Jump to content

Category talk:Climate change denial

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

From the category header info.

I'm uncomfortable with this lumping of rational skeptics with the so-called climate-change deniers (by analogy to Holocaust deniers). The latter is clearly pejorative, and there are political activists who like to label anyone doubting the IPCC consensus as "climate deniers" and/or "science deniers". --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion merging them is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_3#Category:Climate_change_denial. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a pretty sketchy discussion (IMO) and probably should be reopened. Here's a topical RS: "Deniers are not Skeptics", Skeptical Inquirer, 12-5-2014
I can't see the point. It is a fairly small category, what's the point trying to draw lines when an article can and often does cover both? The line at the top makes it pretty clear that deniers and skeptics should considered as different but a lot of the literature confuses the terms. What is gained by having a special category for denial? Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point. The "skeptic = denier" meme bugs me, as you can see.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm searching for a category like "scientists who are skeptical of climate change" or some better wording. My search landed me here, but here wasn't very useful Leighblackall (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Pseudoscience" hardly objective

[edit]

Sceptics can be right, wikipedia should not sound like a superior judge of opinions.

80.131.56.143 (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, the Category Pseudoscience should have no entries. Why do you think climate change deniers should get special treatment? Are they better than other crackpots? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After introduction and deletion of the "denialists" categories

[edit]

...several articles have lost this category, since it was replaced by one of the denialists cats, which was then removed by bot.

For most of the articles, that was probably correct, since denying climate change is not those people's job or otherwise defining characteristic. They just said once that it was their opinion, which, by WP:OPINIONCAT, does not justify inclusion in this category. David Gelernter‎ is one example.

But some of them did belong in the category. I have reinstalled the most important biography articles. The remaining articles that lost the cat are these:

Should any of those have the category? I have a few suspects but maybe someone else should have a look. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Gadling what about a new category named "Category:Climate_change_doubters"? From the article in The Guardian "what-other-term-is-there-for-climate-science-deniers". CatCafe (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. Who would be in it? Because of WP:OPINIONCAT, it must be a defining characteristic, meaning that they invest a considerable amount of time in it. Doubt just costs a second, and expressing it a few minutes at most. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can only include BLPs in this category when you have explicit reliable secondary sources that actually describes the individual as an activist. As usual it's critical to avoid WP:SYN. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who decided that? User: StAnselm expressed that opinion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_22#Category:Climate_change_denialists, but why does have to be the word "activist"? So, if Lamar Smith organizes what has been called "witch hunts" against climate scientists, he still cannot be categorized as a climate change denialist because reliable sources used words other than "activist"? That would be crazy bureaucratic and verge into WP:SKYISBLUE territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word "activist" was introduced by others, not me. But you know the general principles. To include a category in a BLP you need a sourced statement in the text which justifies the category, and this emphatically applies to any category which could be considered controversial. What's important about the statement is that it must not require interpretation to justify the category: it must be completely obvious. So, for example, you can't use a statement that "Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere" as justification for the claim that "Curry is a climate denial activist": you need something far more explicit than that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you retract the wording "describes the individual as an activist". Good.
