Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Category:Aramean Swedish football clubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. In the Swedish football clubs tree, it should be sufficient to categorize these clubs by the overarching Assyrian/Syriac ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the second target -- These ethnicities depend on affiliation to a particular oriental Christian denomination. I am not sure that Arameans are Assyrians. However, it might be possible to devise a wider category that would cover all Middle Eastern Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • see also another Aramaean item further down this page, where I investigated the issue in more detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the second target, see my comment further down this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: which comment? – Fayenatic London 18:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see 22 October, 20:30. [1] Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cultural works about science[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge we don't make a distinction here between "works about" and "cultural works about," which is why Category:Cultural works does not exist as a category structure. Indeed, if you look at the category contents, there's no reason why this 2015 category split is needed and it impedes rather than aids navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

European people of Aramean descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There is not a consensus for simple deletion, but the combined support for merging or deletion is a consensus not to keep the existing categories. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each category. Assyrian/Syriac is the overarching ethnicity of Arameans. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is for members of the Syriac Orthodox Church or Syriac Catholic Church. These are a different church from the Assyrian Orthodox Church to which Assyrians belong. In the Middle East, the Turkish millet system meant that denominations turned into quasi-ethnic groups. It may be that we could devise a tree covering both, but with neither Assyrian nor Syriac in the name. These denominations have been separate since the schisms of the late antique period. We should no more merge these two than we would merge Baptists and Methodists, unless merging them both to Protestants. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Since a common Assyrian/Syriac category tree already exists, and since it wouldn't be wrong to merge Arameans to Syriacs (right?), it can't be wrong to merge them to the existing common Assyrian/Syriac tree, right? Basically you're advocating a split of the Assyrian/Syriac tree, but I would rather leave that to another nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ottoman millet system meant that what had been mere denominations transmogrified into something close to a nationality. This is complicated and does not easily fit into patterns elsewhere. It is not helpful to use analogies from other fields. Ethnicity in the American melting pot means little: in the old world, it means a lot. If someone can find a NPOV parent for all the non-Orthodox Christian denominations of the East, I will have no problem about merging them. However, the present proposal is the equivalent of saying that Washington is part of California, because it has a Pacific coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Peterkingiron points out but doesn't apparently advocate, these are "religion" categories posing as "ethnic" ones. Delete all as they misdescribe and likely mislabel WP:BLPs and probably cannot be fully verified. I find that ethnicity is a much a social construct as we have seen with the NAACP froofrah in Washington state and various screeds about the ethnicity of the Oregon shooter and have long advocated the deletion of such categories here. I am also now inclined to view the religion ones as both a social construct and temporary categories - as in most places, one is free to changes one's religion and many notables have done so - and secondly, we have the problem (which also occurs in part in the ethnicity category where what percentage counts or do we have a one-drop rule?) of saying someone is Roman Catholic, or Jewish, or Muslim, does that imply they believe and act upon the whole teaching of said religion. Then do Category:Re-married Roman Catholics, Category:Jews who eat pork, Category:Muslims who earn interest on their investments notable exceptions such that we ought be categorizing these apostates? No. We should just delete these as arbitrary and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename to Category:Dutch people of Middle Eastern Christian descent‎, into which we could merge, Assyrians, Orthodox, Armenians, etc from what was the Ottoman Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article about Arameans is about the ancient ethnolinguistic group. Unless we are listing their descendants, the parent category Category:European people of Middle Eastern descent should do for all Middle Eastern groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 November 2015‎
  • Rename to Category:Dutch Arameans, etc, on the model of Category:Dutch Jews. Categories where the identity is so tied up in religion should be so named. We might also just want to upmerge to Category:Aramean people. I think we also need to create a clear article on contemporary Arameans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are as real ethnicities as being Jewish is. There is a clear distiction. While there are some similarities and there is a temptation to merge them because they are fairly small, they are distict and should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aramean nationalists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article in these categories, and it seems to be a bit over the top to classify this person as a nationalist anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Aramean descent by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I will redirect the old categories for traceability. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: people in these categories aren't descending, they simply are of Aramean ethnicity. Possibly, in order to avoid confusion about nationality versus country living in, we might also rename the parents to e.g. Category:Israeli Arameans but I haven't nominated these categories yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Eastern descent sounds fair, when people move from Syria to Israel it's obvious that their children are no longer Syrians. However I think one can't be of ethnic descent, children of people moving to another country either keep their parents' ethnicity or they don't, ethnicity is not bound to their parents' country. Just as an example take Gabriel Naddaf who claims Aramean ethnicity without any reference to descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- not changing vote. I see no problem with the current or proposed parenting, though Category:Syrian people of Middle Eastern descent is a rather odd category, since Syria is part of the Middle East. That one might be better as Syrian people by ethnicity. It has a Turkish subcat, which may relate to people who are ethnic (and linguistic) Turks, but have not lived in Turkey, since the end of the Ottoman Empire. The problem with all of the descent categories is that they do not work well in the Middle East, where the millet system had the effect of converting religion into a sort of ethnicity: they are not expatriate categories. In the Israeli case, the people concerned are part of the non-Jewish part of the state, which consists of Muslims and Christians, the latter being divided into Orthodox, Armenian, Assyrian, Aramaean, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename however the "not expatriate" argument is flawed. We do not have Category:American Jews because these are more long established in the US than say Category:American people of English descent but because we are talking of an ethno-religious group, which is also the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aramean people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus; revert undiscussed move i.e. move Category:Ancient Arameans back to Category:Arameans pending further discussion. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category does not contain the ancient Aramean people (these are in Category:Arameans) but instead it contains a relatively modern branch of Syriac people who identify with Aramean. Aramean identity is a redirect to Aramean flag and I couldn't find any full articles to discuss this any further, so it's a pretty obscure topic. Anyway I think that the name of the redirect better reflects the category content than the current name (since the current category name suggests it is about the ancient people). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I found Arameans, which says that they are members of the Syriac Orthodox or Catholic Churches. Ancient Arameans (the people of the kingdom translated as Syria in KIng James Version) are in another category. We have just had discussions on Berbers, Arabs and Slavs. I would suggest that we close this to match. My preference would be Category:Arameans. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion that I was thinking of is Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17&action=edit&section=18, not a previous one, but I dealt with it first. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: you probably mean the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17#Category:Indo-European. As for Category:Arameans, that is currently used for the ancient Arameans, so what would you do with that? It is Aramean identity that refers to modern Orthodox/Catholic. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer to my detailed comments in a CFD discussion above. Category:Arameans probably needs to be renamed to Category:Ancient Arameans. Aramaic was a western Semitic language. It was the common language of Judea and Galilee in the time of Jesus, and is still used in certain eastern churches. Aramean is the equivalent demonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category rename has taken place within a day, by an editor who didn't join this discussion. Procedurally, I'd rather have preferred renaming the two involved articles to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Analysts of Kashmir conflict[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on what to do. Perhaps discuss this on a related project page and then revisit it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we need a "the" in the title. But I'm bringing it here rather than WP:CFDS in case anyone has any other ideas about this category; it seems oddly specific to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Berber groups[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Berber tribes and Category:Berber groups to Category:Berber peoples and tribes I will also be placing this new category within Category:Berber people. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been completed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "groups" is too vague, especially considering there is already a Category:Berber tribes. Possibly move (some of the) content to Category:Berber people. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Climate Change deniers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. This will not be fun but it's a framing problem around here based on different discussions. BLP/N is looking at whether or not any living person at least should be included in this category while CFD could go into deletion but the framing was the naming of the category itself (which was one reason that there's a large opposition against its usage). While the initial opposition here focused on the naming, there were no discussion at the front about those concerns which were strongly expressly later without what looks like a rebuttal. From what I can see, we first have opposition on the basis of the prior CFD on procedural grounds, which was a strong majority at first but dissipated once the discussion went to BLP/N so I think procedurally, this discussion is fine even with the prior CFD. Then, on the basis for voting, the majority of initial voters as well (including some of the ones who largely expressed a procedural oppose) opposed a name change as well. However, it seems like there was a broader discussion that occurred following the BLP/N notice of this discussion showed an overall support for deletion, (not even support for a rename) based more on opposition to populating this category at all, than with the name of the category itself. Even those in opposition 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. I also view this discussion as incorporating the two child categories (Category:Climate change deniers (politicians) and Category:Climate change deniers (scientists)) and rather than a CSD or other discussion, I'll treat them the same here and if there's an interest in taking this to DRV or other discussion, I'll put them together. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Climate change deniers to Category:Climate change skeptics
