Is all skepticism an organized campaign? Is it unequivocally denial?
edit
(section permalink)
If skepticism unequivocally denial (campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change) then we must have the redirect point at the denial article.
If it is not, if skepticism is related to legitimate debate or skepiticism then we must per WP:R#PLA direct it towards global warming controversy. From the top of the denial page ("This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. For the public debate over scientific conclusions, see global warming controversy.") That sums up the issue. If all skeptism is part of a sinister campaign, if all debate or skepticism about the issue is merely an effort to "undermine public confidence" then by all means we must redirect this towards the denial article. Otherwise we should point it towards the public debate article. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your dislike of the hatnote should be discussed on Talk:Climate change denial, where they're using the hatnote. It's not relevant here. The only question here is: "what article discusses this topic?" Does Global warming controversy discuss "climate change skepticism"? Because that term doesn't appear in the article even once. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't dislike the hatnote. I embrace the hatenote. Projecting imagined motivations and emotions onto other editors is entirely wrong..."to assume is to make an ..." Please WP:FOC focus on content. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS We can discuss whatever is appropriate for this article per the guidelines applicable to this article. Efforts to close off and end discussion is inappropriate. It also cleverly addresses none of the points above. Redirect guidelines and application of them are directly relevant here. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- False dichotomy. All good scientists apply scientific skepticism, thus mainstream scientists are skeptics and Skeptical Science is correctly named, but the label climate change skeptic is used for those trying to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change, whether the very existence of climate change, the attribution of global warming to human causes, or the impact of global warming. These are also the characteristics of what's called climate change denial, as discussed in the climate change denial article. For example, the "skeptical scientists" Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels are directly involved in campaigns to undermine public confidence in the science, as are non-scientist "skeptics" such as Watts and "the Senate's most vocal global warming skeptic, Jim Inhofe." Of course if you find a reliable source for someone explicitly labelled a "Climate change skeptic" with no connection to campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change, we can include that in the article and think about rewording the header. . . dave souza, talk 13:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Given the lack of any proper sources for the claimed "legitimate debate", I'll restore the redirect to the article that deals directly with the meaning of this term. Please discuss before reverting again÷ to a confusing redirect. . dave souza, talk 14:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- Dave souza's statements above are incorrect. To "restore" a redirect one would go back to what it was before Mann jess's change, and it was Mann jess's change that caused a "confusing redirect" with poor sources. "Trying to undermine public confidence" would prove nothing about whether one is a denier or a skeptic -- one could try to undermine public confidence regardless which reason one uses. Skepticism can be part of a controversy, but skepticism is not a branch of denial, so redirecting to a controversy article is okay according to WP:POFRED but redirecting to a denial article is not. As for the closing sentence "please discuss before reverting again ...", Dave souza has no right to revert and then tell other editors not to revert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
|
- Tsk, you're missing the well sourced point: you should always discuss before reversion, and you've still failed to provide any source for your argument. Skepticism in this specific context is a label for the same thing as climate change denial, as that article shows. Your redirect merely leaves readers puzzled about the topic, and isn't appropriate. So, please desist from edit warring to push your unsourced preference. . dave souza, talk 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's worth noting, again, that the phrase "undermine public confidence..." comes from the hatnote, and objections to specific wording of the hatnote should be discussed on the article where the hatnote appears. It is not grounds to change this redirect. Not one objection to the article content has been raised, nor has anyone made a claim that climate change denial does not discuss this topic explicitly. The claim that climate change skepticism is not connected to climate change denial is, of course, contradicted by sources which are expounded upon in the lead of the appropriate article. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I will treat your edit-warring accusation with the contempt it deserves. As for the denialism = skepticism claim, you're wrong, you don't have a source: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." I expect the Denial article has made assertions that denialism = skepticism, but know that for some living persons the majority of reliable sources say that's false. So, since this redirect would automatically cause a new contention about living persons by causing existing "skepticism" links to go to "denial", it needs a lot more caution than whatever has been dumped in the Denial article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
|
- NOTE
- (prev) 19:16, 25 June 2015 Peter Gulutzan (Undid revision 668610757 by Mann jess (talk). See talk page.)