The Lamar Smith case does not require interpretation. Still, the category was removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that any biography should be in this category, seen the deletion discussion of the denialists category and WP:OPINIONCAT, maybe with very selective exceptions. As an illustration, even (especially) the most notable denialists will have created or been a part of organizations focused on climate change denial, or published books about the issue, or been part of specific controversies which may have dedicated Wikipedia articles. These organizations, these publications, these specific controversies should be part of Category:Climate change denial, but not the biographies. In the rare event that people will have solely dedicated their life to climate change denial to the point that their persona is associated to climate change denial under the criteria placed at WP:CATDEF (and not merely that someone calls then a denialist or denier), and that no dedicated article exists about an organization, publication or controversy that this life dedication may have produced, they could be placed in this category, but frankly this should not happen often. Place Clichy (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I do not think that any biography should be in this category" and "they could be placed in this category": your position is self-contradictory.
James Delingpole, Anthony Watts (blogger), every other independent writer whose output focuses on the subject and who is noticed as a denialist by reliable sources.
Lamar Smith, James Inhofe, every other politician who gets bribed by the fossil fuel industry for denial and whose corruption is noticed by reliable sources.
Ken Cuccinelli, every other person who abuses his position of power to harrass scientists for disagreeing with his pseudoscientific beliefs and who is noticed as a denialist by reliable sources.
Yes, it does happen, it happens a lot, and every time it does, some users, including you, will prevent their categorization. That is why I started this section.
I also want to point out the self-righteousness of some users here, reverting and reverting and reverting without asking themselves if, maybe, just maybe, other users who have been editing for over ten years, have good reasons for what they are doing, and discussing first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for way to stretch the guidelines such as WP:SEPARATE and WP:OPINIONCAT to include exceptions, and you may be correct that this stretch is too hard, so we'd better keep to the short version: no biographies at all.
Of course their are people who engage or have engaged in on of the levels of climate change denial, and this information, when properly sourced, belongs on Wikipedia. However categories are a very bad tool to trace it, even a wrong one. There may be articles on the history and the details of climate change denial, and there may even be lists of such activities naming people in context. That would be a great advantage over sticking in a generic category a single sticker which does not allow for nuances, for sources, for links to related articles (such as publications or organizations).
There is also a flaw that cannot be got round in categorizing people that are basically against something rather than part of a single movement: they often have very little to do with each other, and in this case we have people who deny there is a climate change at all, next to people who acknowledge it but deny its impacts, next to people who acknowledge the impacts but deny the causes, next to people who acknowledge impacts and causes but are against the measures to be taken to fight it.
The guideline for WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates gives a few clues: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Especially see Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Among the disadvantages of a category, often balanced by a parallel advantage of a list: 2. Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced. 3. There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion.
Note that, because category inclusion does not allow for providing nuance or linking a source, the simple fact of adding biographies to a denial category checks all 3 criteria of what defines an WP:ATTACK: biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. You do not face any of these problems in calling out these people for what they are in their biographical articles, in a topic article or in a list article.
There have been several community discussions on the issue that all have been closed with a similar output, do not categorize deniers: CFD 2015, BLPN 2015, BLPN 2019, CFD 2020 and there may be others. I share the same frustration towards the same users who keep adding people to these categories, despite these discussions and decisions, with comments such as "useful navigational aid, let's not degrade the encyclopedia" [1], but I guess this is Wikipedia life. I'm sure we can find a collaborative way to solve this recurring issue, and the best lead I see so far is: start writing a list (or history) article (or several ones). Place Clichy (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Category:Holocaust deniers should not exist. For some reason, there is far less enthusiasm for deleting that one. Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but most of the "Keep" votes here can also be used here.
Never mind, forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Seibt was removed (and re-added) after a tussle. Being a YouTuber employed by the Heartland Institute a little while ago as a paid spokesperson for climate denial, that is her most, perhaps only, defining characteristic. Esowteric+Talk 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for adding biographies