  • Nominators rationale To begin with the supporters of the rename accepted A-that is was not NPOV, that is pushed a particular point of view (that man-made climate change exists, and that those who are skeptical; about it are wrong), B- one of the supporters said of those who do not accept man-made climate change "they deserve to be riddiculed". This is not the type of appraoch we should take in the encyclopedia. The current name is deliberately chosen to delegitimatize and stigmatize those who do not accept man-made climate change. This is a Point-of-view pushing name, brought about by people who admitted they were pushing a point of view. It should be changed back to a more neutral name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The move discussion just closed two days ago with very clear consensus. I don't see how rerunning the same CfD is a benefit to anyone. And speaking as someone who didn't participate in that discussion, the move was entirely justified; we have a wide variety of academic sources which say "climate change skeptic" is a misleading label applied for political reasons with the express intention of being misunderstood. Many of these sources, including Dunlap, Mann, and the NCSE, identify "climate change denial" as the correct term, which is an idea largely supported by the academic community. We should not use an intentionally misleading term over the one favored by respected academics.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The political power is on the side of those pushing climate change as an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom. "Academic" in this case is code for bought and paid for by the establishment and trying to delegitimatize those who do not accept it. Those quoted are clearly engaged in Point-of-view pushing and should not be looked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is tinfoil hat stuff. Utter bullshit. AusLondonder (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on current public policies, I think climate skeptics/deniers/critics are clearly a dominant minority in the political sphere. In academia and here though, that is obviously not the case. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The statement was "political power is on the side of those pushing climate change as an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom". I know several climate scientists, they have different political views, the idea that climate change is some vast liberal conspiracy to take away our guns freedom is, as noted, pure tinfoil hattery, out of precisely the same playbook that says evolution is a pseudoscience pushed by liberals who want to push an atheist agenda. There are right-wing politicians who accept climate change, just as there are Christians who accept evolution. The fallacy is to assume that because the problem appears to require action that you find distasteful, thus the problem is an invention of those whose politics you dislike. Which is, self-evidently, bollocks. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From recent news, it rather looks as though political power is on the side of denialists who think Noaa is all part of a huge conspiracy to "get the politically correct results they want". . . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (closer of previous discussion). Yes, with Jess, I'm not sure how productive it is to open this issue again so soon after the close of the recent discussion, which resulted in a pretty strong consensus. This appears not to be an issue with which WP:DRV is designed to deal with, though. Given the context and to avoid any appearance or accusation of bias, I'm choosing not to administratively close this discussion early, though I think it might be justified. I have notified the participants of the previous discussion that the issue has been re-opened. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, so "yes, with Jess" means you clearly are non-neutral and should not have supported the close. Do you also think that those of us who are not freedom selling lemmings should be mocked?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I think my comment makes clear, I am "with Jess" specifically in his opinion that "I'm not sure how productive it is to open this issue again so soon after the close of the previous discussion". I think you should tone down your rhetoric, assume good faith, and chill. Having commented here, I'm not going to be closing this second discussion, even though, as I stated, I think it would have been justified. I did not close it to avoid accusations of bias, but I guess some users will see bias if they have decided they want to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why should I assume good faith when someone said of those with differening opinions that "they deserve to be mocked" and was called out by exactly no one for such attacks?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those were not my words. You should assume good faith of everyone and not tar all users—participants, administrative closer, etc.—with the negative connotations of a comment made by one user. In refusing to do so, you're doing exactly what you're pointing out as being a problem with others. Beam, mote; pot, kettle; etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You continue to ignore that those words were allowed to stand with no one objecting to their existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • What the hell do you want me to do about it? No one objected to the comment, and frankly, it didn't seem that important in the discussion. For me to have called the user out about it in the close would have seemed paternalistic and excessive, especially since it hadn't caused any disruption in the discussion. I think it would be better if you just write it off as a user's personal opinion, and move on. No one is actively mocking you or anyone else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • The whole name of this category is predicated on an attempt to deligitimatize the views of those who do not agree. It is at its heart a mocking name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That didn't answer my question of what you want me to do. If your central complaint is that the new name of the category is NPOV, then you need to gain a consensus for that view. I can't override a consensus decision merely because one user said that those who disagree with him should be mocked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The other editor who expressed disrespect for the group in that earlier discussion, also expressed reservations that this new name may violate NPOV. Therefore there was no harm from your perspective from any potential bias. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jess and Good Olfactory, the consensus was clear last discussion, and the consensus that man-made climate change is happening is clear, and the consensus that the word 'skeptic' is just 'denier' in disguise and not NPOV when used in debates on climate change is also clear. The consensus amongst those who actually practice scientific skepticism is also that man-made climate change is happening, so the label is nothing but misleading. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if your points were right, which they are not, you ignore common name. The common name is clearly Climate change skeptic, despite the best attempts of shills working against the truth to redefine the used terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the one who made that initial comment, I would like to point out that I did explicitly mention a preference for a less pointy name for NPOV, and the comment in question was an aside tacked on, entirely based on personal view. The nom posted a non-AGF thread on my talk page about this, which I promptly obliterated. That said, there was a full discussion with a very clear result, and this nomination is just making a point because one person who didn't even participate disagrees with the result. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 06:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this discussion has grown in scope, I am going to comment that I am not opposed to deletion of the category if there is sufficient consensus for that, but if it is not deleted, "deniers" should be kept in the name. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are a bigot who should be banned from Wikipedia. When someone clearly shows no good faith by saying certain people deseve to be mocked, saying a comment was not in assuming good faith is untrue. The previous discussion was closed extremely fast by category discussion standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:CFD: "Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised." The nomination had been open for more than seven days, and a clear consensus had been reached, so I closed the discussion. When discussions struggle to reach a consensus, they may stay open for longer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Johnpacklambert, how about you read WP:NPA before you call someone a bigot (whilst simultaneously being a bigot yourself and calling for others to be "banned" AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop needlessly making enemies. You don't deserve any further response from me. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yikes! I was sympathetic to your concern that the comment was flippant (see above) but suggesting a very constructive editor in the category space be banned is ridiculous. Lets tone the rhetoric down on both sides. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have an accompanying article, Climate change denial. — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a gross misunderstanding Cirt (talk · contribs). The article climate change denial explicitly says at the top "This article is about views which undermine public confidence in scientific consensus on climate change. For the public debate over scientific conclusions, see global warming controversy". Not all oppososing view to the mainstream view can be labelled denial. Scientists that reach other conclusions than the majority can not be labelled "deniers" unless you simply postulate from the get-go that only one valid conclusion can be reached, but then it's no longer science. Many of the people in the current category are peer-reviewed scientists, including scientists that has published directly on climate change in peer-reviewed magazine. To take part of in the scientific process and reach other conclusion than the majority is not being a "denier" of anything. Iselilja (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation here, but I also agree with this comment, by Ayzmo, below. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, agree with this comment by Dave souza, citing the National Centre for Science Education, at DIFF. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An actual perusal of the articles involved shows the subjects in many cases either described as "climate change skeptics" or expressing a view that there needs to be more skepticism in the study of the issue without expressing a view on the matter, this is especially true of the scientist sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, it's way too early to rediscuss the name of a category so soon after the closure of the previous discussion. Let's do that again in 2018 or so. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CFD closed two days ago! Are you aware of this User:johnpacklambert? Also, I question whether the nom is engaging in a right-wing political war. His above comments "those pushing climate change as an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom. "Academic" in this case is code for bought and paid for by the establishment and trying to delegitimatise (sic) those who do not accept it" are seriously concerning. They are advancing a ludicrous fringe theory. In addition, the user has expressed opposition to marriage equality, another culture war of the right AusLondonder (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the proposed cat would use American English rather than the currently neutral title. I generally think it's better to use neutral titles where possible. It's easy to forget that most English speaking people don't use American spelling. (Australia, Jamaica, India, United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta, South Africa, New Zealand and many Caribbean nations and to some extent Canada, Nigeria and Pakistan) AusLondonder (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: Is the Canadian category, Category:Canadian skeptics, correctly named? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:RevelationDirect, as I understand "skeptic" is usually preferred in Canada. However, I will nominate the Indian skeptics cat for speedy renaming to sceptics.
