "self proclaimed climate realists" and other creations by Heartland and others are only smookscreens to climate denialism." You argue that SharabSalam is basing their point on their own opinion but you yourself are actually trying to make a point for your own opinion. Multiple reliable sources (not to mention Naomi herself in her CPAC speech that you watch on YouTube) report that she claims to be a climate skeptic, not a climate denialist. RLove79 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't use self-descriptions in wikivoice. If we did, all terrorists wold be freedom fighters. RS use various terms. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, you do realize that "climate change skeptic" is not the self-description, right?. It's literally what sources are explicitly describing her.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing lots of terms. What I don't know is which were invented by Heartland, for whom she now appears to work. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK Heartland didn't invent a term here. Naomi Seibt calls herself climate change "realist". Reliable sources explicitly call her climate change skeptic. I have not found any reliable source that calls her climate change denialist or climate change denier. For what I understand, there is no actual issue with the term "climate change skeptic", it is used in many scientific papers. Climate change skepticism is a form or a part of climate change denial but skeptics are not called deniers and deniers are not called skeptics.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• See my edit summary for the rationale, but I thought I should post here. This is old news and a settled matter on Wikipedia. “Climate change skeptic” is a euphemism used by proponents of climate change denial, which is why “climate change skeptic” and other such descriptors automatically redirect to that article. The settled consensus of the community is that such ‘skepticism’, being firmly rejected by the scientific community, is very much covered by WP:FRINGE. You’ll see this on nearly every page related to this across Wikipedia. We don’t introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE, and local consensus doesn’t override well-established community consensus on such matters. We call a spade a spade, when it comes to fringe topics. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Climate change skeptic is what sources are saying. [There is no source that calls her climate change denialist. Also, you need to bring a source that says Climate change skeptic” is a euphemism used by proponents of climate change denial. Also, we have used climate change skeptic in articles like Lars Bern. Skepticism is not denialism, it makes no sense to say that skepticism is the same as denialism. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes Sharab, there are. Tons. The reason you’re not finding any is because the word is “denier” in English, not denialist. In fact, the very first reference in the article (from the Independent), which introduces what she “does”, is titled using “climate change denier”. Also, the other article can not be used as a reason to change the descriptor, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument on Wikipedia- that article is obviously an outlier which flew under the radar, as noted by the numerous problem tags on the top of the page, including one for notability. We don’t use euphemisms for FRINGE subjects on Wikipedia. Period. “Skeptic” is often used by proponents of Holocaust denial, homeopathy, and the anti-vaccine movement, too. Look at the talk page for Holocaust denial, and you’ll see that it’s a perennial problem there. And yes, “skepticism” is “denial”: There is a strong consensus in the scientific community. When there is, we don’t call it “skepticism”. The opinions of commentators contradicting science is denial. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. She dislikes the term because it has negative connotations due to holocaust denialism, ironic given reports of her having made antisemitic remarks. But we don't care. Antivaxers don't like being called antivaxers. That is not our problem to fix. When someone has dismissed climate change "hot air", they are not a skeptic, they are a denier. Guy (help!) 12:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So, using that logic I guess that makes Guy a "skepticism denier"... RLove79 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

RLove79, As an active member of the skeptical community, I am hardly likely to deny the existence of skepticism. Nor am I likely to confuse it with pseudoskepticism, which is what cklimate change denial is. Guy (help!) 20:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is this even a discussion? There's nothing neutral about the introduction of this article. In fact, it's just plain wrong. Climate change denier is an incorrect term for someone who doesn't deny the fact that climate change is real, but instead only questions the causes and consequences of it. It must be changed to self-proclaimed climate change realist, which is in my opinion the only neutral term to use. I could live with climate change skeptic, but to me that's still not 100% correct. Note that I do not agree with this young woman's views, what I'm saying is that the introduction of this article does not meet the standards it should meet at all. HendrikJan1968 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow what subjects say about themselves. Though primary sources will certainly tell you it's a sensible part of a balanced diet, the safest car on the road today, the author is a "racial realist", the group is just a bunch of guys who get together for a beer every now and then, Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. If those sources say you should eat that food rarely if at all, that's what Wikipedia reports. If the sources say the car has a tendency to rollover and burst into flames, that's what Wikipedia reports. Yeah, the guy who calls himself a "racial realist" (but runs a white supremacist organization that publishes Holocaust denial material)? Yeah, Wikipedia reports that independent reliable sources call him one of the most prominent white supremacists.

Independent reliable sources say Seibt is a climate change denier, so that's what Wikipedia says. It's verifiable and we report it from a neutral point of view. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhD: Independent reliable sources say Seibt is a climate change denier

Noooo, Independent reliable sources say Seibt is a climate change skeptic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This^^^ Thank you, SharʿabSalam▼ RLove79 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

RLove79, Actually some say one and some say the other, but since climate change "skeptic" is a euphemism for denier it makes no odds. Guy (help!) 23:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Labelling this young woman as a "climate change denialist" is a slur. Frankly, I think it's disgusting to label someone in that way. it is not the place of wikipedia to take political stances. Is there even any such a thing? Is this what Ms Seibt calls herself? NO. The label is a slur designed to damage her reputation. You should use neutral language to describe her. John2o2o2o (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter what you think. It only matters what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, she is not an RS. We can (and do) say she denies this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 1

"We"? WIkipedia belongs as much to me as it does to you! As for "reliable source". Who decides what constitutes a "reliable source"? Your "reliable source" may not be reliable! Would you say the label was flattering or respectful? I wouldn't. I repeat. Use neutral language which neither flatters nor praises. John2o2o2o (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You do not understand in several ways how Wikipedia works.