- (prev) 15:29, 28 June 2015 Peter Gulutzan (Undid revision 669050217 by Dave souza (talk) per talk, restore link to properly sourced discussion in article)
- (prev) 14:11, 1 July 2015 Peter Gulutzan (Undid revision 669402130 by Vsmith (talk). Restore appropriate target)
- Have you read the 2nd sentence of climate change denial, where it mentions "climate change skepticism" in bold? There are two sources there, and more in the body. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- Yup. Bad sentence, cesspit of an article. Note Dave Souza's vehement (and tendentious, imo) objections to crediting his sole source for this sentence, by an OSU sociologist (+ co-authors, pace Dave).
- Have you noticed that that terrible article has survived *4* AfD's? Possibly a Wikipedia record. Have you noticed that we have no articles for climate change skepticism? Or for Global warming alarmism? Could politics be involved? Could the whole "call them deniers" campaign possibly be political? Could there be sociologists (even psychologists) "in" on the campaign? Good grief. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTFORUM. That it survived AFD means it was deemed notable by the community. You're welcome to create any other articles you think are lacking coverage, but it looks like content for
climate change skepticism was merged into other articles a few years back. —
Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Skeptics as synonym for climate change deniers
edit
(section permalink)
| (diff) |
Editor Mann Jess argues (above & elsewhere) that all skeptics are deniers (another editor calls them ""false skeptics"), based on the current version of the Climate change denial page. Aside from PG's argument above, the central problem is that the academic argument for skeptic -=denier equivalence is based (sfaict) on the opinions of one academic, sociologist Riley Duncan (and coauthors). I've just restored attribution to this author in the lede. Editor Souza has reverted this so far (IB) 3x, I suppose because it weakens his political argument for stigmatizing "deniers".
In general, the CCD article has a history of collecting a witches-brew of half-baked sociology articles, with the "research" almost laughably biassed towards the desired outcome: stigmatizing of opponents. If you only look at one side of an argument, those are the sources you will find. Editors who try to restore some NPOV balance tend to give up pretty quickly, since even minor changes (such as proper attribution of single sources) are resisted to the point of absurdity. This is a well-known problem with politically-controversial pages at Wikipedia, and, sadly, has no real solution. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- Hi Pete, your assertions about my motives and actions are false, please desist from personal attacks based on nothing more than your attempts at mind-reading. . . dave souza, talk 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please indicate to me where I've shown a preference to label all skeptics as deniers. You've made an explicit claim above that I have done so. Please provide a diff. To your other claim that skepticism and denial being related is only the opinion of Duncan, the sourcing of climate change denial shows that to be untrue. Dunlap and Timmer are cited prominently for that position, and additional detailed coverage of the terms cite others, including Gelbspan, Weart, the NCSE, and more. However, even if your claim were true, the fact remains that climate change denial discusses the subject of "climate change skepticism", while global warming controversy does not. A redirect must obviously point to the place where the subject is clearly discussed. The idea that I've "resumed edit warring" when I'm here discussing the subject on the talk page after PG made 9 reverts is obviously ludicrous. I understand that you dislike the climate change denial article. That's not a reason to change redirects to the wrong target. — Jess· Δ♥ 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- For the specifics of skeptic ~= denier, the claim currently in the lede, please see the discussion on attributing that at the CCD page, which you are contributing to. Please don't put these things on multiple pages; it just confuses 3rd parties.