  • Procedural Allow The most recent nomination that was closed 2 days ago, also undermined the recent rename of the parent category. I don't think it's reasonable to lock in precedent now when it was tossed to the wind only 2 days ago. Note that I'm the only editor to vot against both nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the very recent cfd was clear enough. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common Name vs. Minority Self Identity The underlying issue here is that we have a minority group that self-identifies by one name--skeptics--but whose WP:COMMONNAME is something else--deniers. The precedents here vary: we disregarded the common name with Category:Romani people--vs. Gypsies--but kept it with Category:Roundheads--vs. Parliamentarians. (I suspect that, if there were current editors who oppose King Charles, the latter would be differently named though.) Although it seemed inelegant to me at the time, the parent category's compromise of "skepticism and denial" seems wise to me now. Even though this is clearly a faith-based group that is misinterpreting the scientific evidence, we have Category:Creationists not Category:Evolution deniers and we should treat climate change skeptics/deniers/critics with the same respect, or at least strike a compromise. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure the presence of people like Robert M. Carter in this group support your claim that this is "a faith-based group".John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of all the editors on the discussion, I came the closest to agreeing with you. You may want to rethink your strategy here. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Calling them "skeptics" is misleading. jps (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Proposer could not be more wrong on several points. I proposed to rename it "deniers" from "skeptics", and ridicule had absolutely nothing to do with the proposal. The other point that needs to be made absolutely clear is that valid science is not a point of view. You aren't helping the cause of a neutral encyclopedia by accommodating climate change deniers rhetorical desires. Furthermore, the term "denier" is completely neutral and objective itself. Even a climate change denier will admit that they deny that climate change is real. This is a terrible proposal for misguided reasons. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would doubters perhaps be acceptable to both sides? Associated Press uses it: The AP Bans Use of Climate Change Denier and Skeptic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That certainly is superior and less wordy than my suggestion in the last go around for "deniers and skeptics". Based on the direction of this nomination though, the search for a compromise term is probably moot. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Good Olfactory. Take to WP:DRV if you want, but to recycle the Cfd almost immediately upon closure because it wasn't the result you wanted is disruptive and WP:POINTy. Moreover, the nominator's statements about climate change advocacy being "an excuse to expand government power and repress freedom" makes it clearer that this Cfd is WP:NOTHERE for any valid Wikipedia policy-based reason, but rather, simply personal ideology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This has gone back and forth for purely political reasons. We're not here to pit facts against ideology. We have the article Scientific opinion on climate change and the article Climate change denial. We don't have to appease folks who believe the Earth is flat, we never went to the moon, or climate change is "the greatest deception in the history of mankind." Prhartcom (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose rename Neither the "denial" nor "skeptic" tag is sufficient. The purpose of this category is to gather those who outright do not believe in manmade global warming – not skeptics who believe it but have doubts. Skeptics include those who fundamentally believe manmade global warming is happening, a could easily include large swathes of the population given the complexity of the issue. That is a useless category to have. Really we should have something more neutral, like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change and the children Category:Politicians rejecting anthropogenic climate change and Category:Scientists rejecting anthropogenic climate change. This adequately sums up both the purpose and position of those to be included and helps us avoid the need to add personal arguments to category naming conventions (see wasted effort and invective above by lots of people). Thanks for the ping @RevelationDirect:. SFB 18:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a decent idea. We could consider this or something similar. Prhartcom (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment While this is an interesting start to an idea, it needs more work. For example, Anthony Watts (blogger) doesn't "reject... anthropogenic climate change"; he fully accepts the science behind the greenhouse effect, but he does think the IPCC projections are too high. Judith Curry doesn't "reject... anthropogenic climate change", and she roughly thinks the mean estimates of the IPCC are about right, but she has concerns about the ranges. Bjorn Lomborg doesn't "reject... anthropogenic climate change"; he accepts, at least for discussion pusposes, the scientific conclusions of the IPCC, but he disagress about political proposals for mitigation on economic grounds. All three have been referred to as skeptics, they occupy three different positions on an over-simplified continuum, while none "reject... anthropogenic climate change". How can they be categoried?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sphilbrick: I think this gets to the nub of the issue: why would a category containing anyone who disagrees (from total to moderate) with the exact estimates of the IPCC be a useful one? If anything, that is simply an unremarkable feature. I'm not sure why you'd ever need to navigate from Bob Lutz (businessman) to Judith Curry. A category of people who reject anthropogenic climate change is very much a defining one, particularly for scientists. SFB 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and delete category. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming serves the purpose much better. (per Masem below) "Deniers" is the proper term. They "deny" the scientific consensus favoring anthropogenic climate change, but are not using the tools of scientific skepticism to arrive at their position. Scientific skeptics are another animal, and they accept global warming and anthropogenic climate change. Using the term "skeptics" for deniers implies some sort of scientific legitimacy and creates confusion. The decision to change to this title was good and should not be changed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC) (Tweaked -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. This absurd situation makes clear the need for a rule forbidding disruptive new AfDs, Rename requests, Move requests, etc., so quickly after they have been closed. There should be a certain waiting time. I'd suggest a month. What do you all think of the idea? -- -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 15:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to "skeptics". That is a NPOV term. "Deniers" implies that they are definitely wrong. I consider they are probably wrong, but this is only a majority view, not a universal one (with the exception of a few cranks. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no it is not, it gives false equivalence to wilful denial, with a well documented political and commercial agenda, and solid science. Denier is more correct than skeptic, there may be a term that is more correct than denier, but skeptic is not it. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When the category is called "deniers", people like Jan Veizer who accept that CO2 has an effect must be excluded from the category. The same goes for people who say the consequences of global warming for their region will be beneficial. You can't redefine words like "denier" to include people who don't deny human anthropogenic climate change. Fine if people choose a word because of its connotations, as long as they also accept the meaning of that word. (although it may not make much difference, from the 16 scientists I've checked in that category, 15 would arguably fit the "denier" description) Ssscienccce (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am open to some other name, as per the AP style guide, but this is pseudoskepticism and must not be legitimised per WP:FRINGE, and also again per the AP style guide. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; this debate has already been had, and the current wording was chosen (and for what it's worth, I wasn't actually involved in that discussion). It's a bit silly to want to make a reversion so soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sick of the POV pushers trying to say skeptic is NPOV. It's not, as it suggests there is reasonable doubt. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss appropriately The talk here is by a small group who apparently watch CFD, but I believe that a larger and more directly impacted group exists: the editors who watch the many affected BLPs. So I intend to bring up the earlier label-all-skeptics-as-deniers decision on WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now made the WP:BLPN notice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on both procedural and substantive grounds. The BLPN sidetrack won't succeed... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP Notice As noted above, a Biography of Living Persons notices on this topic was created here. Rather than encouraging editors here to contribute to that conversation, I added a neutral notice for those editors to contribute here because it's the correct forum. At this point, editors continue to add to that discussion so we have two dueling conversations. