Talk:Myron Ebell

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: I tried to remove some POV, including content not backed up by references or "referenced" with a blog. The long quotes in the "litigation" subsection may be undue. In any case, are the tags still necessary?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BatteryIncluded: Please try to keep your edits as NPOV as possible. This article should not be an attack page. This isn't an essay on climate change either.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the BULLSHIT. He is known for climate warming denial and chosen for THAT. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that he is an analyst of climate change, and that he takes a skeptical view. Please don't be POV-pushing.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete fucking denial is not skepticism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we want this article to be NPOV. Take a deep breath. This isn't a far-left blog; this is Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: His beliefs and goals are extremely well documented: "Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief". . So please cut the bullshit! I'm not a newbie you can intimidate with BS and pseudo-policies out of your @ BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "sometimes described" suggests it is POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nonsense. You repeatedly make false statements, about the article's subject, about science, and about WP policy. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

text: That characterization is POV-pushing and undue weight. It's like describing Ray Comfort as an analyst of evolution who takes a skeptical view. Such descriptions are not consistent with the state of scientific evidence or with the actual activities and roles of these gentlemen. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it is the most neutral way to put it. Wikipedia cannot take sides on climate change. We simply describe things as they are, just like an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is in direct violation of "undue weight" policy. And Wikipedia isn't "just like" an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia -- and other encyclopedias "take the side" of truth. I pointed out how your description is not neutral, and you simply ignored it. "The way things are" is that anthrogenic global warming is firmly established scientific fact and results in extreme and rapid climate change. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK you're wrong. Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus. Ebell is a skeptical analyst. That's all.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not wrong, but thanks for outing yourself as a climate science denier. Goodbye. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have zero opinion about climate change. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But you do have an opinion, which you push. What you lack is understanding of climate change and Ebell's roll in that propaganda.. Your edits are only as good as your references. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion whatsoever! Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH has nothing to do with it. You stated an opinion: "Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus." -- and that opinion is factually incorrect. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

text: "Regarding climate change, there is no conclusive consensus" is an opinion on climate change -- an opinion that is contrary to fact. You have repeatedly made proven false claims here. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you claiming something doesn't make it true. Calling the subject a "climate change analyst" is unsupported by and contrary to all reliable sources, and thus is the opposite of neutral. And "Wikipedia cannot take sides on climate change. We simply describe things as they are" is a contradiction. The way things are is that humans cause global warming which causes rapid climate change. There are no "sides" on such empirical matters. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: User:Mr. Granger: Could you please revert to the edit with the NPOV lede you added? Some IP addresses have vandalized it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BatteryIncluded: It is standard to start with the broadest, most neutral description, then go into more detail. Can you please restore, "is a public policy analyst on climate change."? If you open an encyclopedia, they always start like that. This will help with the "clean-up" tag.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: False charges of vandalizing are an extreme violation of WP policy. Calling changes that you disagree with "vandalizing" is proof of bad faith. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

text: You have no understanding of what vandalizing is, or apparently any other WP policy or concept. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede

message: "Climate change analysis" or "Climate change skepticism"? I feel like "analysis" sounds more NPOV. Newsweek uses "skepticism" though.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not an "analyst" of climate change, he's a political hack and lobbyist. He has zero background in science, let alone climate science. He has a fixed position derived from ideology, not study, understanding, or "analysis" of climate science, which he knows next to nothing about. Calling him an "analyst" is POV and inaccurate. Calling him a "skeptic" is the mildest way to let the reader know what he is. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I question Zigzig20s' apparent intentions to sanitize this article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know his intentions, but his arguments are bogus and ignore well-established WP policy regarding scientific subjects. This article reads like Myron Ebell is a climate scientist, which is the furthest thing from the truth. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: P.S. I see that he keeps adding the text "a public policy analyst on climate change", when there is no reliable source supporting that characterization, which is in fact false. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to improve the article by addressing the issues of tone and clean-up in the tags. He certainly analyzes climate change, so that seems like the most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a reliable source for your (false) claim that he analyzes climate change. I changed it to say that he is a global warming skeptic, which is supported by numerous reliable sources. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He has written about climate change. He is an analyst of climate change. Then, he takes a skeptical view of climate change in his analyses. We always start with the broadest, most neutral description in ledes.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks, User:Mr. Granger, for the short sentence you added.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: You haven't provided the requested source. Writing about climate change isn't the same as analyzing it. And if you are basing this on your reading of his analyses, that's OR. Look, I know what sort of person you are and what you're up to. Now that Trump has been elected, it doesn't much matter ... human civilization on this planet is soon over. I will still call out this sort of BS, but I won't waste any more time on you ... someone else will have to. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He who writes analyses is an analyst. It's the broadest, most neutral way to describe him.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't write climate change analyses ... having zero background in science, he has no ability to do so. Lying about him is not neutral. He does write political "analyses", but they are based on climate science denial. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known for 

