< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Category:Aramean Swedish football clubs

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]
  • 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

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

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]
  • Propose merging Category:Dutch people of Aramean descent‎ to Category:European people of Aramean descent‎ and Category:Dutch people of Assyrian/Syriac descent
  • Propose merging Category:Swedish people of Aramean descent‎ to Category:European people of Aramean descent‎ and Category:Swedish people of Assyrian/Syriac descent
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]
  • @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]
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

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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Aramean nationalists‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Aramean activists‎ (parent category of the previous)
  • Propose deleting Category:Aramean people by occupation‎ (parent category of the previous)
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

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]
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

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]
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

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]
  • Propose renaming Category:Analysts of Kashmir conflict to Category:Analysts of the Kashmir conflict
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

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]
  • Note to closer: I have tagged Category:Berber tribes as well. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 19 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

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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
Update: I have now made the WP:BLPN notice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 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]

  • 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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

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]
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

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]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Naval Historical Center
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

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

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]
  • Propose renaming Category:People of the August Putch opposition to Category:Opponents of the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt
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]
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.
More