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I supported the name change, reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. However, it is still ambiguous, depends on whether "climate change" is considered a synonym for "anthropogenic climate change". In any case, people who accept climate change but consider the effects to be beneficial (for the world or for a specific region) should still be removed from the category. Ssscienccce (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Edit: I already commented, didn't see the BLP link went to old discussion. Ssscienccce (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (from BLP/N page). Because whether you use "CC skeptics" or "CC deniers" either case our BLP policies says that only people that self-identify to one of these names should be listed as that; it is a BLP violation to take a person who does not claim themselves as either a skeptic or denier (but otherwise disagrees that CC is happening) and put them in this labeled category. A list page - where entries can be sourced to self-stated inclusion, would be better, and would make the fine distinction between "skeptic" and "denier" as listed by others above, and avoid looping those that have not self-identified in either group. Alternativvely, Rename to "Climate change theory opponents", as that is a neutral term that does not require self-identification so a category would work. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Masem: Could you point me to that policy? WP:BLPCAT, the one I'm obviously most familiar with, only requires living people to self-identify with religious beliefs or sexual orientation: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief". Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not take that statement in BLPCAT as the exclusively only cases of self-identification, only the ones that stand out the most. Also to add first sentence of the next sentence "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)" - calling any of these people without self-support as a "denier" or "skeptic" is suggesting a person with poor reputation. So it fits there. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for elaborating on your interpretation of BLPCAT. (Note that "false light only applies to people who do not voluntarily put themselves in the public eye). RevelationDirect (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose climate change "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization. Else we are as bad as any who label folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole category is fatally flawed, and we simply shouldn't be categorizing living people like this. Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Skeptic is a purposely misleading term. We don't call people who believe in a flat Earth, deny germ theory, or deny that HIV causes AIDS "skeptics." Ayzmo (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily Delete, secondarily Support. Per Jonathan A Jones above. And I will notice the BLP concerns here. Several people in this category are peer-reviewed scientists, including scientists that have published scepticism in peer-reviewed publications. This is clearly scientific scepticism; and can in no way be labelled "denial". People who call such cases denial simply don't understand the first thing about scientific process and how a consensus is formed and maintained. If scientific scepticism and opposition to mainstream views are considered illegitimate, then then can be no legitimate consensus, only a Soviet-style consensus . I have removed the category from Ole Humlum; an article I have started myself . He is a professor at the University of Oslo in a climate related area and has published his opposing findings and conclusions in a peer-reviewed magazine. It's beyond pale and totally against any normal approach to science to label an accomplished professor's opposing findings for denial. Iselilja (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR Expand to objective category such as Category:People with a public stance on climate change. The difficulty here is that a binary category whose name must be fairly terse cannot adequately capture the nuances of views, even if restricted to those that may generally be said to oppose the mainstream and scientifically accepted views on climate change. There is no objective standard for who is a denier/skeptic/believer. There is an objective standard for who has taken a public stance regarding the issue. The expanded category would be useful to the reader in discovering what the individuals listed actually believe about climate change, whereas the current "deniers" category serves only as a shallow label inviting no further inquiry. alanyst 22:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category. As noted, it is surely impossible to categorise people this way. Even if we accept that there is a discrete category of people whose views on this complex topic can be unequivocally grouped together under a single label, the idea that that label in this case should be as pejorative and loaded a term as "denier", whether sometimes found in sources (which have varying standards of course as to how they apply the term) or not is in line with basic principles of taxonomy, let alone BLP policy, is hardly tenable. The politics here are irrelevant, or at least should be. Categories are for things such as "People born in Bhutan", not "People who hate Bhutan" – whether they supposedly do or not. N-HH talk/edits 22:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See NCSE statement below. . . dave souza, talk 22:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@N-HH: We actually have an entire tree of these sort of biography categories at Category:Activists by issue. The naming is different than here though: almost all are "activists", "opponents" or "supporters", and those terms don't seem pejorative. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose misuse of "skeptic" which should properly apply to normal scientific skepticism, not political opposition to well founded science. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an alternative usage, aimed at meeting demands for a more politically correct term, is climate change denials. Alternatively, simply name the category climate change denial and subdivide, as now, with subcategories such as 'climate change denial (politicians). . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming back. A) The "deniers" label is contentious, it will stimulate a lot of non-productive activity, many people read it as pejorative, using it will always be a distraction. B) The "skeptic" label seemed relatively stable: fewer debates about what it covers and whether a particular person's views fit within the range. C) Using a category label that many people will read as disrespectful or NPOV will lower the credibility of Wikipedia. I've edited the articles on some of these people, I try to to afford the usual BLP level of respect even if they are wrong. M.boli (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Climate change denial notes respected academic and educational usage of "denial" in a non-pejorative way. For example, the National Centre for Science Education's statement "Recognizing that no terminological choice is entirely unproblematic, NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms "climate changer deniers" and "climate change denial"" . . dave souza, talk 22:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave souza: The AP Style Guide (which most US Newspapers more or less follow) uses "Climate change doubters". (source). RevelationDirect (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Climate change doubters" seems like a good discovery to me. A neutral term that neatly covers the broad spectrum. M.boli (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the heading of the cited source says, "Doubt Denies Denial, The Associated Press’ new style guideline mischaracterizes people who reject climate science." The proposal itself is controversial and has been rejected by several US publications. Better coverage in Science, which notes that the new AP guideline is “To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.” The formulation "reject mainstream climate science" seems to be considered better than "doubters". For discussion of usage, see AP Styles 'Deniers' into 'Doubters,' Creating Newsroom Skeptics | InsideClimate News . dave souza, talk 08:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave souza: Let's not refer to the cited source without actually naming it: Slate (magazine). Per the lede in that Wikiped article, "Slate is known (and sometimes criticized) for adopting contrarian positions". The AP standards reflect a much broader consensus than Slate although, clearly, the AP's neutral term is not unanimously accepted. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP/N has a strong discussion thereon - and seems to be leaning to making this an issue about policy and not just name of category. As such, the discussion here may be moot, and anyone closing here should also close there, weighing the statements about policy appropriately. Collect (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I invited all participants in that discussion (pro/con/other) to join in this conversation so we can discuss the category in one central forum. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as commented above, Skeptic is a purposely misleading term - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • New name: Rename to Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics. It's obviously impossible to split hairs and/or please everyone. I think the only way forward is to include both groups in the same category. As per our article article Climate change denial, "Climate change skepticism and climate change denial form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change." So combine them both in one category. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would also match the parent category, Category:Climate change skepticism and denial. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for User:Softlavender's suggestion. --Fixuture (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Denier is problematic, but skeptic is plain wrong - it suggests a critical evaluation of the evidence, not the one-sided wishful thinking displayed (honestly or not) by most climate change deniers. I'd be open to a reasonable new name, but I don't think there is an obvious candidate. The Associated Press suggests "climate change doubters" or "those who reject mainstream climate science" [2] - the first might be an option, although its inexact. The second is, I think, unsuitable for a category name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Stephan Schulz that "skeptic" is problematic. While it is in common use, its use is challenged by many. Technically, any responsible individual involved in the discussion ought to be a skeptic, but if we accept that usage, it applies too broadly and is useless. An important related issue is who belongs in this category. That will depend on what it is called. If it is called "denier", then many, such as Curry, do not belong. If it is changed to skeptic, what about those who are deniers and are not honestly involved in scientific skepticism? Some things cannot be adequately captured by a three word label. Perhaps, rather than struggling to find the right label, we should abandon the attempt to pigeonhole a nuanced range of opinions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two suggestions that have appeared in this thread that seem reasonable to me are climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. The first was mooted by @RevelationDirect:, who notes it is the AP style guide. The second by @Dave souza:, who believes it is more accurate and acceptable. I think the recurring arguments over denier by themselves shows that denier is a problem. Even if you think the term appropriate, it is undeniably (ahem) contentious. Winning the argument condemns Wikipedia to an ongoing internal conflict. This conflict could easily be avoided, without disrespecting either side, by adopting any number of other phrases. Such as the two above. (Wikipedia has enough ongoing internal conflicts.) M.boli (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect I may have voted above. My objection is that the category name should be NPOV. Being a skeptic is not a FRINGE position, though it is a minority one. It is not one that I hold, though I do wonder whether there may be unknown factors that the mainstream view is ignoring, such as an increased CO2 concentration being absorbed by an increased vegetable biomass. are I would suggest that Category:climate change doubters is sufficiently NPOV to be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename -- Delete per WP:BLPCAT. This category is essentially a list of sinners. Our BLP policy requires inline citations for contentious statements about living individuals. There is no mechanism for referencing the inclusion of a individual's article in a category. But a less contentious category name would be better for now than keeping the category with its present name.--agr (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The article can contain a sourced statement that the figure is a climate change denier AusLondonder (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which means someone would have to go through the article to find the source that supports a highly contentious claim, and unless that's the person's claim to fame, it likely won't be stated in the lead; it thus makes it very easy to trojan through false claim since you can just go "oh yeah, it's sourced in the article, read it yourself". This is why a list of "climate change deniers" (that wording) would be fine since we can inline source that claim and avoid the ambiguity, but a category is very problematic because we can't directly. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, your thinking is right on: Delete the category and create a properly sourced list (List of climate change deniers), BUT we don't need to create it, because that already redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which serves the purpose fine. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's ideal. Also, since it has been brought up that there are those that clearly identify themselves as "climate change deniers/skeptics" (those terms specifically), that list (with sourcing) can also be put there too, as long as the source is pointing to that self-identification. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But a many of the people in this category are not scientists. I, personally, have edited the pages of a prominent TV meteorologist and a Congressional Representative. Both are quite outspoken in their rejection of mainstream climate science. Are we to have a page "list of assorted notable people who notably disagree with climate change science?" That is what categories are for, no? M.boli (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we probably should have a page for non-scientists too. The problem with a category is that it is by nature making unsourced and possibly contentious claims (whether at "deniers" or "skeptics") about living persons. While I am sure there are some people where this is their claim to fame and their view on climate change will be readily obvious reading the article, that's not true for all, so having an unsourced category is not good. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as WP:BLP violation while the discussion is occurring. If refocused to those who consider themselves "climate change deniers", or are known for and meet an objective characterization of the term, a category with this name might not be an ongoing source of WP:BLP violations. I'm actually neutral, at the moment, as to whether the category should exist at all, but it should not exist in this form. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Renaming to climate change skeptic is problematic because the term "climate change skeptic" has been identified as a misleading term and thus is not neutral. By renaming to "climate change skeptic", Wikipedia would be adopting the POV of the deniers. jps (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in fact as being required as a matter of multiple Wikipedia policies. The reasons above given for labelling people as "deniers" who are not self-identified as such, and for whom, in fact, no source is even given for such a label, are contrary to WP:BLP from the start. And any closer well ought to note the desire for some here to use the label as a mark of "guilt by association" is also contrary to WP:BLP. And that those who view it as a sacred duty to assign admittedly pejorative terms to those with contrasting opinions - are intrinsically violative of WP:NPOV. (Alas - some appear so anxious to label folks that they seem to have lost track of the rules about multiple !votes) Collect (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV requires we follow what reliable sources, such as scientific opinion say. Not what is said on Fox News or by Alex Jones. Also, the main article for this topic is Climate change denial, so the cat meets that as well AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue that "Climate change denial" is a real thing; it is the fact that because "denier" or "skeptic" is a loaded term (even considering the context of the debate in the scientific community), placing people into a category without the ability to directly source this contentious claim is a problem under BLP and WP:V. A list is better suited to source each entry to avoid the BLP/WP:V issue, or a rename to a broad, more neutral naming scheme would be possible to. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isin't true. If the article contains a reliable source stating that an individual is a climate change denier, then it can't be an issue. AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work for contentious claims, coming from discussions about lists of people grouped by a contentious claim. Even if you can blue-link the name, the sourcing for the claim has to be obvious and should not require searching the article. Otherwise, and I've seen this done in other situations, editors can submarine in names without sourcing saying "oh, its sourced over there", and no one can find the source, or it's a twisting of a source. Contentious claims have to be sourced inline, and categories do not provide this feature, hence the need to make the category more neutral or eliminate it altogether. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just deleted the category from multiple articles where there was no claim, never mind supporting evidence, plus several more where the claim was highly contentious or the sourcing for the claim was terrible or even non-existent. Basically this category is a disaster. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good you deleted them from articles where the cat didn't apply. I don't see how that's a problem for the cat, however; it clearly applies to Anthony Watts (blogger) and Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer and many others, without any question.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When this conversation started there were 109 names on the list, including a former IPCC chapter lead author. Now it's down to 27, and personally I reckon that at least half of the remainder are contentious. Masem is right on this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to the above: I see that the names are still there, but in subcategories. So yes, we do still have the retired "Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" and "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" categorized as a "climate change denier". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, your efforts to Alan Jones removed content that was not only sourced (in the following paragraph), but could have been significantly expanded had an editor looked for additional sources. You removed the content, and then removed the cat for not having supporting content. I haven't looked over your other edits in this area, but I will ask that if you are going through each page in this cat and editing similarly, that you please attempt to find sources before removing verifiable information. Remember that this cat serves a useful purpose in organizing notable figures in the climate change denial topic, and removing names which actively belong there is not doing a service to our readers.