Talk:Ross McKitrick/Archive 2

Reverting "denial" for "skeptic" in lead
recently reverted "climate change denier" to "skeptic" in the lead with the summary "Pejorative per WP:BLP."

My understanding that this editor has been sanctioned indefinitely with a topic-ban from making such changes to climate-change related topics. Perhaps he is testing the bounds of his ban, but this is clearly within that topic.

Climate change denial is not a pejorative, but an accurate descriptor. Skepticism is an inherent property of being scientific, following critical processes and inquiry, not cherry-picking data to support a particular argument. It is inaccurate to ascribe "skepticism" to McKitrick -- he is presenting a contrary position that denies the vast majority of scientific inquiry, and denying that such a consensus even exists. His background is as an economist, not a scientist; he does no fundamental research into climate science. He does, however, write on tendentious matters which are weighted to be pro-business and economic development, but have no validity otherwise. It might be pejorative (but true) to call him a "corporate shill" as part of his work for the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation -- but it isn't to call him a climate change denier.

Of additional note: the Associate Press issued a Stylebook guidance two years ago, which suggested that since "skeptic" and "denial" were controversial descriptions, "Our guidance is to use 'climate change doubters' or 'those who reject mainstream climate science' and to avoid the use of 'skeptics' or 'deniers.'" While I appreciate the AP's attempt to shape a more neutral term, "doubter" has only limited acceptance and their other suggestion ("those who reject mainstream...") is laughable. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can revert the the edit of 27 July 2017 by 159.153.130.10 so that the sentence says neither "skeptic" nor "denier". Otherwise, you can see that the label is disputed by reading the previous threads in this talk page, regarding earlier attempts to add words with root "deni-" in the lead. So I believe that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies, that is, an editor who wishes to re-insert should acquire consensus first. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gulutzan. And, for User:HidariMigi, ban doesn't apply to BLP violations, which this clearly is. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As you're well aware, the ban is on any subject related to climate change ("broadly construed")-- and that includes biographies and making reversions. The Arbitration specifically addressed this issue:
 * 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages;
 * You wouldn't be monitoring this article if the subject were not a climate-change "denying" economist. This is precisely the sort of editing that got you into hot water originally. Further discussions on this can and should be taken up on your talk page, because even editing on this page is considered a violation of your topic ban. --HidariMigi (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the edit by 159.153.130.10. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the tag-team editing of both of the above editors shows a pattern of concerted effort to bypass sanctions on climate-change topics, which has been noted previously. Removing the description "climate change denial" from this article is clearly another such attempt, testing whether anyone is paying attention or is still around. (Such as, for example, who appears to have stopped editing.) --HidariMigi (talk)


 * Yes, I've essentially stopped editing due to IRL circumstances, but thanks for the tag. Both these editors were well aware of our policies and the extent of the TB before I left, years ago. If this hasn't been put to an end by now, it's well past time to take further action.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My one and only edit of this article in 2016-2017 was to remove from the lead "and climate skeptic", in effect partially reverting Tillman and partially accepting your complaint about use of that term (read the title of this thread). I believe that an objective observer would call that "compromise" rather than making such strong accusations about my conduct. Now you have made another change to the lead, to say McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial", which is nearly the same as what's in Jess's October 27 2015 change = "authored works promoting climate change denial", which was disputed in the earlier talk page discussion (mostly between Jess and another editor) and removed. Since you only pinged Jess and not the other editor, I must ask: have you read WP:CANVASS which says you should not be selective? And I must ask -- this is the second time I must bring it up -- have you read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE which says you must not re-insert disputed material without consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * HidariMigi: If there's no reply, then I'll revert. If there's objection to reversion, then I'll start a new thread and ping the editors who discussed this in the earlier threads. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Threatening reversion by way of getting response is inappropriate and antithetical to Wikipedia norms. There's no requirement anyone reply to tendentious editors such as yourself. The body of evidence from your edit history shows that you are pushing a particular fringe viewpoint on climate science; and that your ongoing campaign is to obfuscate "climate change denial" by watering down "denial" and relabeling denialism with the euphemistic and oxymoronic "skeptic" or removing the phrase entirely.. So yes, that's an objection and repudiation of your methodology.--HidariMigi (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the accusations about my conduct, and realizing that some of my questions will not be answered, I acknowledge that there is an objection. So I will, as I said, start another thread and ping the editors who discussed this in the earlier threads. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)