• Read WP:RS and have a look at WP:RSP to find out what a reliable source is. Spoiler: It is not decided by a single person, and especially not by someone who does not know the first thing about it.
• Read WP:WAR and WP:BRD to find out whether you should revert an edit that reverts your edit.
• Read WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE and WP:LUNATIC to find out whether we treat science and pseudoscience the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Also wp:consensus, that is what I meant by "we". If multiple users say no then its "we".Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What right do you have to stigmatize someone without doing your own research on that person and/or his/her background and research? This wiki starts to smell more and more like all MSM activities to enforce humans into something that has been proven wrong. Mstrbstr (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"More and more?" This is an encyclopedia, which follows mainstream scholarship by design. You're in the wrong shop for original research and fringe theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Süddeutsche Zeitung

Today I removed some quotes from Süddeutsche Zeitung which had been translated to English; my edit summary was "Removed quotes from Süddeutsche Zeitung. Violated WP:FOREIGNQUOTE, and a report that she spoke at a conference isn't something people will care about in 10 years." Quickly Slatersteven reverted, saying "What is this policy?" I wish there was a way to correct edit summaries, I should have written MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, which is a guideline. I have traced the addition to somewhere within a huge series of edits by Oceanflynn. Anyway, I don't think the rest of my edit summary was incorrect. Anybody else want to keep the quotes in? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing how it violates that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

useful content, evidences her beliefs on climate change, she's a denialist, no getting away from it. Acousmana (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"climate change denier"

She is right in questioning the impact of humans on global climate. The sun is more than a million times bigger than the earth. 97 percent of CO2 pollutions have natural causes.

46.93.243.186 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We will not change the article on the say-so of some random person on the internet. Find a reliable source saying that thing, then come back. But you will have a hard time doing that, since it is bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk)

We go with what wp:RS, as well as the scientific consensus on matters of science, say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

97 percent of CO2 pollutions have natural causes. X-Editor (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, it is the wrong question. It is very well possible that 97 percent of CO2 pollutions each year have natural causes, but those are not the part that changes, and they are compensated by plants taking in the CO2 as part of a dynamic equilibrium, leaving the 3% to disturb the equilibrium and heat the Earth. "XX percent of CO2 pollutions" determines climate, and "XX percent of the change of CO2 pollutions over time" determines climate change. This is a typical denialist tactic: misleading numbers that look to laypeople as if they bolster the denialist position but actually do not. Still, "citation needed" is correct. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

So? RS say she is X we say she is X. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

YouTube account terminated

The article's mention of YouTube may need updating. The reference pointing to her channel now reads: "This account has been terminated for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust denier

What she says here is just whiny bullshit. There is no "connection" between climate change denial and holocaust denial, except that both are types of denialism. Moonlanding denial, evolution denial and other types of science denial are other examples.

It is just propaganda that tries to convince people that the correct term (climate change denial) is somehow inappropriate, and in accordance with WP:FRINGE, it does not belong on Wikipedia articles since Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Self-description in lede

I think the last sentence in the lede is UNDUE and SOAP, "Seibt also describes herself as a "climate realist" and has denied allegations that she is a "puppet of the right wing or the climate deniers or the Heartland Institute"." Given the sanctions and controversy, I'm discussing the matter first. The first addition I can find is by @X-Editor:, here. --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

I see no issue with her denials in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain how it's not a NOT and POV vio? --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Its a BLP as such if we include an accusation we must also include their denial. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It is in the article body. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"Climate realist" is a denialist propaganda word for "climate denialist". So, when she calls herself that, it is not actually about her. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That it is not WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLP does not apply. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

She is saying it about her, its her words. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not like there is such a thing as a "climate realist", and Seibt says she is one of them, while others think she is a denialist instead.

No, she calls climate change denial "climate realism", which is a euphemism. It's the same as Holocaust deniers calling Holocaust denial "revisionism", or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling anti-vax activism "vaccine safety activism".

When she says "I am a climate realist", she is making a statement about how a group she belongs to should be called, not about herself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"" "I am"", no "we are". But I have had my say, I see no valid reason for removing this form the lede, and no it is not "the same as Holocaust deniers calling Holocaust denial "revisionism"", and I found the analogy pretty awful. So with that "climate denial is just like saying Hitler did not kill 6 million Jews" I am bowing out, well done. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That was a comparison regarding logic, not ethics. Every two things will be the same in some aspects and different in other aspects. If they are the same in all aspects, they are the same thing. You are essentially complaining that I compared a thing with another thing instead of with itself.

And of course, both climate change denial and Holocaust denial are forms of reality denial that dismiss the expertise of people who know far more on the subject than the denier does, because reality clashes with the denier's ideology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus to include it, and the edit to create it looks very bold. Per BLP, it should stay out until there's consensus to include. I've gone ahead and removed it. --Hipal (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)