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You behaviour is regrettable User:Jonathan A Jones. You have been removing sourced material and removing material without bothering to look for sources, even from people who have made their careers out of climate change denial. You editing is disruptive. You have remove the sourced material then claim no sources exist so remove the cat! You have removed the category and used an edit summary of "Insufficient evidence given to include this category" in repeated cases even with sourced material in the article AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the cat from Alex Jones who has a video referring to climate change as a "greatest hoax of the century" and a "trillion-dollar heist AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the cat from David Icke who has a whole section of his website devoted to the matter AusLondonder (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the cat from Pat Sajak, again citing "insufficient evidence" despite his own acknowledgement of his views AusLondonder (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the cat from Ross McKitrick, despite academic sources. If this continues I may be forced to refer your conduct. AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondoner and Jess, I would urge you to moderate your langauge and to assume good faith in future comments. I would also urge you to read WP:BLPREMOVE which states clearly "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." My edits are perfectly defensible under that policy. You are, of course, free to dsiagree with them, but not to hurl wild and unsubstantiated allegations. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of these people call themselves by the term "climate change deniers" , or are these people just being included because they oppose the theories of climate change? If the latter, then this category is badly named (whether at "deniers" or "skeptics") since the term is of immediate negative connotation. I would agree that all those people you list are "People that doubt climate change theory", but not "Climate change deniers". (I make no statement on material that may have been removed from the articles in question, only the categorization into this one). --MASEM (t) 18:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan, I see nothing in my language that requires moderation. I'm not sure what you're reading into it. You clearly removed content in the edit I referenced which was sourced in the following paragraph. Yes, please do remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, and please do remove entries that don't fit in the cat. But please also make an effort to maintain information that is both true and easily verifiable.
@Masem These people are being included because they advance positions laid out in climate change denial, and are labelled as such in reliable sources. See, for instance, Anthony Watts (blogger); he disclaims the label, but it is clear per our sources that it fits. I would be fine renaming the cat, so long as it is not to something our academic sources indicate is misleading or inaccurate (as would be the case with "climate change skeptics"). People who reject the scientific consensus on climate change would be fine. Climate change contrarians would be okay. But most of the proposals I've seen so far I dislike: climate change doubters is problematic in at least many cases (we're not talking about doubt)   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Jess; as you may have surmised I was confusing comments from you and AusLondoner. Your language was indeed perfectly proper. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the core of the matter, I wouldn't greatly object to either of your suggestions above, with perhaps a slight preference for "contrarians". But I still would prefer simple deletion of the category. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that User:Jonathan A Jones, is Jonathan A. Jones He is not a climate scientist but is a scientist and describes himself as a "climate change agnostic" to The Guardian. He filed an FOI request to the Climate Research Institute which forced them to release commercially valuable data in a result described as a "victory for critics of the UEA" in the Guardian. AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all this information (except perhaps your personal interpretations) is freely available from my user page I am struggling to see what your point is here. 19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a slight conflict of interest? But what about the other points? The removal of sourced material. The inappropriate removal of the cat? AusLondonder (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the potential for a conflict of intereste here, which is why I declare it on my user page, which includes the statement "I mostly keep well away from the topic of climate change but do keep an eye on the biographies of some participants". When editing climate related BLPs I am particularly careful to follow policy, and once again I would urge you to read WP:BLPREMOVE which states "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." You should also look at WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPCAT. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! When you have lost the content argument, and lost the policy argument, you now simply seek to make personal attacks on an editor? Sorry -- when one delves into that territory, one has conceded defeat in the actual collegial discussion. BTW, as the sources given do not call Pat Sajak a "denier" as a fact, your recategorizing him as such is a blatant abuse of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This clarification is a good example of the problem with the term. There is the proper noun term, "Climate Change denier" which is a label with a very specific meaning and membership, and then there is the plain English phrase "climate change denier" which can be taken as "a person that denies climate change theories". Someone simply asserting that they don't think the current theories on climate change are right could be called out as the second term, a "climate change denier" but should not be given the label "Climate Change denier" if there are no sources for that label to be applied. That's the problem with diffuse terms like this in categories, and hence the need to either get rid of this category or rename it something that either avoid the confusion between the "denier" label and the position the person actually takes. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, User:Collect, but you are making a personal attack upon me. I have made no attack. I am putting the editing of the user in context. I feel given I am on the side of the majority of editors here that your comments are absurd. The category was changed from sceptic to denier. He was already in the sceptic cat. I did not "recategorise" him. A bot did. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- a bot made this edit: [3], right? You were not a real person improperly recategorizing a person (Sajak) where there is no source given for the category your bot assigned to him! When you re-add an unsourced category (or your bot re-added an unsourced category) such a category, as being unsourced, such a re-adding is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also this edit [4] which is not supported by a single reliable secondary source. Have you read WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPCAT yet? You should look at WP:PSTS if you don't understand the distinction being made here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC
@AusLondonder: I feel sorry for the admin who takes on the responsibility of sorting this mess out. One of the challenges in trying to assess the consensus was seeing some charge made, followed by an opposing viewpoint, and no clear resolution. When one makes a claim, finds, with the help of others that it is unfounded, it is polite to strike through the original claim, especially in cases like this where an uninvolved admin may have to sort through everything. I'm currently referring to two claims made by you. One is the charge against Jonathan Jones relating to the edit of Pat Sajak. It appears you may have been mistaken about the cat. Sajak admits to being a skeptic but not a denier, but the cat removed was not a skeptic cat it was a denier cat. You follow this with a claim that you didn't actually restore it the restoration was made by a bot which is not true unless you are claiming you are a bot. Would you be so kind as to clean those up while I look at some of the others?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: In this edit, you allege that User:Jonathan A Jones has "been removing sourced material". You did not provide a diff or even an article. You did follow up with edit1, edit 2, edit 3, and edit 4, each of which mentioned relevant articles, but I examined each and did not find any removal of sourced material. Can you either identify the removal, or remove the comment?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oy. The above feuding has helped me to understand the point of view that having a category is a problem. I have used this category myself, by the way, as an aid to editing. I used it to find examples of good NPOV fair-minded edits of a sensitive topic. But I have come to see that more generally it is not a good idea. M.boli (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arriving at a Workable Outcome We have some editors who think accuracy dictates "deniers", we have some editors who think the Biographies of Living People concern means this category shouldn't exist, and we have some editors who think the naming of the category is the problem but haven't coalesced around a single alternative name. (These three groups don't neatly fit the votes; some of the other two leave the door open for a rename.) I don't want to second guess the closing admin, but I could see this discussion leaving the category name unchanged due to "no consensus" or "keep" and individual editors purging living people from the category.
