This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative.
I believe it is wrong to direct this to climate change denial, it implies to people they are the same. It is a pity there is no really good article on this but I think one of the following is probably better
...That post was from 4 years ago, and Dmcq no longer holds that position. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
As the climate change denial now discusses in some detail, the labels generally apply to the same thing. It's implied that there may be some instances where a Climate change skeptic doesn't come under the heading of denial, but specific examples are lacking and that's something to resolve on the climate change denial article with good sources. There certainly doesn't seem to be enough difference to justify what could easily become a povfork. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Mann jess says Dmcq has changed position, so I hereby ping@Dmcq: for confirmation. If it's true, that still doesn't justify Mann jess overriding two other editors and making the all-too-typical accusation that an editor who disagrees is edit warring. As for discussing this on the climate change denial article -- no, I can see by the title of this talk page that this is the talk page for what the contents of the climate change skepticism skeptic article should be. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
See here. I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean. I also see no attempt on your part to actually discuss the dispute or respond to others. Climate change denial discusses "climate change skepticism" explicitly by name. Why would it not be the appropriate target? — Jess· Δ♥ 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Your accusation "no attempt to actually discuss" is false. As for the difficulty understanding what I said: perhaps it's because I said "skepticism" rather than "skeptic", I've now corrected my earlier post. Trying to put it more simply: this is the talk page "Talk:Climate change skeptic", therefore this is an place to talk about proposed changes to the article "Climate change skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Jess, consensus appears to be against you, in your continued attempts to override the long-standing consensus that climate-skeptical topics are best redirected to global warming controversy. Not only that, you have accused an editor of edit-warring at his first appearance here, diff. Perhaps you should look in the mirror?
You requested a reply to the substance of why editors object to your poposal. Try following Global warming scepticism. The first line at the redirect (to CC Denial) says,
This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. ...
Not a neutral redirect! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a question of neutrality. It's a question of what article discusses the topic. Climate change denial discusses this topic, does it not? The words "climate change skepticism" are bolded in the 2nd sentence of the lead. Your assessment of consensus is obviously incorrect; unfortunately, this discussion is taking place on about 5 separate talk pages, and in none of them has a relevant objection been raised. If you dislike the wording of the hatnote, you should discuss that on the article where it appears. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This assesment is entirely incorrect and smacks of tendentious editing, evidenced by the edit warring against multiple editors. It is clearly not a neutral redirect. It is disrupting in order to make a point. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you please respond to what I'm actually saying? Does climate change denial discuss the topic of "climate change skepticism" or not? Pointing to WP:NPOV isn't a rationale for redirecting to the wrong topic. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The onus is upon you to achieve consensus for your proposed edit. Multiple editors do not presently agree that you are correct in your edit. They have expressed why. While avoiding WP:SOAPBOX, it is incumbent upon you to explain why this edit is a better redirect. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The strategy I've seen repeatedly from now several editors of shouting loudly there is no consensus, meanwhile dodging any attempts to discuss or achieve consensus, is beyond unhelpful. This isn't a vote. Please address the points being made. Does climate change denial discuss the topic of "climate change skepticism"? Yes or no. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
[outdent] With respect, that makes no sense. Regardless, you clearly don't have consensus here, and NPOV isn't optional. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What doesn't make sense? The question is fairly straight forward. Does the article climate change denial discuss "climate change skepticism"? — Jess· Δ♥ 19:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pete, your preferred in-universe option clearly doesn't have consensus, and it's a good question: WP:R#PLA applies. . .dave souza, talk 19:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with Dave that WP:R#PLA applies here. I would strongly suggest that skeptic and denial is not the same thing. This edit is POV and the and the editwarring has essentially acknowledged it. The purpose is to deprecate skeptic into denial (described at that article as ignoring the Truth based on financial or ideological reasons). That is to say this edit seeks to push readers looking for a neutral article on "skeptic" towards an article that talks about (financially or idologically corrupt) deniers. Hardly NPOV and a redirect that would be of great surprise to an ordinary reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the idea that the denial article has a small section on skeptic doesn't mitigate the NPOV problem or the WP:R#PLA guideline in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So here's the problem... you apparently dislike our treatment of this topic on the appropriate page, and so therefore want to redirect somewhere else instead. That's not a valid rationale. Climate change denial doesn't have a "small section"; the entire article is devoted to the topic, which is introduced in the very second sentence, by