[edit]

Proposal for the category page (first draft):

---

A biography article can not be added to this category if the person in question has done nothing more than state an opinion that is within the scope of climate change denialism. Biography articles can only be added if the article states, based on reliable sources, that the person in question:

  • is a climate change denier or denialist, or engages in denial, and
  • actively and persistently promotes denialism, be it through writing, funding, organizing, or legal or political influence.

---

The goal of this is to prevent having the same discussion again and again for every article. Ideally, users should be able to point to the text above (or whatever it will turn into) and conclude: yes, this article belongs, or, no, it does not. Even if it is not always as clear as that, it should help in most cases.

Any suggestions for improvement? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fundamentally I agree with Place Clichy, writing in the section above, that BLPs have no place in this category, except in very unusual circumstances. There are good BLP reasons why the "denialist" categories have been repeatedly deleted, and I wish people would stop trying to bring them back by the back door. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take that away and she is not notable, even as a youtuber.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with any category like this and BLP is that you cannot provide the direct source that is required by BLP for inclusion. You could do a list of BLP that are CCD's as you can include the immediate high-quality sourcing for that, but category is simply unacceptable under WP policies. --Masem (t) 16:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does "direct source" mean? Surely if there is a reliable source which connects the subject to the topic of climate change denial.... I also don't understand your distinction between a category and a list. Can you clarify? jps (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a category page there is no way to source why a BLP belongs in a contentious category. That's what I mean about "direct" sourcing. Any such contentious claims related to BLP need an immediate direct source to support it. Not just pointing to a blue link and say "find it there". --Masem (t) 20:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few things: (1) you are assuming that this particular idea is automatically contentious in a way that is at variance with the vast majority of other categories at Wikipedia. Why is that? I hope that this is not just based on your opinion. After all, most of the sources which discuss climate change denial identify it as a phenomenon having various aspects -- some political, some agnotological, some sociological or even psychological -- and not all of these aspects strike me as being so contentious as to create a situation where it would be impossible to include any biographies in the category. If I were to compare to other marginalized WP:FRINGE beliefs like creationism, GMO conspiracy theories, and the like, I have not seen anyone contend that categorizing was so "contentious" as to be impossible. Do you have any precedence or policy to support this kind of categorical imperative? (2) immediate and direct support can and should be found in article text to answer any question of why a particular category is applied. That's always been the way it has been done at Wikipedia. It is quite novel for me to see an argument that this is not good enough. Can you point to any similar precedence of this sort? jps (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly may be a few individuals that the term "CCD" can be applied in a "reasonably objective" manner, that the person has clearly self-stated they deny climate change is happening over and over, or even if they don't state that, the rest of the scientific community have clearly classified them as a denier. If this were the only people we had to worry about, that may be a reason to allow them to be categorized like that. But what we get too often with any type of contentious label category like this is we get people that are subjectively considered by a few sources to be a CCD, but not with the universality of the first group (eg, three, four op-eds may call them this). That is not sufficient to include them in this category, but editors will still do that; its happened before not necessarily here, and will happen again. We want every such addition to be able to reviewed to sources to make sure the entry is fully appropriate (the first group I mention) and not from the subjective group , and that requires the sources to be right there on the cat page. This is basically what WP:BLPCAT cautions against. --Masem (t) 16:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caution is good. We can all get behind caution. But there is a big difference between cautioning care when taking an action and prohibiting that action entirely. Simply because an action taken in one article may be problematic in another article, that does not mean we should say, "THIS CATEGORY SHOULD HAVE NO BIOGRAPHIES". If editors do bad things, the answer is to get them to stop doing bad things. The answer should not be to paint with such a broad brush that good things get forbidden too. jps (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed. I prefer the idea of no BLP in this category. However, barring that I think we need to be more careful about what counts as "denial". Is the person denying the whole concept or just disagrees with the scientific consensus? A published climatologist who questions the "consensus". For example Richard_Lindzen wouldn't be a denialist because he agrees that change is occurring but doesn't agree with the level of associated alarm. Additionally, those who debate/oppose policies related to climate change may not be denying the underlying science and should not be labeled as such. Someone opposed to electric car subsidies or solar and wind power subsidies may be firmly behind the consensus climate change conclusions but oppose the political actions as ineffective etc. Finally, I would think we need more than just one source calling them a denier. It's too easy to find a source like VICE or Vox that mix commentary with reporting and throws out the denier label. We treat this label as a negative so it needs to be robustly sourced. Springee (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Any definition for "denial" we use here should be the one predominantly used in those sources which are most reliable, lest we drift into original research territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I did not think that needed saying, and in fact the contested text of this cat says really very explicitly that we can only include people who (in effect) are widely known as climate change denialists.