Is that an acceptable outcome? Are there other potential outcomes that editors who disagree with you could sign off on? RevelationDirect (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to me what a few people on this thread regard as an acceptable outcome, since it is a WP:BLP violation -- in fact over a hundred BLP violations -- and the proper discussion place is WP:BLPN. There a large majority with far more participants quoting uncontested policy statements has said that the whole "denier" category is unacceptable and/or that the WP:CFD action resulted in illegitimate action. Any "decision" reached here will become irrelevant or invalidated when the BLPN outcome is decided formally (though I too will not second-guess the outcome there). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You arrogant individual, User:Peter Gulutzan. Your disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING aside, the proper place to discuss categories is at Categories for Discussion. That is why it is called Categories for Discussion. Here, a large majority favour retaining the cat. The outcome here is relevant, not the outcome at BLPN. Are you going to nominate for deletion Category:Holocaust deniers? Is that not a BLP violation in your book? You saw things not going your way here and shamelessly and cynically forum shopped. What insulting disrespect for editors here and also for due process AusLondonder (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the procedural oppose that I expressed earlier, I'd like to add that I'm opposing deletion, because there are too many people who are particularly notable for their view on climate change. So either keep the category as is or find another workable outcome, e.g. Category:Climate change skeptics and deniers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's still a problem title along since you cannot directly source for inclusion. A list in mainspace does the same job and avoids the sourcing issue. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the title Category:Climate change skeptics and deniers. You cannot be a skeptic and a denier. They are effectively the same thing. That would be equivalent to having a category entitled Category:British atheists and atheists AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is meant to be redundant and to create an overall neutral category name by using both pro- and anti- terms. You can certainly still oppose that compromise but it's redundant by design. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law Kudos for It's unhelpful to be adding a Nazi reference to this discussion! (If I was making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I would have skipped the Holocaust example.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good job addressing the issue, there! Instead resorting to an attack. Climate change scientific consensus is pretty much as clear as historical consensus on the Holocaust. Why is it not a BLP and NPOV issue to use denial in that or any other context? AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust is off topic and unlikely to further reaching a consensus here; my "attack" was meant to be limited to pointing that out. However, my use of sarcasm may have allowed alternative interpretations so I've updated my comment (above). RevelationDirect (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Second, we're still as this problem that because we cannot directly source contentious claims (that someone is an X denier or skeptic) in a category proves any of these types of categories can be difficult to work with. There appear to be people that I can click through on these lists that in their lede it is difficult to determine if they really should be sorted into that list. As WP:BLPCAT states: "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." and that's not what I see these categories being used for - the current CC deniers/skeptics say that any secondary source that makes the claim, which may mean a person who does not consider themselves to be a denier to be labeled as such. Iff we limit inclusion to those people who's notable rests on the fact they claim they are a CC denier/skeptic (meaning that it should be crystal clear from the lede of that person's article) does this make for a workable catagory - same for the above. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in many cases we don't have any secondary sourcing at all, no matter how weak. For example John Bickley (UKIP) was added to this category [5] using his tweets as the sole supporting information! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard of WP:ABOUTSELF, Jonathan? You deny someone is a climate change denier when they tweet climate change is a "lie" a "hoax" and a "cult"? AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is a terrible source for basing self-stated claims on, because 1) it's not content foolproof (ppl can hack it) and 2) tweets can be removed. If a person says in a tweet "I deny climate change" and later deletes that, even if we've managed to archive it, that's nowhere close to acceptable to use for an ABOUTSELF claim. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, which current policy simply does not support. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it's policy, at WP:BLPSPS. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is extremely misleading, because that policy is in reference to self-published sources about other people. WP:ABOUTSELF is the relevant policy here. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even taking that , point 4 "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" is always a factor for Twitter. While there are verified accounts, I would suspect most people that would be anywhere close to being in the climate change field are not the type of people to get verified accounts (they're usually reserved for celebrities, etc.) And you still have the issue that if the tweet was deleted, there's no way to meet WP:V, so it would still be a problem. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think @AusLondonder: has a point that one can use Twitter posts in some cases. One needs to be careful, but used to support a nuanced discussion of views seems like a legitimate use. However, a nuanced prose discussion does not always translate exactly to a binary category, so I can support the use of twitter as a reference in a discussion while not being happy to to use it to support an oversimplified pigeonhole. For example, John Bickley (UKIP did not tweet that climate change is a "lie" a "hoax" and a "cult" , the article stated (before being removed) that he linked to articles suggesting climate change is a cult[5] a hoax[6] and a lie[7]. That might mean it is his personal view but it might also mean he wants his readership to read the articles. I've linked to articles that espouse the exact opposite of my own personal beliefs because I think it's useful to read them. I'm not pretending that's exactly what's happening in this case; I'll reemphasize, discussion of nuanced issues is possible in prose in an article but not possible in a category. Membership in a category ought to be black and white not a shade of gray. We can do shades of gray in an article, but not in a category.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category page describes the category quite clearly: "These persons have been described by reliable secondary sources as rejecting the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." I'm removing the category from people where there are no reliable secondary sources, and I fail to understand how you could possible consider that controversial. And current policy includes WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPCAT, and WP:PSTS, all of which support my edits. However, should you turn up a primary source in which somebody describes themselves as a "climate change denier" then your argument from WP:ABOUTSELF would have some (albeit not much) merit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that definition were actually followed, it could, conceivably, not be an inherent BLP violation. However, note the word "rejecting". If the people "doubt" the mainstream scientific opinion, then they should not be in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ArnoldReinhold above, the category is a BLP violation, basically a list of sinners. We certainly don't need a list of people who have no problem with state action, but who question climate models; or who don't question climate models, but who oppose political action as of dubious merit being lumped together solely because they oppose a complex POV that argues in favor of certain models and in favor of state action to prevent predicted events. At the least, the older name was POV neutral, and hence preferable to the staus quo. But WP simply does not need to categorize people according to perceived orthodoxy of any sort. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, User:Medeis. No one, even those in favour of retaining the cat, has suggested it is a "sin" to deny climate change or anything else. Will you be nominating for deletion these cats:

I'll see if I do before I take your argument seriously. AusLondonder (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite aware that those categories deal with people who deny that some actual historical event did occur in the past, not that they are denying they might happen in the future according to various models. You are also familiar with the OTHERSTUFF. I do indeed think there serious problems with having any such categories, and that they should all be neutrally worded if they are to be retained. And we are all quite well aware that people are calling for the prosecution (in the US, as gangster!) of those who don't toe the line ([dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/dem-senator-hopes-the-doj-sues-global-warming-deniers/ Senator Hopes The DOJ Sues Global Warming ‘Deniers’]) and have gone as far in Britain as to suggest children should be blown up if they aren't enthousiastic enough regarding the party line. Given there is no one single position, anybody could be denounced as a denier by the next more doctrinaire person. We simply don't need this sort of POV pushing at WP, nor do we need to be shaming people about their views on how or whether to act in light of various predictions. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only POV-pushing I see is from those in favour of deleting this category which is a helpful navigational aid and who reject the position taken by more around 99% of climate scientists in favour of giving undue weight to the position of conservative radio hosts and newspaper columnists. AusLondonder (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that while it might be a helpful navigational aid, it is not compatible with stricter BLP requirements:
  • It is possible to categorize (in general terms, not the category function on en.wiki) as CC deniers or skeptics as long as we have sourcing that are self-stated claims to that end. We can do this with any kind of categorization where we are applying contentious labels to a BLP; as long as we have strong strong sourcing (from the BLP themselves for the most part), we recognize this categorization can happen.