message: User:MatthewVanitas: You added two tags in 2008: clean-up and tone. Can you please let us know if you believe they should still be here? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that User:BatteryIncluded has removed them without consensus for the second time.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus in this Talk page is that the word "denier" is very well documented, it is not an attack to Ebell as he says so in his writings and statements to the press. His entire career is based on global warming denial.  The only editor opposed to this article consensus is you; and your rationale has been shown to be biased and wrong. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: No one owns this page and no one owns tags. The opinion of an editor who added a tag 8 years ago is no more relevant than the opinion of any other editor. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

text: A reality check on semantics: The PR technique Ebell is using is identical to the creationists' teach the controversy, where they feed the populace the false information  that there is a scientific debate on the age of Earth and the existence of evolution. The issue was settled by science long ago, but it took a visit to the legal court system to stop their metastasis into the public school system.  Unfortunately, the courts had not caught up yet with Ebell to make him stop -and now under Trump's wing, he likely won't be stopped for a long time. Be aware that Ebell's PR machine does zero scientific research, so it purposely milks the word "skeptic" to feed the impression that there is scientific legitimacy to his denial. His PR propaganda technique is known, so it is imperative that editors in Wikipedia do not take the use of the word 'skeptic' lightly, when in fact it is a blatant denial. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up and tone tags 

message: *"While not himself a scientist, he is a longtime climate change denier"
The sentence structure makes it sound like a contradiction, but actually the vast majority of climate science deniers are not scientists.
*"Ebell has no formal scientific education and has made no claims as such, however has held positions that require a vast understanding of scientific data."
Which positions are those? Working for the CEI does obviously not require that.
*"Ebell plays a prominent part in producing news releases at the CEI on climate change from an "informed layman's perspective""
In his own words. Scientists would call him disinformed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV wordings 

message: Notice just in case he returns. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zigzig20s is topic banned from all pages related to climate change 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Myron Ebell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001051441/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I gave the ealry version some tags, as they contained obviously biased content. First we do not have to care a dam about science. Economics is much more important in assessing climate change resepectively working on environemntal issues and a large part of the important parts of IPCC assessment is written by non scientists. Thank God. That said, try to describe the person without hatred, and if youre not able to, skip the topic. Polentarion Talk 23:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinions are not relevant. And do try to respect other editors by avoiding streams of typos. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "First we do not have to care a dam about science."  Thank you for revealing your intellect and intentions in Wikipedia. Priceless. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  A google scholar search about Ebell gets about 260 entries. Non of them has been quoted so far here. E.g. the university of Singapur did a linguistic study on a Ebell versus Trenberth discussion. That said, the article is a typical attack piece based on media snippets and doesn't use the Ebell's coverage in real academia or his actual political role. That sort of "science" is rather amateurish. Polentarion Talk 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion, are you thinking of ? Do you have access to this? From the abstract: A “multimodal digital semiotics” approach .... demonstrated through the analysis of an interview between a climate scientist and a climate denialist on Fox News .... accounting for how the climate denialist emerges as the dominant and convincing interviewee." Which confirms that Ebell's good at conning people. Not sure how well that fits with this article. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The really interesting things and trends are being found in the humanities and yes, O'Hallearan's study is about the topic of this article. Like you, I just read the abstract, but I am sure it would fit. I love to write articles based on stuff like that. Polentarion Talk 22:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Really?  I think it's remarkable that a non-scientist would head an agency with such a large scientific purview. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you *very much* for the comments - yes - agreed - being aware that Ebell is not a scientist seems particularly relevant to administering the EPA, a science-related agency created to protect "human health and the environment" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Its quite normal and far from being noteable. Already the Manhattan project was lead by a general, not an egghead. Polentarion Talk 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments - you may be right of course [edit - actually, and if interested, the "Manhattan Project" is well described in one of my created articles => "The Bomb (2015 PBS film)"] - nonetheless - being a non-scientist administrator of a science-related agency seems relevant - and worthy of note - comments welcome from others of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see how an Army-led single-purpose project to build a bomb compares to the EPA. PepperBeast (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am always right ;) The manhattan project was the largest scientific research project of its time and a role model of anything to follow. I happened to be the author that wrote the parts of Politics_of_global_warming which describe how Nixon in 1969 tried to give NATO the lead in global warming research. That said, Opera houses are not being lead by singers as well and an agency needs an administrator: An academic is needed, a lawyer or bureaucrat mostly fits, a scientist mostly fails. Before I started to edit the article, the attack piece lede did not mention at all that Ebell had a university background. Polentarion Talk 01:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The "see also" section seems relevant, and an improvement, to the article - comments welcome from others of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have a certain policy regarding see alsos, which should be followed. And no, I don't enjoy the current version. But it might take some time till the gang has understood that a democratic vote has an impact, even on settled sciences. Big grin ;)  Polentarion Talk 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not your soapbox. It is clear that you are an ideologue, not an objective editor. Go work on something that you have no opinion on. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character assassination attempt 

