Talk:Climate change denial/Archive 9

The title is not appropritely neutral.

one look at Wicktionarys page on denial will show that it is not a neutral term when used this way, it must also be considered that "denial" was coined by oppoents of the view, I see no reason this should not be changed.--70.152.25.58 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Denial" is what reliable, notable and verifiable sources say. We don't invent the term, we just document it. Your beef may be with the Royal Society, The Guardian, Newsweek, and even Rolling Stone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of the article. This article is about outright denial, and begins by making a distinction between that and good-faith skepticism. (Note that I am very much a global warming skeptic myself.) --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly revert war over nature of term denialism

After reading the article it seemed self evident that if you're comparing "climate deniers" with "holocaust deniers" it's a pejorative term. I added a simple edit to highlight that and have been reverted by Raul654, first without comment whatsoever, and now again without properly explaining himself as to why he's reverting but insisting that I take it to talk, as I now have. TMLutas (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because you substantially altered the intro with no prior discussion. From your take page, I see this is par for your course for your editing here. If you continue to edit disruptively, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing your revert of the talk page. Do you have an itchy revert trigger finger? You've done 3 reverts in the space of 17 minutes to the article and one to the talk page (since reversed). You've not proposed any compromise or any reasoning why the edit is inappropriate in your opinion. Asserting that prior authorization in the talk page is necessary doesn't make it so. Give a reason, not a 4th revert. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A lead has to be a fair an duely weighted summary of the article. Your "holocaust" argument is old, and has been discussed here many times, as well as on the AfD. Unless you can come up with something more substantial than whats in the article already - its WP:POV. Your personal view is irrelevant, provide the argument in the article first, with a good measure of reliable sources to show that this is a significant view first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick search for the word pejorative in both AfDs. It is used once and there is no discussion of it (ie no answering item to the editor using the term). Your references to the AfD do not work. Could you point out in the archive where this has been discussed before? I'm not fond of wild goose chases and you sent me on one already. TMLutas (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try holocaust instead of pejorative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure point of view is irrelevant, but plain english is not. You asked for WP:RS on the pejorative nature of the term, here's a 1st crack at it.

Can we start with a common definition of pejorative?

Now a list: [1] "They hate to be called deniers" "Ellen Goodman: ‘Global Warming Deniers Are Now on a Par with Holocaust Deniers’" The series name “The Deniers” is a disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame. I have protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail. The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention Sadly, the normal scientific progression is blocked as scientists who raise legitimate questions about the theory and the evidence are labeled skeptics or more pejoratively deniers.

I don't get paid for this stuff so you'll have to do with six entries. Google found about 10k and I hand went through maybe 40 entries worth of dross to find 6 decent ones. Where's that Scaife money when I need it?

More seriously, how about a proper link to find the archived conversation on this topic? It would be helpful.

Another thing, just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean that it is false. Baby killing baal worshippers is both pejorative and true for example because the cult of baal did practice ritual infanticide as a religious rite. This might be an opening for a compromise text, whenever protection actually gets dropped by our sysop/reverter. TMLutas (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also pointed out, for instance, that the sentence "Newsweek and others in the media describe it as a form of denialism" is totally unsupported by any of the six sources used as references. This article is beyond reason, just leave it to its current state. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As previous, i agree with you on that particular wording. But consensus was otherwise. Btw. have you finally figured that the article actually doesn't use Greenpeace as a source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not figured this out yet, no. Must be silly pov-pusher of me again. Can you help me with note 25? --Childhood's End (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, not this again. There's strong consensus that the passage is supported, let's just skip to the chace and avoid another dust up like the last one. Odd nature (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature, i still don't agree with the wording (or rather the reasoning) - but i also accept blindly that there is no consensus for my position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its note 25. Try checking it - the information isn't Greenpeace's. And while on their site, its not from Greenpeace ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there had actually been more than one reliable source in your links we could've discussed it. But once more you are putting more into the references than is there - which makes it WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you dial down the arrogance? The google search numbers should at least hint at the possibility that there's some acceptable meat there. That's why I called my rapid search a first cut. It wasn't by any means exhaustive. But you don't even do the courtesy of addressing the definitional aspect of the question. Are we agreed on what pejorative mean? I'm not interested in talking past one another, but rather on creating a decent article of the phenomenon of climate change denialism using NPOV and examining both those who are labeled deniers and those who apply the label. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed my session expired. TMLutas (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A small look at the choices you made would have told you that the sources actually doesn't support you. At least 2 in a spot check were in readers comments to blogs. And the "arrogance" is much more a sign of being tired, that you hadn't checked either the archives sufficiently or verified your links, nor even verified that there were any reliable sources in them. In a world with blogs all over the place - a meme spreads fast. That doesn't make it notable.

If you want us to react to your claim, then you'll also have to do some work. (hint: afaik noone gets payed for this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just par for the course in anything to do with climate change. You have to have reliable sources to demonstrate common english. 207.145.26.125 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very willing to accept the definition of the word pejorative, it fits very well with the way i'd describe the word. Thats not whats being questioned - sorry.

Whats required is a demonstration of Reliable sources, and that its not undue weight, that its a notable description. And text in the article that merits its inclusion in the lead etc. Your links from Google did neither.

Denial can be a lot of things - i'm personally in some degree of denial about smoking, otherwise i'd stop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)