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of Naomi Seibt, the consensus (discussion plus RfC) based on reliable sources decided in favour of describing her as a climate denialist, and against her being dsescribed as a climate skeptic or climate realist (a self-appellation along the lines of 9/11 Truthers). Use of the category "climate denial" reflects that consensus. Esowteric+Talk 18:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hob Gadling, since this is categories, not article text I'm not sure that the prohibition on OR applies. WP:OR specifically says it does not apply to article talk pages (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards). Certainly categories are a construct of Wikipedia so they by their very nature are a type of OR. No external source will say "X fits into Wikipedia category Y". Odds are very good if a number of very reliable sources say X is a denier then editors here will agree. However, if the source is VICE or Inside Climate News but not sources like The Wall Street Journal or NYT, how should we decide? Given this is a contentious label and some argue it shouldn't ever be applied to a BLP (a view I agree with) then I think editors should be able to discuss the nature of the "denial" when deciding if the label applies. BTW, I think Jonathan A Jones's suggestion is a good one. If the sourcing isn't sufficient to say it in Wiki voice it's not sufficient for inclusion. Springee (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources may be sufficient to say it in Wikivoice, but we may still, as a matter of editorial style, decide not to say this in wikivoice. Surely the standard should be based on sourcing rather than an editorial decision about how to phrase a particular fact. jps (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is what I said. My concern is cases like Burt Rutan [[2]]. As I just said, if the sourcing is very strong this probably isn't an issue. In the rare case that it is OR should be allowed to debate the merits of the tag. I'm not sure why this would be controversial to some. Springee (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it somewhat remarkable that you think categorizing Burt Rutan in this category is emblematic of your point. The sourcing is abundantly clear that Rutan has been involved in climate denial, likely out of a political allegiance since his presentations on the subject are remarkably incorrect when it comes to explaining something like a scientific take. Whether he should be categorized or not would come down to a question as to whether he is notable for this advocacy. There are some pretty good sources which indicate that at least at one time he was. So are you arguing that it is clear he is not a climate change denier here? What exactly are you contending? jps (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are illustrating why we need restrictive rules about the use of this label. I'm out. Springee (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Springee. As Masem has pointed out there has been extensive general discussion of this problem over the years, and the conclusion has always been that placing BLPs in contentious or potentially contentious categories is fraught with dangers, and should normally be avoided. When it is done it is essential that the article contains unambiguous direct support, which requires no interpretation, for the categorization. The only practical way to do that in the current case, while avoiding constant repetitions of this debate at every article's talk page, is to have a bright-line rule, such as that I suggested. But it's simpler and better to avoid the problem entirely by keeping BLPs out of this category. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that it is simply not acceptable to have a discussion about whether Burt Rutan's article should be placed in this category? The "simpler and better" solution shuts down any possibility of discussion. It seems to me like it's an attempt to make an end-run around editorial consensus models upon which Wikipedia operates. This has been in the playbook of climate change deniers and their fellow travelers for as long as Wikipedia arguments over the subject have been made. It's the inspiration for WP:CRYBLP. No, I think it's okay to have the discussion. We may decide that Rutan's article should not have the category. We may decide it should. But the discussion does not need to be stopped before it can even happen. jps (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    since this is categories, not article text I'm not sure that the prohibition on OR applies So, according to you, we do not need RS for categorizing, and according to User:Masem, even RS in articles are not enough for categorizing. Both ideas seem pretty weird to me, and I prefer the way WP:CATV puts it: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Demanding "direct sources" unnecessarily goes beyond that, and WP:OR in category definitions violates it, since the reason for the categorization only becomes clear when you know the category definition some Wikipedia users have invented.
    So, the prohibition on OR does apply to categorization... unless the influence of your original research always results in something not being categorized. The OR prohibition only works one way: if your OR leads to a specific conclusion, you cannot add that conclusion to the article, but you can delete material that contradicts your conclusion - although that does seem a bit dubious, I am not aware of any rule against it. Is that the way you want to use OR on denialism: deleting well-sourced information, namely the categorization as denialism? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "So, according to you, we do not need RS for categorizing," That is not what I said. Springee (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction. "We may not need RS for categorizing". What else does "since this is categories, not article text I'm not sure that the prohibition on OR applies" mean? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I too prefer avoiding BLPs completely. But if we are going to include them then the fundamental test for inclusion is quite simple: do we refer to the subject as a "climate denier" in Wikipedia's own voice in the lead? If we don't do that then either this aspect isn't a major part of their life, and so we shouldn't include them in this category, or the sourcing isn't adequate, in which case we certainly shouldn't include them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that climate change denial needs to be a feature of the biography for inclusion in this category to be justified. I'm not sure what you mean by "major feature", but that's rather subjective anyway. I don't agree that it is necessary to see whether in the lede the reference to the subject is done in Wikipedia's voice. That seems a rather arbitrary standard that may be subject to editorial gaming as well as stylistic choices that have nothing to do with whether categorization is relevant. I think Wikipedia editors can make the determination as to whether the category is relevant or meaningful according to the reliable sources. This should be the standard for all categories in all articles, whether they be a biography or anything else. jps (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps somewhat uniquely, Richard Lindzen is actually one of the few deniers who embraces the label: [3]: "Climate change and the Holocaust are not equivalent, but that does not mean there is no climate denial. For example, Richard Lindzen has publicly taken on this label because he believes dangerous climate change has so little validity that there is nothing to be skeptical about." jps (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Since the people who seemed to oppose my suggestion above, maybe because they did not actually read it, have stopped writing here after I pointed out that they should read it (in the next section): are there any actual reasons why we should not implement my suggestion? I repeat it here, just to be sure.