- For the specifics of the gross NPOV vios I mention, please follow any of the redirects you are so busily edit-warring over, and note the language that greets those who follow those links, expecting factual, NPOV information, at the page header. As has been pointed out to you on multiple prior occasions. Perhaps your support is just acceptance, but you seem awfully keen to have every climate skeptic redirect point to the toxic, biased & just plain awful Climate change denial page. Actions speak loudly.. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- So, no specifics. I provided a list of sources, and you're still saying "NPOV vio" without any details. You haven't answered a single question I asked. — Jess· Δ♥ 06:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- And in addition to no specifics, you've resumed edit warring to your preferred version here and here, meanwhile accusing two other editors of edit warring. Awesome. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- Given Mann jess's predilection for making allegations about how others are edit warring or disrupting (for example against Capitalismojo and against me), and the fact that Mann jess avoids or outright refuses to answer questions (for example the refusal to supply names and diffs about the consensus claim, or the response "not aware of any BLP vios" when faced with the point that one must be more cautious when affecting multiple BLPs), it's a bit rich to see complaints like this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- What question have I refused to answer? I explained quiet clearly that I'm not under any obligation to count votes for you, and that vote counting wasn't a part of my assessment of consensus. The quote about BLP vios is a question I asked you, and you never answered! I'm still not aware of any BLP vios introduced by pointing this redirect at climate change denial. Since that was a part of your rationale, can you please point me to any? I also asked you to point me to sources that are being overlooked or misrepresented, in order to back up your claim that there is a NPOV vio. Can you do that, please? I fail to see any neutrality issue, and you haven't backed it up. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- Every statement that Mann jess makes in the above post regarding what I've said on this page is false. If anyone would like to read what I actually said and comment about that, perhaps we could have a real discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- ...so, you didn't say the redirect to climate change denial could create issues with BLPs, or that it wasn't neutral? Terrific! So there isn't a BLP or NPOV violation. Unfortunately, that means I don't remotely understand your rationale. Can you please explain in a different way why you think climate change skepticism, for example, should not direct readers to a page that is devoted to discussing "climate change skepticism"? Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I most certainly did say that "recent changes redirecting to Denial could have an effect on BLPs", which I had explained on June 28:
I will treat your edit-warring accusation with the contempt it deserves. As for the denialism = skepticism claim, you're wrong, you don't have a source: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." I expect the Denial article has made assertions that denialism = skepticism, but know that for some living persons the majority of reliable sources say that's false. So, since this redirect would automatically cause a new contention about living persons by causing existing "skepticism" links to go to "denial", it needs a lot more caution than whatever has been dumped in the Denial article.
You read that post, so could see that I was disputing a claim about sources there, continuing from my reference an hour earlier to "poor sources". The "living persons" discussion should have clued you in -- aha, BLP, which says "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources ... Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion ... Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject", etc. Now, arm-waving at another Wikipedia article wasn't "being very careful", and blog posts (for example Timmer's post which Ars Technica labels as a "staff blog") might be tolerable in Denialism which is not a BLP article but the standard for sources requires much more caution than you or dave Souza perhaps hoped. Your falsehood in this particular case (one of several cases) was inventing that I was objecting about a BLP violation in some article where "the label 'climate change skeptic' is not sourced" and that it would therefore be adequate to respond you weren't aware of "BLP vios" which were "part of [my] rationale". There probably are BLP violations -- you're changing so at least 25 living persons who were being called skeptics would be in effect called deniers -- but I didn't bring that up then. By the way: you moved my comment and changed my indenting so that it appeared that I was responding to something else. I had no trouble restoring the proper positions and indentations, but please don't do that again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- Climate change denial is not a BLP. So there are two possible interpretations I see for your objection: 1) The redirect causes a BLP vio somewhere else. I asked for examples of this, because I don't know of any. 2) BLP is not actually a factor, your concern is actually about sourcing, and you're trying to apply WP:BLP sourcing standards for some reason. I asked for examples of sources which were overlooked or misinterpreted, so I could understand your sourcing concern. So far, no BLP vios have been presented, and no sourcing errors have been identified. You've complained about Timmlan being used, but you've overlooked the multitude of sources I listed in this discussion (also cited in the article) that draw the same connection: Weart, Dunlap, Timmlan, Gelbspan, and the NCSE. I can add to my list (Painter/Ashe, Oneill/Boykoff, Anderegg/Prall/Harold, Gillis, and more). The list includes journalists, sociologists, historians, climatologists and other researchers, and every one is cited in the article. You say we must be careful with citations. We have been. If you feel we have not, you need to identify a specific area to be improved, and you need to provide sources to back up your claim. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I explained concisely, and I explained lengthily, and still instead of replies I get "interpretations" of what I didn't say. I've accepted that this is another item that you will never address, though I won't accept mis-stating it. As for the "sources" -- you just list names rather than citations so I have to guess what you're talking about -- The Timmer (not Timmlan, Timmer) source is a blog post; the NCSE is just another advocacy group putting anonymous notes on a web site about what terms it "opts to use"; the source quality of opinion articles in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seems to have been discussed once but unresolved; Gelbspan is an "American writer and activist" (which could mean without professional qualifications) who may have said somewhere that all skeptics are deniers though you didn't say where ... your "multitude of sources" is worthless when the criteria are strict. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- I have no problem providing links if you're having trouble finding these in the article. Nerlich, Dunlap, Timmer, Painter & Ashe, NCSE, Weart, Oneil & Boykoff, Anderegg, Prall & Harold, Gillis. I'll add: Jenkins, Eubanks, Mann. Please stop saying "all skeptics are deniers" - that isn't what we're discussing. I don't see any basis to throw all these sources out as "worthless". And your accusation about Gelbspan is nonsense. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I believe I was right about Gelbspan (when I said "professional qualifications" I was thinking of something beyond a BA), and I'm not going to stop saying things like "who may have said somewhere that all skeptics are deniers though you don't say where". The suggestion that terms should be synonyms is a generalization derived from the redirect guidelines, which you're now being reminded of for the third time. So, if this new list is not about how all skeptics are deniers, what are you claiming that your sources all show? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Hi Peter,
if you're not going to stop saying things which appear to be comments on the behaviour of other editors, provide diffs. Otherwise, just stop. Ha, clarification. the phrase "all skeptics are deniers" came from Pete Tillman, 19:55, 1 July 2015.