name, in bold. Sources back up that coverage, and "neutrality" means following the sources. No one is saying that "climate change denial" and "climate change skepticism" are precisely the same thing; we are saying that this article discusses this topic in depth, so it is obviously the correct target. Your dislike of our content should be discussed at its talk page, and you're welcome to propose the article be split in two, provided you can back up the change in reliable sources. In the meantime, we have to direct our readers to the right place. If they arrive at climate change denial mistakenly, we have a hatnote linking global warming controversy at the very top, so they can easily find their way to that article as well. In short, "article X isn't neutral" doesn't mean we can misdirect everything that links to it, instead of fixing the underlying neutrality problem (if there even is one). — Jess· Δ♥ 21:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So here's the problem...this is an article talk page where we discuss the article. This is not where we discuss editors. Please WP:FOC focus on content not on battlegrounding with other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Where did I discuss an editor? Your rationale was that the hatnote at the appropriate page does not encapsulate the topic, right? If so, then change the hatnote. If not, then you need to be clear what your objection really is. — Jess· Δ♥ 14:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There's an ongoing problem at Climate change denial, with a recent effort to equate skeptics to deniers. That is also (imo) a NPOV problem, but it's separate from what we're talking about here. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
As shown at that article, climate change skepticism is a label for the same thing as climate change denial. You are of course welcome to provide good sources to improve that article. . dave souza, talk 14:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it does, or that they are the same. See that article Talk page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Good sources at Climate change denial disagree with your thoughts, which appear to be original research. To be specific, climate scepticism commonly means climate denialism or contrarianism. Note the assessment that "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics." Some referenced detail about the former group would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 16:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, we will have to agree to disagree, for now. But do consider the possibility of Confirmation bias. Academics (AL in US & UK) are mostly left-wing, the political group most disposed to believe in CAGW. SO it's not surprising that sociologists and political scientists come up with stuff that confirms their beliefs. This is (sadly) human nature. As Feynman used to say, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps those in the right-wing denialosphere think academics are disposed to share beliefs: after all reality has a well-known liberal bias. However, our task is to give due weight to high quality WP:SOURCES. . . . dave souza, talk 14:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Is all skepticism an organized campaign? Is it unequivocally denial?[edit]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Centralized discussion plus list of redirected pages[edit]
In light of the discussion above and at Talk:Global warming skeptic, there's a preference that this page is used for centralized discussion about the various redirect pages on this general topic. Please discuss proposals here before changing these redirects. Thanks, dave souza, talk 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What are these pages? I just looked for "Climate skeptic" and found that Mann jess had also changed that to point to the denial article. I wonder whether there are others besides "Climate skeptic", "Global warming skeptic", and (this one) "Climate change skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
When you change any of these redirects, please leave a note pointing to thipage. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Since these redirects apparently go to the page which deals directly with the issues and terminology, they should not be changed to misdirect readers to another page which you may feel is more sensitive to the minority viewpoint, but not one which actually defines the words and discusses the terms. In due course, other pages like this one should also redirect to climate change denial. Thanks, dave souza, talk 19:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As climate change skeptic is used primarily by those who oppose various aspects of the current climate change or global warming for political or economic reasons and not for the scientists involved in the research, the redirect should be to the article which discusses this false skepticism. As such I've changed the redirect to point to that article. Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As you can see from the discussions above (and elsewhere), many editors disagree with the idea of universal "false skepticism". For me, calling skeptics "deniers" is pejorative, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Protestations that "we don't really mean it as a slur" aren't (IMO) worth much. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, by now we know that's your opinion. But you should really read WP:NPOV; something being "neutral" means it reflects the sources, not the opinions of our editors. The link between climate change denial and climate change skepticism is quite clear in our sources, which is why the climate change denial article covers that link so prominently, and presents material on this topic. If you have sources which contest that link, you should present them at that article. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll note that edit warring to redirect back to global warming controversy is still occurring, despite the fact that a reasonable justification has not been provided here. So far, the rationale for that link have been: 1) personal preference, 2) dislike of the hatnote on climate change denial, with no attempts to change the hatnote, 3) vague pointers to WP:NPOV, with no list of sources or explanation of why the link would contravene sources, 4) claims that global warming controversy is "less vicious" (and the like), which is not a metric for determining a redirect. Consensus indicates that the redirect should point to the article which discusses this topic explicitly, by name. If the edit warring without discussion continues, we're going to have to seek other methods of resolving this conflict. Please stop and discuss. — Jess· Δ♥ 14:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Mostly incorrect. Re edit warring: we've all seen that dave souza and you like to make that accusation, it has no merit. Re reasonable justification: that's just an assertion, I have no trouble asserting the opposite. Re vague pointers to NPOV: actually there's been more than that. Re consensus: well, last time you made a dubious claim about consensus I asked for names and diffs and you refused to say, let's see whether that happens again. Re stopping and discussing: we have discussed, the fact that we've done so does not mean you have a right to make whatever changes you want. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Your reply does not address any of the points being made. "There's been more than that" doesn't tell me anything. NPOV concerns sourcing, so when you say "it's not neutral", you are saying "it does not reflect the sources". What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted? If you have any, present them at Talk:Climate change denial for inclusion. I've asked, and not one has been furnished. I've explained repeatedly that consensus is not a vote, so tallying editors who voted each way is a waste of time. I also have no obligation to tally up votes for you; if you'd like to look through this short discussion and do that yourself, you are of course more than welcome to. Several editors have pointed to policies and sources and article content to back up the obvious redirect to climate change denial (which discusses the subject of "climate change skepticism" explicitly by name), and so far the only objections to that redirect have not furnished a substantive argument. Yes, that means consensus. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to address "the points being made" if I don't see any points being made on your side. You claim that I said "it's not neutral" and "it does not reflect the sources" (in quotes both times) -- you shouldn't put quote marks around words that I didn't say. You brought up the claim that there is a consensus, and now as predicted you refuse to supply names and diffs to back up the claim. As for whether the objections have not "furnished a substantive argument", I suppose that's like the earlier "reasonable justification" claim, that is, an assertion with nothing behind it that is easily wiped out by asserting the opposite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You said it is "non neutral". What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted? — Jess· Δ♥ 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Either Mann jess doesn't understand how quotes work, or the misquoting was deliberate. As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Tillman, thank you. Since the recent changes redirecting to Denial could have an effect on BLPs, since it's the opinion of multiple editors and other sources that denier is non-neutral and/or pejorative, since the Denial article is not itself a valid source, since there is no policy that we must prefer an article which pretends to be a dictionary, I have restored the original redirection on Climate change skepticism, Climate skepticism, Climate skeptics, Global warming skeptics, Global warming skepticism, Climate change skeptics, Climate sceptic, Global warming sceptics, Global warming scepticism, Skepticism of global warming . That's not all the articles you mentioned. I'm aware that there will likely be re-insertions by the group that holds a different opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
1) if there are BLPs where the label "climate change skeptic" is not sourced, or this link is inappropriately provided, it should be removed. I am not aware of any BLP vios relating to this redirect. Can you point me to any? 2) still no indication of what is "not neutral" about it relative to wikipedia's definition of neutral. The content at climate change denial is amply sourced, and you have provided no contrary sources. No one has claimed the wikipedia article is, itself, a source, obviously. 3) "Several users have supported"–and you have ignored their support–the link to climate change denial. This isn't a vote. Why have editors supported global warming controversy? 4) I have no idea what you mean about the article being a dictionary. It is clearly not a dictionary. If you have a problem with its compliance with WP:NOTDICT, you should discuss that at its talk page. — Jess· Δ♥ 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I note that editor Jess Mann has resumed edit-warring and POV-pushing for her political preference for labelling all skeptics as deniers. This is a gross NPOV vioaltion. Please stop, or face the consequences. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Skeptics as synonym for climate change deniers[edit]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've despaired about receiving answers, and don't have much hope that there would be any consensus via WP:BLPN, and don't see how more compromise would be possible (I call the redirection to Controversy a compromise since I doubt it's anybody's first preference). Perhaps an RFC or DRN could occur if there was agreement about wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If we were at DRN, I'd ask you tp provide a numbered list of individual questions, sans analysis and personal commentary, that you claim have gone unanswered in the prior multi-venue walls of text; would you like to take time to do that now, so you have a specific DIFF to point to? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Add your "if we were at DRN" to my "if there was agreement about wording" -- double uncertainty. As a start: if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Peter G
Step 1 - Verbally vomit on someone else for allegedly not answering questions.