---

A biography article can not be added to this category if the person in question has done nothing more than state an opinion that is within the scope of climate change denialism. Biography articles can only be added if the article states, based on reliable sources, that the person in question:

  • is a climate change denier or denialist, or engages in denial, and
  • actively and persistently promotes denialism, be it through writing, funding, organizing, or legal or political influence.

---

Any actual reasons that are actually against that instead of against a strawman? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per my rational above and below. BLPs do not belong in cats like this. To subjective and prone to POV pushers from one side or another finding flimsy sources to support their POV. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "BLPs do not belong in cats like this" is not an actual reason. It is just a repetition of your opinion.
    "is a climate change denier based on reliable sources" is not subjective at all.
    If "actively and persistently promotes denialism" is not objective enough, it can be clearly defined. Writing two books promoting denial, prosecuting two climate scientists based on no evidence, and so on. Your reasoning fails.
    Also, if "POV pushers from one side or another" are a problem, how come the radical POV pushing of rejecting any biographies from being categorized as denialism is a solution? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add that countering denialism and supporting the scientific position on climate change is, like supporting the scientific position on anything else, actually not POV pushing but NPOV pushing. See WP:TINFOILHAT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I was unclear, it is based on my previous comments. The mean of my oppose is based on WP:OPINIONCAT. Calling someone a denier is obviously subjective because what is the criteria for a denier? It changes and is different source to source. Something like "actively and persistently promotes denialism" is meaningless if you consider the definition of denialism which is why something like that is problematic, and can only be such honestly. You keep bring up points like such and such person did this or that which fails to understand the arguments against what you are saying. I would make the same argument for people in favor of a good thing. Below you gave the pointy example of "On related news: [4] Where's your WP:OPINIONCAT now?" which I reverted citing the same reasoning and another agreed with. I am not sure why you are so into labeling people in general honestly? PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not to be used for biographies.

[edit]

That sentence is currently being edit-warred into the category page. The discussion is ongoing, see above, but WP:BRD doesn't seem to interest some users here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is a policy, WP:BRD is not. Categorizing living people according to their supposed opinions has caused BLP challenges because people or bots add to the categories without adhering to hopes that only proven full-time activists will get in -- I estimated in February that about 170 had been added, and for the earlier climate deniers category there were 109+. I believe that the two editors who added "not for biographies" etc., Marcocapelle and Jonathan A Jones, were explaining what has already been discussed. Are you really saying that one of them was edit warring? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about opinions or "supposed opinions", as you would have known if you had read my original suggestion. It is about actions. Someone who actively harrasses climate scientists because he disagrees with their results, like Ken Cuccinelli, would not be categorized because of his "opinion", so WP:OPINIONCAT does not apply.
You are not the only one presenting the WP:OPINIONCAT strawman. This discussion page is a big pool of WP:IDHT. I never cared about "Burt Rutan", whoever that may be, and who probably does just have an opinion, it's the Lamar Smiths and Jim Inhofes who belong in this cat. I named them above, but everybody who is against adding biographies is carefully stepping around them, concentrating on the clear cases of people who do not belong.
I repeat my suggestion from above:
A biography article can not be added to this category if the person in question has done nothing more than state an opinion that is within the scope of climate change denialism. Biography articles can only be added if the article states, based on reliable sources, that the person in question:
  • is a climate change denier or denialist, or engages in denial, and
  • actively and persistently promotes denialism, be it through writing, funding, organizing, or legal or political influence.
For those who still do not get it because they skipped the first and second time: This is not about opinion. Read my suggestion.
Once again: This is not about opinion. Read my suggestion.
And for those who still do not get it: This is not about opinion. Read my suggestion.
User:Marcocapelle was doing the B of BRD, and User:Jonathan A Jones was the one who did the WP:WAR. That BRD is "not a policy" is no excuse for rudeness, and edit-warring during a discussion is extremely rude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody edit warred it in. Somebody added it, somebody else made it invisible but still present, I made it visible again. Hardly an edit war. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a petty technicality. If somebody reads the article, he did not see the sentence until yesterday. Then he saw it, then he didn't, then he did. That's what an edit war looks like. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On related news: [4] Where's your WP:OPINIONCAT now? The Environmental skepticism category is prett much the same as this one, but it sounds better. I am curious if any one of the WP:OPINIONCAT preachers here will do anything about it, since it is clearly applicable there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has Jlevi commented here? I agree that would fall under the same problematic situation as this cat. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like all sensible people I pick my battles. For what it's worth I think your removal of the category was correct, but I'm happy to leave fighting that particular battle to you. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Looks like I was in the wrong on this one. I haven't played much with categories, and that one looked 'obvious' based upon how I expected categories to work and based on sourcing/labels available. Is this a situation specific this category, or is there a general policy/guideline you suggest I look at when thinking about categories for the future? Jlevi (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has died down, now people seem to think it is the time for action

[edit]

In the last few hours, biographies have been removed from the category, and other biographies have been added to it - by different users of course. Tomorrow, others will be added, and the ones that have been added today will be removed again.