diff He was asked for a diff the same day,
diff but AFAIK he's yet to provide one. Don't think
Ross Gelbspan ever said it, if so please provide a citation.
[re Gelbspan's qualifications, perhaps you feel all sources should meet these standards? ;-) added 16:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)]The sources Mann Jess lists reaffirm that both terms are commonly used as synonyms, but that's not the unrealistic absolute you seem to be demanding. To quote
the CSI, "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." The latter should clearly be covered in the
climate change denial article, I've yet to see sources identifying the former. . .
dave souza,
talk 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- dave souza, I'm sure there's some misunderstanding implied by the request "please provide a citation". I was saying I didn't know that Gelbspan said it, are you asking for a blank citation? And as for your quote, I'm sure you expect (and would be right to expect) that I would emphasize the words "Not all skeptics are deniers ..." and claim that if we all believe that then we should avoid a blanket change which in effect calls all people "deniers" who have been previously called skeptics, with the old redirect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- Peter, why would "more than a BA" be necessary to qualify his book as a source? He's an award-winning journalist, including the Pulitzer, with a 31-year career. The idea that he "lacks professional qualifications" is insane. Do you mean to say he's not a climatologist? Because those appear in my list too. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, can you please point me to the guideline which indicates a redirect between terms indicates the terms are synonyms? Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I've gone to the Pulitzer search page http://www.pulitzer.org/searchhelp which says "The Pulitzer Prizes site contains the complete list of Pulitzer Prize winners from 1917 (the first year the Prizes were awarded) to the present day." to search "gelbspan". I got zero results. And not only he's not a Pulitzer winner, he's not a journalist -- retired several years ago, it seems. Are you going to stand by your remarks that what I say is "nonsense" and "insane"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
| (diff) |
- What I said was "The suggestion that terms should be synonyms is a generalization derived from the redirect guidelines, which you're now being reminded of for the third time". Capitalismojo pointed you long ago to the "Redirect guidelines" (I don't see a reply from you or anyone about that). I pointed to them too. The "reasons for redirect" are Alternative names (for example Edison Arantes do Nascimento redirects to Pelé), Plurals (for example Greenhouse gases to Greenhouse gas), Closely related words (for example Symbiont to Symbiosis), Adjectives to noun forms (for example Treasonous to Treason), and so on -- i.e. over and over the examples are where two words stand for the same thing, which is what synonyms are, hence my generalizing. I imagine -- though I don't believe anyone has ever said so -- that someone might try to seize on the single exception item 14 which is "Sub-topics", but skepticism is not a sub-topic of denial so even that won't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- I have always thought that WP:REDIR "closely related words" applied to climate change skepticism and climate change denial for the simple reason 0that the few RSs I have read front to end that actually parse these words always use at least some compare-and-contrast to explain them, and nearly always say there is enormous overlap between them. Its true they are often used as synonyms. Its true that deniers try to rebrand themselves as skeptics. Its true that a few sources distinguish the meaning and provide criteria by which one can attempt to analyze which one applies. But all the sources that go into both in any detail always do so in a way that screams "closely related". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. They are closely related, and sometimes used as synonyms, but they are not always synonyms. The suggestion that redirecting this page to another necessarily means they are synonyms is not a view based in policy or guideline, as far as I can tell. Redirecting this page to global warming controversy doesn't mean that a "climate change skeptic" is a synonym for a type of controversy. WP:REDIR lists purpose #14 (purpose, not exception) as "...other topics which are described or listed within a wider article", and that seems to precisely fit this case. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding Gelbspan, his work won the Pulitzer, according to several sources, not him by name. Your claim that he lacks professional qualifications is still nonsense, and I see no basis in policy that we reject a source because he "only" has a BA. You're welcome to point me to it if I've overlooked something. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- Wrong. Look at the example again: Symbiont | Symbiosis. Same word base, just different ending. So the comparable close relations in our context would be Skeptic | Skepticism, or Denier | Denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
| (diff) |