Step 2 - Decline to provide list of allegedly unanswered questions.
Step 3 - Fake a desire to work towards consensus building by calling for someone else to do the sweat labor of packaging a DR filing.
I'm not defending Jess. Maybe she has indeed violated WP:ARBCC somehow. I'm just saying you're the ed who had the tirade about unanswered questions. Fine, put up or apologize. Make a list of questions without your spin. Try again to invite Jess to answer. If answers do not satisfy you and you think you are talking past each other, invite Jess to pick a DR venue, or pick one yourself and let the process go. You stamped your feet. It's your job to do the DR sweat to show you are here to work towards consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: as I suggest each time you attack me: take your accusations to a forum about conduct, I'll defend myself in a place where you will be obliged to supply evidence and risk being judged yourself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Rats, I posted at DRN which I only just realized, never havning been there, is for content disputes. I meant to seek help with a communication issue. If the matter still seems worthwhile later on I'll probably seek mediation. Meanwhile, I appreciate Jess' attempt to identify her open questions, below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Peter said I didn't have a source connecting "...skepticism" and "...denial". I asked if he'd read the second sentence of climate change denial, which included several sources.
Peter said the redirect was "non-neutral". I clarified that was a question about sourcing, and asked what sources had been overlooked or misinterpreted.
Peter said there were BLP concerns. I said I was unaware of any BLP vios introduced by the redirect, and asked him to point me to one.
In the same diff (and others), I asked why editors were supporting a redirect to global warming controversy, when it did not discuss "climate change skepticism" explicitly. I also indicated confusion on several other topics, including:
Peter said we needed to be cautious with sourcing. I indicated we had been, and asked for a specific area he wanted to be improved, backed up by sources.
However, the crux of the issue is why we would redirect climate change skepticism away from an article which is devoted explicitly to the topic, and to an article which is not, and why the list of sources at climate change denial (which I reproduced here) are insufficient to show that its content adheres to WP:NPOV. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: Repeat: take your accusations to a forum about conduct, I'll defend myself in a place where you will be obliged to supply evidence and risk being judged yourself. These are serious accusations, I can't just let them stand as if I find them acceptable, but am reluctant to defend on this talk page because I'm not the appropriate subject of this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: I haven't seen a reply from you. If you can't or won't take your accusations to a forum about conduct, then I request that you delete your post, which I find offensive and which does not belong on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Due to the state of the thread and no DIFF from you, puts me in the position of guessing what comment we're talking about, which I decline to do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff. Since you refused to identify the questions you thought Jess was not answering, I still don't know which questions we're talking about. Jess' not answering might mean she is doing disruptive editing. I've suggested various ways to move foward, notably WP:OTHERSOPINION. As you know, experienced mediator has offered to help, too. Before I decide how to reply to your request, may I ask the status of your complaint that Jess wasn't answering questions? If it has not been resolved is it at least being discussed somewhere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't reply to questions that are prefaced by such accusations. If you remove them, I will. If you won't delete your post, and won't take your accusations to a forum about conduct, say so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What I hear just in the words and with my usual AGF is Editor A proposes to remove their own post making a vague and implicit disruptive-editing complaint about Editor B provided that Editor C agrees to remove Editor C's posts asking Editor A to engage in substantive discussion about their complaint or else remove it and/or apologize for it. If that's what you mean, then I would be glad to agree. You've made it plain, however, that you think I am attacking you personally. I'm not. I'm just saying anyone who complains about another editor should "show their work" and engage in constructive dialogue to address both the content and the editor-interaction issues. I've complained about you, and I'm showing my work - you've made a vague implied disruptive editing complaint that someone isn't answering questions. But you won't list the questions, or talk about it constructively, or take Guy Macon (talk·contribs) up on his offer to do mediation. That's not a personal attack, but a summary of the discussion. If you write it up, I'll be glad to discuss the matter further at the DR venue of your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this, I find the Climate change denial page to be very unclear and confusing. It seems to be trying to do several things at once. It seems like several pages have been merged into it giving it several purposes. Especially with relation to different terms for climate change denial, it painfully argues the case based on arbitrary sources instead of discussing the phenomenon.