I don't think that is productive, and I will not participate. Instead, we should try to make a better foundation for what to do: first, we should gather and link all the previous discussions, as has already been started in the Category page. They seem to be about related subjects, but not exactly about this one. Some of them are pretty old, some of them ended with no consensus, and I guess they contradict each other.

Then, if there is no clear result emerging, which I suspect, let's start a new discussion, with a big group of participants, with the explicit goal of Making a General Rule About Categorizing Biographies in Worldview Categories.

How about that? Where should it be done? There should be a notification on WP:CFD, WP:BLPN, WP:FTN, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard... anywhere else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been discussed to death over the years in a wide range of locations. The problem is that a small number of individuals are determined to continue placing BLPs in controversial or potentially controversial categories based on spurious arguments such as "this category is different". Placing BLPs in controversial or potentially controversial categories is a bad idea, but if you absolutely insist on doing so then the only way it can possibly work without endless ongoing debates is to have a bright line rule along the lines I have suggested. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic is dead, its cadaver should have been moved to a rule page. That's all I want: a definitive rule, instead of a group of people each of which points to another old discussion to justify his opinion. Whatever that rule may be, it's better than the current situation.
Whenever I find a person named "Dr. Something" in an article, I remove the Dr., with the edit summary "no academic grades except where they are useful. See MOS:CREDENTIAL". Only very rarely, somebody reverts that, and it never takes me more than one Talk page edit to convince the reverter that he is in the wrong. If we had a clear rule for biographies in such categories, beyond WP:OPINIONCAT, which has a rather restricted scope, that would save everybody a lot of time.
I recently deleted all biographies from Category:Environmental skepticism, except Bjørn Lomborg who coined the term. (Since then, two people haved added Ken Ring (writer) again. I went to Talk, but nobody has responded yet.) If no exceptions are allowed, Lomborg will have to go, which does not make sense in my view. I do not see what's so bad about exceptions as long as they are clearly defined, and I don't see why someone who writes a well-known book propagating, say, antisemitism, should not be in the antisemitism category. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there are people that think there is a rule for this situation, this needs to be focused as a RfC here and not in reference to previous conversations about related but different matters. WP:OPINIONCAT does not forbid placing biographies here and the idea that someone like Tim Ball would not be included in this category strikes me as a problematic outcome if we were to implement a blanket rule. I think the discussion at Burt Rutan proves we can look at these instances in a case-by-case fashion. jps (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may need a bigger discussion. WP:VPP may be preferred because we're talking about something that seems like a major policy shift (FORBIDDING people from being placed in a category in spite of WP:OPINIONCAT allowing for placing biographies in opinion categories when that is what a person is known for.) jps (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that this discussion was never about "putting biographies in categories". As soon as the discussion moved in that direction, most users lost interest. I think it was only about this specific category. So I revived my suggestion above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you are looking for is WP:SEPARATE: it is better to keep topic categories and people categories separate, and, in this precise case, a people category for climate change deniers has been ruled ineligible, with reason, several times (CFD 2015, BLPN 2015, BLPN 2019, CFD 2020). Another guideline applicable here is WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which suggests that a list article (or in this case, maybe an article on the history of climate change denial) can be a good way to name people with all appropriate nuance, context and sources that a category cannot provide. Place Clichy (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem here was explained perfectly by Masem earlier: "The problem with any category like this and BLP is that you cannot provide the direct source that is required by BLP for inclusion. You could do a list of BLP that are CCD's as you can include the immediate high-quality sourcing for that, but category is simply unacceptable under WP policies" and "On a category page there is no way to source why a BLP belongs in a contentious category. That's what I mean about "direct" sourcing. Any such contentious claims related to BLP need an immediate direct source to support it". This goes back to fundamental policies expressed at WP:BURDEN

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]

Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to groups.

