Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2016

Controversial topics

She has made some claims that poor people should be sterilized and that they should make around 2.00 an hour to complete wth africans slaves. also she has mentioned that poor people are lazy. I won't ad these in unless others think they are appropriate.Hogie75 13:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the original quote and article were from a satirical newspaper (The Daily Currant), it would obviously be an inappropriate addition. Thank you for asking first. Kuru (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC do the sources say Monckton was a climate change denier?

This is about phrasing the 'Political activities' section of the article where there is a disagreement as detailed in the section just above this. Should describing Monckton as a climate change denier be changed to sceptic? Should we remove mention of Plimer? Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There might be other references than the ones cited but Robert Manne is a university professor of politics so his blog would seem to come under the category of a blog by a professional. Per WP:NEWSBLOG: "These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the newspaper's normal fact checking process." Manne's piece definitely categorizes Monckton as a climate change "denier" and states that Rinehart was reported to have sponsored Monckton's Australia trip. But climate change "sceptic" makes the point as well so either seems appropriate here. At some point one is obliged to avert the ridiculous. Coaster92 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sceptic" sounds more neutral than "denier" to me - I may be wrong, but the former to me simply suggests that one is sceptical of the scientific claims currently in vogue, while the latter suggests that one in denial of a self-evident truth, like a flat-earther. NPOV is a fairly fundamental policy around here. Additionally, Manne is considered a controversial writer in Australia, so his use of a particular word shouldn't really influence the usage here - he's hardly the Macquarie Dictionary. I think if this can be resolved quickly then the other content issues can be moved onto - they're more important. Orderinchaos 07:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always been a spade is a spade person myself and would say a person is dead rather than gone to meet their maker. However if people really feel that skeptic is okay for someone like Monckton I suppose that's what consensus is. Personally I feel it is a grave slight to all the people who are interested in climate change and genuinely unsure about it to have skeptic take on this meaning and to all the scientists who like to be described as skeptics.

Anyway as to Ian Plimer who she's just appointed to various boards, and all references to whom were also removed by [1] and the removal explained as in the previous discussion - how do people feel about that? Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems according to the Pentagon I should have referred to a 'combat emplacement evacuator'! ;-)Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I dislike the term too, but there's just about no other term used in the media (c.f. WP:SURPRISE) that we can readily use. "Opponent of climate change science" is wordy and probably has its own POV issues. Re Plimer - there are reliable sources - Australian PerthNow/Sunday Times - with both speaking specifically to the likely reasons why he was chosen, so it seems reasonable to put it in. Orderinchaos 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Orderinchaos does make a valid point, that "sceptic" sounds more neutral than "denier" and so would be more in line with WP:NPOV. It seems the mention of Plimer's appointment would be more appropriate under Business Activities, instead of Political Activities. Taking the article as a whole, readers will still get a picture of her beliefs.Coaster92 (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He is noted under climate change scepticism and the sources make a big point of that though. After all the other members of her boards are not mentioned under business activities, there's no real notability so they'd only be in if Wikipedia became a directory of company hierarchies. Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point Dmcq. It seems if Plimer is mentioned under Political Activities, then the connection to Political Activities needs to be made. Although I suppose if his mention is right after Monckton, the connection is there.Coaster92 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sceptic is preferred by NPOV. Nobody Ent 10:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sceptic" is a more neutral terms. That's the problem: he isn't "neutral". He goes on tours to speak against the theory. To describe this as simply "scepticism" is a foolish euphemism. He DENIES climate change is caused by human activities. That's what "denier" is short for. It does not equate to the psychological term of "being in denial". Barsoomian (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think in colloquial parlance it evidently does, which is why advocates of this or that use the term to describe their opponents. Otherwise the term 'sceptic' could be used, as it is by those arguing from a neutral standpoint. To 'deny the devil and all his works' implies that it cannot be questioned that he exists. 81.101.139.189 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: If any connexion is doirectly made to "climate change" in this BLP, then the ArbCom rulings thereon clearly would apply. I suggest that adding that side issue therefore does not benefit this BLP, as it is subject to the following ruling:.

Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article

Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WankyPedia Climate Swindlers are really exposing itself today. I'm keeping an eye on you …! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.166.107 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)