As I understand it, climate skepticism is a specific form of denial. Would it not be clearer to have a climate skepticism page that essentially says:
Climate skepticism is a form of climate change denial.
It is a form of psuedoskepticism.
It is different from true scientific skepticism.
All of these things are on the denial page, but taking them off would free that page up to be clearer and simpler, about strategies used to deny climate change. The specifics of climate skepticism and be dealt with more clearly on a separate page.Mozzie (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Mozzie. Your best bet is to discuss that at Talk:Climate change denial. It should absolutely be split if we could show a significant division in coverage between the two topics in reliable sources. Right now, we have a lot of sources which cover the two labels together, define them the same way, and use them interchangeably. I'm working with a few others to clean up the article now, so if you find it confusing, feel free to hop in and help out. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree that it could be possible, but the two are so intertwined that coverage of "climate skepticism" and variants is needed at the "climate change denial" page: care would be needed to split the article in appropriate Wikipedia:Summary style while not getting into the problems of Wikipedia:Content forking. There's a lack of detail in reliable sources about which, if any, "climate skeptics" are not climate change deniers in mainstream assessment: I think we'd need that sort of detail to sustain a new article. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Dave wrote, "There's a lack of detail in reliable sources about which, if any, "climate skeptics" are not climate change deniers..."
I don't think this is due to lack of RS's, rather a lack of looking for them by the activist editors who have dominated the odious Denial page since its inception. I'm definitely WP:AGF here -- this is the human-nature condition well documented at Confirmation bias. To which we're all subject: per Feynman, the "easiest person to fool is yourself."
More positively: the obvious place to start the resurrection is with the former Climate change skeptics page, deleted years ago by pressure of activists. Does anyone have a copy? Or a pointer to the deletion discussion? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Pete, you're in breach of WP:NPA and should really assume good faith: if there are good sources, why don't you provide them? Remember, almost by definition the so-called "climate change skeptics" are disputing the majority scientific view, so we shouldn't give their views undue weight or "equal validity". Look forward to seeing positive contributions from you. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Dave, I strongly disagree that I've attacked you. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be" – the activist editros who have dominated the odious Denial page. . . . dave souza, talk 03:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Dave, perhaps you self-ID here, but you will note that I did not specify who -- and in fact didn't have you in mind. I invite you to self-redact your over-reaching accusations, or to open a formal complaint. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I have filed a DRN request related to the claims by Jess and Peter G that each other have not answered questions. I'd like to see the list of important RS and policy based questions we're fighting over. I did not name anyone else in the filing, but if anyone wants to join in, please do.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I am a volunteer mediator at WP:DRN. I see that you folks are having a content dispute and may need some help resolving it. Is there any way that I can be of assistance? The best place to start when requesting dispute resolution is WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy, I think this specific request is about editor behaviour: assertions have been made without sources, and allegations have been made about edits but those making the allegations have not responded to a request for diffs. NAEG can perhaps clarify this. Not sure if the underlying content dispute is ripe for dispute resolution, or if that's the best way forward. . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
At this point, I've backed away from my participation at the content level (due to real life demands) and am only really making time to try to help the process of communication. Peter and Jess both said the other wasn't answering questions. I asked both to provide a list of the important RS and policy based questions they were each referring to. In another thread (this page, above) Jess has attempted to present one from her perspective. I'm hoping Peter will do likewise, and I'm hoping each will (A) work hard at meaningful reply, and (B) calmly respond to the others reply perhaps using WP:OTHERSOPINION as a way to assess mutual understanding of points of agreement and contention. This could lead to a neutral write-up of the RS and policy based content dispute in preparation of RFC, polling, or other process of consensus building.