Since a category cannot have an inline citation any attempt to place any BLP in any potentially contentious category is absolutely fraught with danger. The fact that "climate denier" categories get deleted every time a discussion is held shows a clear consensus that this is not one of those very rare cases where Wikipedia wishes to make an exception. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I don't see how biographies can be categorized at all. As soon as someone says it does not belong there, the category becomes contentious, therefore all categories are "potentially contentious" and have to be emptied. This does not make sense, and I will have no part of it. I will stop creating and maintaining categories such as Category:16th-century alchemists or Category:People acquitted of witchcraft. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note, people in those cats probably would not fall under BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. If what people wrote above is true, categories are not ruled by logic in any way but only by politics, Wikilawyering and the equivalence of facts and alternative facts.
I wash my hands of categories. I will not remove antisemites from Category:Critics of Judaism anymore either. Have fun with your realm, folks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-contestable, objective content of BLP can still be categorized. We can catagorized people by the school the graduated from, their nationality, their profession, a whole of things that all factual. (This is how "people acquitted of witchcraft" would work.) Those facts do need to be sourced on the bio page but they don't need to be inline on categories (or other places) because of being objective info. When you get to contested info, such as being a climate change denier, that's when the citation needs to be right there. Yes, there's a grey area of what would be a contentious categorize, but CCD is definitely outside that, it is contentious. --Masem (t) 05:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "uncontestable". First a hypothetical example, since I am not aware of any such judicial cases: Is a shtriga the same as a witch? Is someone acquitted of being a shtriga "acquitted of witchcraft"? As soon as someone says no, the category must be deleted.
People can also claim it's all just an invented story, witch trials never happened - like parts of the Middle Ages never happened, see Phantom time hypothesis. Witch trial categories gone. Holocaust categories? Gone, obviously. Was Obama born in America? According to the evidence, yes. According to loons, no. Loons win.
With your rules, where preponderance of evidence does not matter, where facts do not matter, where no amount of sources matters, where one person having an opinion is enough to make something "contentious", one loon is enough to delete a category. If I were in a discussion with a loon about any of those categories, I would have no handle, no rule to tell me what is the right way, except "delete everything". That makes any editing of categories in biographies ultimately pointless. (Living or dead does not even matter. I have seen Wikilawyering to the effect that biographies of dead people are still subject to BLP.)
And don't tell me those cases are different from this one. The loons who say Obama is a born Kenyan are the same people as the loons who say climate change is a hoax. Loons win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the integrity of the encyclopedia and policy wins. PackMecEng (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification

[edit]