message: The founder of the EPA (and the first politician to introduce global warming as a major policy topic), a man called Richard Nixon was no scientist at all, but like Barack Obama a lawyer. That said, there is no reason to be a scientist to deal with climate change or environmtal issues and no reason to mention that in the lede. To be deleted. Polentarion Talk 00:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I think it's remarkable that a non-scientist would head an agency with such a large scientific purview. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you *very much* for the comments - yes - agreed - being aware that Ebell is not a scientist seems particularly relevant to administering the EPA, a science-related agency created to protect "human health and the environment" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Its quite normal and far from being noteable. Already the Manhattan project was lead by a general, not an egghead. Polentarion Talk 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments - you may be right of course [edit - actually, and if interested, the "Manhattan Project" is well described in one of my created articles => "The Bomb (2015 PBS film)"] - nonetheless - being a non-scientist administrator of a science-related agency seems relevant - and worthy of note - comments welcome from others of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see how an Army-led single-purpose project to build a bomb compares to the EPA. PepperBeast (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am always right ;) The manhattan project was the largest scientific research project of its time and a role model of anything to follow. I happened to be the author that wrote the parts of Politics_of_global_warming which describe how Nixon in 1969 tried to give NATO the lead in global warming research. That said, Opera houses are not being lead by singers as well and an agency needs an administrator: An academic is needed, a lawyer or bureaucrat mostly fits, a scientist mostly fails. Before I started to edit the article, the attack piece lede did not mention at all that Ebell had a university background. Polentarion Talk 01:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a scientist 

message: Neither of the links has anything to do with the article. Part of the attack piece effort, nothing else. Should be deleted. Polentarion Talk 00:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "see also" section seems relevant, and an improvement, to the article - comments welcome from others of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have a certain policy regarding see alsos, which should be followed. And no, I don't enjoy the current version. But it might take some time till the gang has understood that a democratic vote has an impact, even on settled sciences. Big grin ;)  Polentarion Talk 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not your soapbox. It is clear that you are an ideologue, not an objective editor. Go work on something that you have no opinion on. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also overkill 

message: An editor continues to include the following sentence to the section "tobacco industry":
* "The tobacco company Philip Morris USA hired Ebell in the 1990s as Policy Director to mount a campaign to make regulating the tobacco industry "politically unpalatable", and to advocate for acceptance of "safer cigarettes."
This is the source cited.
A careful read of the source cited yields the following:
*In 1996, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, an early employer of Ebell, wrote a letter to the president of the Tobacco Institute saying that funding from the Tobacco Institute helped Frontiers hire Ebell as its policy director.
*In 1998, Frontiers requested more funding from Phillip Morris for several staff, including Ebell, as part of a broad campaign to make regulating the tobacco industry "politically unpalatable."
*In the 1990s, Philip Morris funded CEI as CEI advocated for acceptance of "safer cigarettes."
The source does not support that Philip Morris ever hired Ebell.  The source specifically states that Ebell was an employee of Frontiers.  As well, Ebell is not the sole employee of CEI.  The deduction that Ebell was ever "hired" by Philip Morris is not correct.  I will again remove the sentence from the article, and ask other editors to support the text-source integrity of the article.  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence in question has been revised to more closely match the source.  — TPX 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobacco industry 