Guy Macon: By chance I brought up the possibility of RFC or DRN and said yesterday "As a start: if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording" ... and nobody leaped to agree. However, thanks anyway, it's great to see people trying to help. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good to see a non-involved mediator, as this edit-war has gotten out of hand. Usual suspects. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, NewsAndEventsGuy withdrew his DRN request here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
True, but only because I did not realize DRN is for content disputes, and I was seeking help with editor interaction issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
see the notice at the top of the page--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion concerns redirecting to one of two pages, and Talk:Global warming controversy appears to be less trafficked than this one. Centralized discussion notices have been placed everywhere, I'm fairly certain. I don't know that moving discussion at this stage is the right step forward. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
When two groups think the redir should point to two different locations, how on earth can we decide fairly which of the competing other articles should host the discussion on the their talk page, and moreoever, how does anyone think a move would benefit consensus? The active regulars at these pages are basically the same and as has been noted there are notices everywhere. Leave it here or show why one destination is more fair and more better than the other (cc denial or vs gw controversy).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
What Jess & NAEG said: Leave it Here! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the notice at the top of the page, and the reminder here per established guideline. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing_redirect_pages. Guidelines are not absolute, but failing to follow a guideline normally requires an explanation, ideally one explaining why the guideline is an appropriate in the specific case. It looks to me like this guideline was designed to cover specifically this case.
This talk page is linked to a redirect. There may be traffic here now because it is left over when editors who were active on the page before conversion to a redirect had it bookmarked. However, no one is going to find this page by going to an article and then going to the talk page. I only found it because Jess linked it in a discssion on another page. Any new editors interested in Global Warming controversy or Climate change skeptic or Climate change skepticism will end up at Global warming controversy and if they then go tot he talk page, will be at Talk:Global warming controversy, not here. The fact that traffic may be higher here is an articfact of the history of the article. Going forward, new editors will be at the other page, and confused when they see edit made per talk page consensus and cannot find the discussion.
Jess, why are you discussing the moving on discussions? That was not proposed. The notice relates to new discussions.
NAEG, You said there are notices everywhere. Can you point me to one or two? I checked WP:CENTNOT and did not see one. Where else would one expect to find one? I don't see one on Talk:Global warming controversy. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Re "NAEG, You said there are notices everywhere. Can you point me to one or two?", good point and no I can't. I was relying what I thought Jess had said, and I did not take time to verify my understanding, either by asking Jess for confirmation or just looking for myself. But this is easily fixed.
That was poor wording on my part. I meant all the 10 redirects, and mentions at Talk:Climate change denial. No notice was placed at Talk:Global warming controversy to my knowledge. If you put anything at RfD, I'd recommend starting fresh, not moving existing discussion. But whatever you think will move things along, no objections from me. — Jess· Δ♥ 15:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have no time to fiddle with any option until the weekend, so if someone else has a solution in meantime, go for it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE --- I'm way behind in RL. Make that next weekend. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Mann jess says Dmcq has changed position, so I hereby ping@Dmcq: for confirmation. If it's true, that still doesn't justify Mann jess overriding two other editors and making the all-too-typical accusation that an editor who disagrees is edit warring. As for discussing this on the climate change denial article -- no, I can see by the title of this talk page that this is the talk page for what the contents of the climate change skepticism skeptic article should be. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Your accusation "no attempt to actually discuss" is false. As for the difficulty understanding what I said: perhaps it's because I said "skepticism" rather than "skeptic", I've now corrected my earlier post. Trying to put it more simply: this is the talk page "Talk:Climate change skeptic", therefore this is an place to talk about proposed changes to the article "Climate change skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Jess, consensus appears to be against you, in your continued attempts to override the long-standing consensus that climate-skeptical topics are best redirected to global warming controversy. Not only that, you have accused an editor of edit-warring at his first appearance here, diff. Perhaps you should look in the mirror?
You requested a reply to the substance of why editors object to your poposal. Try following Global warming scepticism. The first line at the redirect (to CC Denial) says,
This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. ...