I’m just asking for my own edification. I recently noticed several prominent climate change deniers popping up on my watchlist as being removed from this category. Can someone point me to where the consensus was established that this should never apply to BLPs (I’m assuming that’s the gist of these removals, from the summaries). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discusion is in the four sections above. The main discussion was over whether adding BLPs to the "climate change denial" category led to the same BLP issues which have led to the repeated deletion of the "climate change deniers" category. While there was much disagreement on this point, the view that BLPs should be removed eventually prevailed leading to the most recent edit on the category page [5] on 15 June 2020, which has so far stuck. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was looking for the consensus. That discussion above was not the consensus, it was four people claiming there is already a consensus, but without linking to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the main page Category:Climate change denial in the hatted background section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All four of the discussions linked there are on other, related subjects. None of them is about this subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay they obviously apply here as well. Those discussions about deniers and denialists had to do with BLP inclusion in this cat. Which is why those consensus govern this one. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that you think it is okay. I never thought it was. But User:Symmachus Auxiliarus asked a question and has to decide if your answer is sufficient for him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. PackMecEng (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so to make another attempt at answering the original question, there is a clear formal consensus that categories like "climate change deniers" should not exist, expressed in the repeated deletions of these categories, found at places such as
There is a rough consensus that placing BLPs in the "climate change denial" category raises similar issues, reflected in the current wording on the category page, but this is currently only a rough consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether it is so clear that inclusion is opposed entirely (and I really do mean I am unsure--reading through these is kind of exhausting, and I'll only address the case I read, which is the first). The first case is closed as deletion of the category 'Climate Change Deniers,' but with a major caveat: "Even those in opposition [of the deletion of the 'climate change deniers'] noted the blurring that occurred within the category. It seems like a better view of the overall consensus, and one that is more prudent, is for deletion of the category rather than to allow the category to remain while it is depopulated. I'd suggest that an RFC or other mechanism be held that would better formulating a categorization that the BLP concerns with the name. I'll wait a little before setting this for depopulation in case someone messages me that they intend to take this to DRV so as to avoid restoration and creation if need be. I expect this is controversial enough to warrant a few more discussions here."
So the major contention may not have been with inclusion of BLPs in the category at all, but rather the "blurring" of the category and the lack of a clear line. It may be that later discussion formulated this sort and division but it was subsequently found insufficient. Given that even our current discussion here seems to include the possibility of BLP inclusion in 'unambiguous' cases, whatever we determine unambiguous to mean, conversation about what such a dividing line might look like could be useful.
Sorry for the lack of full engagement--I'll try to finish reading through this background and see what I find of the subsequent discussions. Jlevi (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that part, although not all, of the opposition to the "climate change denier" categories was driven by concerns about "blurring the lines", and that discussion resurfaces in the sections above. In particular I suggested as a possible compromise having a bright line rule for inclusion of BLPs in the "climate change denial" category, that the article should explicitly call the subject a "climate change denier" in Wikipedia's own voice (to minimise concerns about blurring) in the lead (to minimise concerns about due weight). As an example there are two BLPs left in the category: Myron Ebell, who meets this suggested rule, and William Happer, who doesn't. However the supporters of continuing to place BLPs in the denial category thought this rule too restrictive, preferring rules which opponents thought would inevitably lead to a return of blurring. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most arguments expressed in the several linked discussions, including on this talk page, speak against the inclusion of biographical articles, and not just BLPs, in climate change denial/deniers categories. There would be little interest in having a category reserved to dead deniers, and this is not a defining characteristic. About the bright line rule suggested above, we should certainly not rely on what you call Wikipedia's own voice as part of criteria for inclusion, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The only feasible rule that would stand the test of time is: no biographies in an opinion category. It is also the only rule compatible with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:SEPARATE, WP:ATTACK, WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:CLNT. Place Clichy (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See here for a refutation of your strawman "biographies in an opinion category". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this category became bloated with politicians, journalists and columnists that had expressed sometimes one-line opinions best described as merely conservative is a refutation of your refutation. Place Clichy (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Categories always have to be maintained. I have maintained categories for many years, throwing out inappropiate entries, until recently, but the discussion above convinced me that is meaningless. They will not work as long as users like you prevent a reasonable definition of categories by Wikilawyering, so what is the point of maintaining them?
If that had not happened, I would have removed that Peter Ridd guy myself, and any others that do not belong there. I also saw many other articles being added to other inappropriate categories, but I will not touch that anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic frenemy. PackMecEng (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is that the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" strategy? PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the "For years, I have wasted hours on an activity that turned out to be meaningless, and now am frustrated" mood. If it makes you feel good, go on, mock me. Say "haw haw, libtard". --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, just poking some fun. Of course I appreciate the work you have put in curating categories. PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between "poking fun" and "mocking" is that the first is among friends. We are not friends. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well like it or not you are my wiki friend. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a man saying something like that to you in real life ("like it or not..." - possibly while looking at you with a grin on his face), and you may get an idea of how creepy it sounds to me. I think we should stop before the subject of restraining orders comes up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing this is not real life. If it helps though I did have a bit of a grin when I wrote that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, do you? Stop that! Real life or not, stop it! Now, we are not only "not friends", we are enemies.
You have absolutely no capability of trying to understand other people. EOD. This page is for discussing how to improve the category. I am finished with that, so I should leave. Unwatching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My suggested bright line rule is in no way proposing that Wikipedia be used as a source: it is simply noting that if you can't get consensus to say explicitly that somebody is a climate change denier in the article's lead then you don't have the consensus to say that implicitly by putting them in a category. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, conversely, where reliable sources show someone is promoting climate change denial, then they should be included in the climate change denial category. Any such statement in an article should of course be properly sourced, so the only effect of categorisation is that it makes these people easier to find, and thus to check that the description in the article is properly sourced. Don't think the term "climate change denier" is particularly helpful, but it is used in some good sources and would come under the general category. . . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is formally a separate debate as "necessary condition" does not imply "sufficient condition", and several commenters up the page, notably Masem have been opposed to any inclusion of BLPs in categories of this kind. With regard to the necessary condition there is no doubt room for rewording. But I do think that if we do not go for total exclusion then some sort of bright line rule is necessary to stop this particular debate recurring endlessly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Climate_change_denial&oldid=972666349"