- Regarding Gelbspan, I suppose thousands of journalists could say they've won a Pulitzer ("just not by name") provided one ignores the fact that pulitzer.org is unaware of their award. And what I actually said was: "I believe I was right about Gelbspan (when I said 'professional qualifications' I was thinking of something beyond a BA)", I didn't say we reject sources because they only have BAs. I also said that Gelbspan "may have said somewhere that all skeptics are deniers though you didn't say where", which you objected to, but you didn't point to what Gelbspan actually said that supports your redirection desire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Are you suggesting "climate change skeptic" and "global warming controversy" are synonyms? Or that any of those words are as related as "Symbiont | Symbiosis"? I asked you to stop saying "all skeptics are deniers" because that's not what we're discussing. I have repeatedly told you that all skeptics are
not deniers, so you continuing to insist I've failed to source that idea to Gelbspan is tiring. We are discussing your and Tillman's claim that there is a neutrality issue with covering "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism" together in one article. Many sources (including Gelbspan, and 12 others I've listed) discuss the terms together and define them as related. Again, what sources have been overlooked or misrepresented? —
Jess· Δ♥ 15:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I already excused the redirect to "global warming controversy" (which as I said elsewhere I regard as a compromise) in yet another point that you and others didn't address, look above in the thread where I said "Skepticism can be part of a controversy, but skepticism is not a branch of denial, so redirecting to a controversy article is okay according to WP:POFRED but redirecting to a denial article is not." You can't tell others what relevant matters can't be discussed, but what I actually concluded above was: "you didn't point to what Gelbspan actually said that supports your redirection desire", and you still haven't. There is no such thing as my and Tillman's "claim that there is a neutrality issue with covering 'climate change denial' and 'climate change skepticism' together in one article", in fact their existence has been accepted in an article that covers both (Controversy), you're just inventing what I said, again. As for what you call sources, we're showing one by one why they're poor, but you've still not answered what I asked about them: "So, if this new list is not about how all skeptics are deniers, what are you claiming that your sources all show?" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- 'Opposed to making Climate change skepticism into a redir to Global warming controversy; I've said why in at least 3 places most recently in a climate change denial talk thread on splitting out cc skepticism from the cc denial article. I'd be happy with a rename of Climate change denial --->>>> Climate change skepticism and denial with RS based text that distinguishes the type of skepticism that is an inherent part of the scinetific endeavor from the fake kind that is synonymous with denial, as I described in the thread I just linked to. Indeed, compare-and-contrast seems to be the only way to neutrally present any of these concepts. Another reason for not redirecting to Global warming controversy is because that article isn't quite sure what it means to be. At times it has been a place to steer eds wanting to advocate for abundantly debunked GW myths (or so I was told I think by WMC maybe in 2012), and I've been in on discussions where people have claimed its for the open questions flagged in the professional literature. But I don't think we really know what its supposed to be, other than a pressure relief amalgamation of stuff. Such an article is a poor target for a redir. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@PG Redirecting to
global warming controversy is a compromise? Huh? Who did you compromise with? What was it a compromise
from? I'm utterly baffled you are saying you and Tillman have not claimed there is a neutrality issue with our coverage at
climate change denial. You have both repeatedly used the words "neutral" when opposing the redirect to it; Tillman explicitly said there were NPOV vios. (
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8]) I've made several efforts to ask you questions and repeat back what you're saying to be sure I've heard you correctly, but every time I do you avoid my questions and your explanation seems to change. So, allow me to summarize where we are right now:
Global warming controversy: You, Capitalismojo and Tillman think this page should redirect to Global warming controversy. You've pointed to NPOV and BLP, but haven't explained why (or where) WP:BLP applies, and none of you have provided sourcess to back up claims of neutrality issues. I've asked for them a lot. You (PG) seem to think there are issues with some the sources in climate change denial, but those objections haven't been discussed on the article's talk page, and AFAICT, they are not grounded in policy or guideline: they include reasoning such as "[the author] lacks professional qualifications" and "[the author] is an activist", which are not barriers for sourcing, even if true. You've recently claimed that redirecting to climate change denial would violate our redirect guidelines, based on an implication you read into it, but have acknowledged you are choosing not to apply that same standard to your preference too.