  • It is possible to have this categorization presented in a mainspace list article, where each entry can be connected to an inline source that affirms the categorization is correct. It is possible to have concerned editors to watchlist these lists and make sure that when new entries are added, they are legitimate with sources, and quickly remove those that are not properly sourced.
  • It is not possible to do this in Category namespace: there is no way to have inline sourcing right there, and while you can watch a category, this only alerts you to changes for the category's header text. Anyone would have the ability to go to a random John Q Smith page and add that category and it would only be caught if someone either was watching the John Q Smith page or was reviewing each entry in the category , searching for the reference to support it, and so on. Which is basically way too much expectation to have to keep BLP clean. This is why WP:BLPCAT warns against this categories.
A list article would be find. I would assume that a person that has self-stated themselves as a CC denier or skeptic would be otherwise notable in the area of CC and thus they would appropriately have the {{Global warming}} navbox on their page, which can include a link to this list (there's already one at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming that lives in this navbox). So we still have the navigation that you're looking for without any of the BLP and sourcing issues carried by BLPCAT. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What has happened here is climate change deniers and those who oppose this category have simply adopted the age-old tactic of tiring their opponents. The consensus remains clear to keep this category as is. As a Wikipedia critic one said "In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organisations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable. These less-committed editors simply have less at stake and their attention is more distributed" AusLondonder (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or split or something, but do not keep as is This is a badge of shame category, and the fact that Category:Climate change skeptics redirects to it carries the implication that those who have reservations about the science are flatly stating that it isn't so, which is inaccurate. There are plenty of people in the category who do not deny that there might be human-generated CO2-driven climate change going on, but who are not fully on board with the current version of the theory (or for that matter how it is popularly and politically presented). The current categorization lumps them in with right-wing political hacks who dispute the theory without the slightest benefit of intellectual justification, and I personally have to believe that this is the intended POV. I realize that maintaining them as two separate categories will be problematic because it's going to be difficult to keep the proponent/opponent factions from putting people in the category most politically advantageous (to them), but the problem now is that if we take out those who are not outright deniers, others will put them back in; indeed, the boundary isn't all that sharp. A "denier" category is appropriate as long as there is someplace to put those who do not make flat denials, but at present that category doesn't exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category can't be deleted fast enough. It is Pointy, POV; against BLP. The "list of sinners" comment above puts it in perspective. Asking for a more neutrally named category to replace it is not too much to ask, considering, again, the BLP aspect and connotations. This should probably be opened up to a larger, better promoted discussion for those editors who haven't just stumbled upon the discussion as I have. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the discussion on BLPN is larger in the sense that it has more watchers (2500+ for BLPN versus 500+ for CFD), and better promoted because of notices on BLP talk pages (100+ for BLPN versus around 0 for CFD). On BLPN sentiment is about 4 to 1 for deleting / renaming / anything-but-denier versus keep-denier; on this page it's closer to an even split but this page should be trumped by BLPN anyway (WP:BLP is policy versus WP:CAT is guideline, and many of the BLPN comments discuss policy at length). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category. Unlike political denials (Holocaust denialists, etc.), this is not a helpful category. One can not classify people based on their very different views on a subject of a scientific controversy, and this is still a subject of a scientific controversy and a legitimate scientific debate. This is not like telling that Earth is flat or supporting views by Trofim Lysenko. If their views are really pseudoscientific (in many cases they are not), one should use Category:Pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek Revival buildings in Germany[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See the first discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 30, where lots of "GR buildings in PLACE" categories were renamed/merged to "GR architecture in PLACE" categories. All the other members of Category:German architectural styles are "STYLE architecture in Germany", the other three countries with GR categories are simply "GR architecture in PLACE", and I don't immediately remember seeing "STYLE buildings in PLACE" categories for any other style or any other country. As far as I know, we always use "STYLE architecture in PLACE", and any exceptions are probably holdouts that ought to be brought to CFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Clear naming convention of tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Just a note that there are a ton of these types of categories in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the justification for hidden categories located here
The Naval History & Heritage Command, formerly the Naval Historical Center, is a great resource for US Naval history. The corresponding template helps speed up citations for the NHHC which is all well and good, but it also automatically generates this hidden maintenance category. The justification for this category is that "it is used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project" but not a single WikiProject claims this category on the talk page. More generally, I'm also unclear how a citation from a particular source really "groups articles by status", the goal of all hidden categories.
(Alternatively, if kept, it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval History & Heritage Command; the template citations are already updated.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified G716 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Category talk:Wikipedia templates. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Traditions and history of the United States Navy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid the appearance of WP:OVERLAPCAT and the spirit of WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree.
This category name sounds like it is covering US Naval history but it's not; that role is played by the Category:History of the United States Navy tree. There is an emerging naming convention with the parent category, Category:Military traditions, and the sister categories: Category:United States Army traditions and Category:Royal Navy traditions. (That tree's naming is hardly unanimous though--see the Marine Corps category--so I don't think it qualifies for a speedy rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The original creator is lost in the article history but this discussion has been included in WikiProject United States. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of the August Putch opposition[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (2 participants favour deletion, and 3 are indifferent about renaming or deleting. For the record, the main article 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt says the event was also known as the August Putsch or August Coup (Russian: Августовский путч Avgustovsky Putch). The main category was speedily renamed from August Putch just before this nomination. The main article mentions very few of the current members of this category.) – Fayenatic London 22:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is awkwardly worded, but I think my proposal is faithful to what is intended. The parent category and article are Category:1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt/1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt. ("Putch" is a rough transliteration of the word that is typically used in Russian for coup d'état; the usual spelling in English is "putsch".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Not sure whether the proposed new name be best, but if it's not, at least we ought to use "putsch". Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic (for some people it's not even mentioned at all in the article). If renamed, for more clarity, it should become something like Category:Supporters of President Yeltsin during the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt. The word "opposition" or "opponents" in the category name is very confusing, you would expect that kind of terms for people who are against the ruling president instead of in favor of. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. I could also support deletion based on this reasoning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as we don't continue using "putch", I don't have an opinion on deletion vs. keeping. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Category:Supporters of the 1991 Soviet counter-coup. On my analysis, the Soviet generals staged a coup and Yeltsin staged a counter-coup. Putch is probably the same as putsch, which is a German word for the same thing. If we use the word at all we should use the German spelling, but I have only come across the term for Hitler's attempted Munich putsch. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • English has adopted "putsch" and it is found in English-language dictionaries. "Putch" is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not oppose deletion. My rename suggestion was a suggestion of a more appropriate name. If we keep with the present name, the usual spelling of "putsch" should be substituted. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that your proposal is desirable, because we have no article about the 1991 Soviet counter-coup, so readers are left adrift by a category name that contains no article-space equivalent to tie it to or to learn about the topic to which it refers. Hence my proposal to include the name of relevant article in the category name. Readers should never be required to rely on their own background knowledge or go to Google to figure out what a category name means—ideally, it should be explainable through Wikipedia links. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marco. If these people played a prominent role in the putsch then they should be linked to the article about the putsch and vice-versa. Categorizating people by having some (ill-defined) connection with an event could lead to some articles being in many such categories. Afaics these people are in categories such as Russian politicians. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16&oldid=1146651189"