Not a neutral redirect! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
[outdent] With respect, that makes no sense. Regardless, you clearly don't have consensus here, and NPOV isn't optional. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There's an ongoing problem at Climate change denial, with a recent effort to equate skeptics to deniers. That is also (imo) a NPOV problem, but it's separate from what we're talking about here. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, we will have to agree to disagree, for now. But do consider the possibility of Confirmation bias. Academics (AL in US & UK) are mostly left-wing, the political group most disposed to believe in CAGW. SO it's not surprising that sociologists and political scientists come up with stuff that confirms their beliefs. This is (sadly) human nature. As Feynman used to say, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Is all skepticism an organized campaign? Is it unequivocally denial?[edit]
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)
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)
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)
Centralized discussion plus list of redirected pages[edit]
What are these pages? I just looked for "Climate skeptic" and found that Mann jess had also changed that to point to the denial article. I wonder whether there are others besides "Climate skeptic", "Global warming skeptic", and (this one) "Climate change skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As you can see from the discussions above (and elsewhere), many editors disagree with the idea of universal "false skepticism". For me, calling skeptics "deniers" is pejorative, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Protestations that "we don't really mean it as a slur" aren't (IMO) worth much. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Mostly incorrect. Re edit warring: we've all seen that dave souza and you like to make that accusation, it has no merit. Re reasonable justification: that's just an assertion, I have no trouble asserting the opposite. Re vague pointers to NPOV: actually there's been more than that. Re consensus: well, last time you made a dubious claim about consensus I asked for names and diffs and you refused to say, let's see whether that happens again. Re stopping and discussing: we have discussed, the fact that we've done so does not mean you have a right to make whatever changes you want. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to address "the points being made" if I don't see any points being made on your side. You claim that I said "it's not neutral" and "it does not reflect the sources" (in quotes both times) -- you shouldn't put quote marks around words that I didn't say. You brought up the claim that there is a consensus, and now as predicted you refuse to supply names and diffs to back up the claim. As for whether the objections have not "furnished a substantive argument", I suppose that's like the earlier "reasonable justification" claim, that is, an assertion with nothing behind it that is easily wiped out by asserting the opposite. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Either Mann jess doesn't understand how quotes work, or the misquoting was deliberate. As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Tillman, thank you. Since the recent changes redirecting to Denial could have an effect on BLPs, since it's the opinion of multiple editors and other sources that denier is non-neutral and/or pejorative, since the Denial article is not itself a valid source, since there is no policy that we must prefer an article which pretends to be a dictionary, I have restored the original redirection on Climate change skepticism, Climate skepticism, Climate skeptics, Global warming skeptics, Global warming skepticism, Climate change skeptics, Climate sceptic, Global warming sceptics, Global warming scepticism, Skepticism of global warming . That's not all the articles you mentioned. I'm aware that there will likely be re-insertions by the group that holds a different opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I note that editor Jess Mann has resumed edit-warring and POV-pushing for her political preference for labelling all skeptics as deniers. This is a gross NPOV vioaltion. Please stop, or face the consequences. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Skeptics as synonym for climate change deniers[edit]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've despaired about receiving answers, and don't have much hope that there would be any consensus via WP:BLPN, and don't see how more compromise would be possible (I call the redirection to Controversy a compromise since I doubt it's anybody's first preference). Perhaps an RFC or DRN could occur if there was agreement about wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Add your "if we were at DRN" to my "if there was agreement about wording" -- double uncertainty. As a start: if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: as I suggest each time you attack me: take your accusations to a forum about conduct, I'll defend myself in a place where you will be obliged to supply evidence and risk being judged yourself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: Repeat: take your accusations to a forum about conduct, I'll defend myself in a place where you will be obliged to supply evidence and risk being judged yourself. These are serious accusations, I can't just let them stand as if I find them acceptable, but am reluctant to defend on this talk page because I'm not the appropriate subject of this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: I haven't seen a reply from you. If you can't or won't take your accusations to a forum about conduct, then I request that you delete your post, which I find offensive and which does not belong on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't reply to questions that are prefaced by such accusations. If you remove them, I will. If you won't delete your post, and won't take your accusations to a forum about conduct, say so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Dave wrote, "There's a lack of detail in reliable sources about which, if any, "climate skeptics" are not climate change deniers..."
I don't think this is due to lack of RS's, rather a lack of looking for them by the activist editors who have dominated the odious Denial page since its inception. I'm definitely WP:AGF here -- this is the human-nature condition well documented at Confirmation bias. To which we're all subject: per Feynman, the "easiest person to fool is yourself."
More positively: the obvious place to start the resurrection is with the former Climate change skeptics page, deleted years ago by pressure of activists. Does anyone have a copy? Or a pointer to the deletion discussion? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Dave, perhaps you self-ID here, but you will note that I did not specify who -- and in fact didn't have you in mind. I invite you to self-redact your over-reaching accusations, or to open a formal complaint. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy Macon: By chance I brought up the possibility of RFC or DRN and said yesterday "As a start: if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording" ... and nobody leaped to agree. However, thanks anyway, it's great to see people trying to help. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good to see a non-involved mediator, as this edit-war has gotten out of hand. Usual suspects. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