Climate change denial: Me, NEG, Dave souza, and Vsmith (as well as Dmcq and Fyddlestix in edit summaries) think this page should redirect to Climate change denial. We have shown it covers the topic explicitly and in-depth, and we've provided 12 high quality sources with explicit quotes (or page numbers) which back up that coverage. More are in the article. Dave linked to redirect guidelines which indicate this page should point to the article most obviously covering the topic to cause the least confusion for readers.
Consensus, both in argument and editor count, suggest redirecting to the article devoted to the topic. If you won't engage in productive dialogue by, for example, answering questions or providing sources, then I don't know how to have a productive conversation.
Moving forward: During this conversation, you and Tillman redirected this page and about 10 others to your preference, including pages which had always gone to climate change denial, and then reverted to maintain them. If you cannot list sources which show a neutrality issue, or a BLP issue, or some other issue with that redirect, I believe we should move forward with changing them back, and implementing consensus. If you'd like to list sources, or give me examples of BLP vios, let me know and I'd be happy to look them over. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
| (diff) |
- I regret that many of the above statements are once again false or misleading about what I said or did. (1) I didn't say I made a compromise with someone, I said originally that "I call the redirection to Controversy a compromise since I doubt it's anybody's first preference". (2) I don't recall saying there is a neutrality issue with the climate change denial article, I do know that what I actually said recently was you were wrong to say that I and Tillman "claim that there is a neutrality issue with covering 'climate change denial' and 'climate change skepticism' together in one article". (3) The fact that I have "used the word 'neutral'" means precisely nothing. (4) The accusation that my explanation "seems to change" is made with no evidence but of course I have varied explanations rather than repeat exactly the same thing in response to different matters. (5) I have not pointed to NPOV. (6) I have explained at great length why WP:BLP should apply. (7) I don't see how we can count 12 sources when there's no clear statement what those statements are supposed to be supporting for the sake of your redirect, and it's clear that some of those sources would be unacceptable if BLP standards were applied. (8) What I actually said about Gelbspan was "Gelbspan is "American writer and activist" (which could mean without professional qualifications) who may have said somewhere that all skeptics are deniers though you didn't say where", the words "American writer and activist" are from Wikipedia. (9) It is of course true that I looked at the "implications" of the redirect guidelines' items and examples but I didn't "read in", I "read". (11) I explained why the redirect to Controversy was still better with respect to the redirect guidelines. (12) You have definitely not provided 12 high-quality sources, the ones that I've looked at are poor, and you have not even tried to say how they support your urge to redirect despite being asked repeatedly. (13) Tillman and I did not redirect this page to our preference, it was pointing to Global warming controversy between January 26 2014 and June 3 2015, the date of your first bold change.
- On the other hand, it is true that Skepticism of global warming and Skepticism regarding global warming originally pointed to climate change denial, which I guess is what you mean by "pages which have always gone to climate change denial". And it was a treat to see at last who you've decided is on your side, though you seem to have forgotten that William Connolley told you he prefers the redirect to Global Warming Controversy (here), and I haven't seen a response to my ping of Dmcq. So, of people who as far as I know have recently commented, 4 to 4. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
|
- Point of information: Dmcq's comment at talk:CCDenial – "...I used to think that climate change skeptic should redirect to global warming controversy on the basis that if they were actual skeptics it had the details they were looking for. I'm staying away from that now as skepticism is very close to denial nowadays so I'll leave that for others to argue.. .... Global warming controversy is the place for skeptics to look up the arguments against global warming." Dmcq 09:30, 9 July . . added to this thread by dave souza, talk 11:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