message: Myron Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. He is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a loose coalition formed in 1997 focused on dispelling alleged global warming myths. [1][2]
In September 2016, Ebell was appointed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to lead his transition team for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[6] Donald Trump's decision to announce Ebell, a devoted climate skeptic respectively showcase climate change denier[7] to transition EPA raised fears of failure to act quickly on climate change. It has been deemed part of the Trump taboo at the 2016 Climate conference in Marrakesh.[8] 
; comments 
Polentarion Talk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW - the "current lede" (see copy below) seems Excellent - clear, accurate and well-cited - and does not need to be changed to the "suggested lede" described above imo atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That suggested lede is not NPOV. "raised fears of failure"? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem with the current lead is that the Trump-nomination is not mentioned in the body of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  fixed that NPalgan2 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is alarmingly quick sometimes! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The topic is Trump's Environmental Protection Agency transition team rather than his campaign, so I've changed the section title. It's yet to be seen if Ebell will take a prominent position in the administration, judging by current news reports. . dave souza, talk 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Lede 

message: This article and talk page are covered by 3 sets of discretionary sanctions - post 1932 American politics and those at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Please read the notice at the top of this page and the edit notice when you edit the article. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive, does he get a prize or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very impressive, indeed. Some guy intended to have fringe theories sanctions being added. The funny thing is that the one author that successfully called for joint biased action here on his blog is rightfully excluded from editing any BLP article in the climate change realm. Polentarion Talk 04:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretionary sanctions 

message: Several people on both sides seem to be becoming angrier and angrier, and riling each other into fresh incivilities. You know who you are, I'm sure, and I certainly don't mean everybody (indeed I congratulate some others on keeping their cool). Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Please dial it back before I start handing out sanctions. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The tone on this page

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Myron Ebell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201015906/http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm to http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor removed text about Ebell's falsehoods claims about climate change, suggesting that Climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. However, Climatefeedback.org is a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect, I reverted Snooganssnoogans's edit here with the edit summary  "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN." The cite is to this post on a website named "Climate Feedback" by Scott Johnson -- not a climatologist, just an editor who has a Master of Science degree (so does Ebell, big deal). There is no evidence that the post was subject to any editorial control, which is natural, Johnson's the editor. All that Johnson has done is say Ebell made an inaccurate statement based on excerpts from comments of three other people -- that do not mention Ebell at all. For each, Johnson says "This comment is taken from an evaluation of a similar claim." I concluded it's a self-published non-expert opinion, hence not compliant with WP:BLPSPS. As for WP:WELLKNOWN, I was referring to the words "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I see no other sites that claim that Ebell said that and that it's false, so it's non-compliant with that too. Whether it also is non-compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE looks probable but I didn't see a need to bring them up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Climate Feedback is a reliable source for critique of climate change denialism. It has good standards, an editorial review board, and is widely cited by other RS such as The Guardian, Die Welt and others. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy has re-inserted contentious material which was reverted on good-faith BLP grounds, added a cite to an article that says nothing whatever about Ebell's statement, and repeated the RS claim instead of addressing the issue. Does anyone else have relevant input? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Snooganssnoogans revived this matter by referring to my revert on my talk page and in a WP:BLPN thread, so I started a WP:BLPN thread with the specific heading Myron Ebell, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climatefeedback.org is a RS 

message: Regarding  of two separate edits (, ):
* Yes there is a talk page, but edits do not require talk page posts beforehand.
*The material is already in the lead. It was moved up to the first paragraph because  per MOS:OPENPARABIO and  per MOS:LEAD. The majority of significant coverage of Ebell is about his role in the 2016 EPA transition team and climate change denial.
*See WP:SHORTDESC if you don’t know what a short description is for. The current default one is . I’d also be fine putting that in explicitly in the shortdesc template.
Thanks. — MarkH21talk 19:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my poor edit summary. What you've done is insert "climate change denier" into the first sentence. MOS:LEADSENTENCE says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. ... For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." But that is not the "definition" of Mr Ebell and he is not "notable only for that reason", so there is no justification there for your insertion. Naturally you may think that anybody who is subject to name-calling must be defined that way, but you know perfectly well (if you read the lead before you edited) that that is not the only way that he has been described, so choosing that alone is a WP:NPOV violation. As for the WP:SHORTDESC information page, read it yourself: "Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental."  Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But climate change denial is his actual job. He works for a market fundamentalist organization, which is notorious for its science denial, as Director of the subdivision which does the denying. It's not as if he mentioned in passing that he does not accept the consensus. It is his defining property. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- I think it's appropriate, it's at the core of what he is notable for.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Three editors want the insertion and I'm the only one who wants it out. I self-reverted because (at this moment at least) there is consensus. Of course that does not mean I agree, and if other editors want to look at my original revert, perhaps someday consensus can change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of lead edit and short description 

message: See . Andol (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  He has recently retired