Misplaced Pages

Talk:Climate change skeptic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:41, 26 June 2015 editMann jess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,672 edits Misdirected: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 18:31, 26 June 2015 edit undoTillman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,591 edits Misdirected: ???Next edit →
Line 31: Line 31:
:::::::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. ] (]) 03:37, 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. ] (]) 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 ] discuss the topic of "climate change skepticism"? Yes or no. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:41, 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 ] discuss the topic of "climate change skepticism"? Yes or no. &nbsp; &mdash; ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; ]]</span> 03:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
* With respect, that makes no sense. Regardless, you clearly don't have consensus here, and NPOV isn't optional. Best, ] (]) 18:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:31, 26 June 2015

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Misdirected

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

Global warming controversy
Public opinion on climate change
Climate change consensus

I think Global warming controversy is probably the most appropriate target. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have redirected to Global warming controversy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
...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)