Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 3

some biased sentences

These two sentences appear to introduce editorial bias:

After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."[9] The method used is to attract volunteers of varying levels of expertise who undertake to estimate the siting, usage and other conditions of weather stations in NOAA's Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and grade them for their compliance with the standards published in the organization's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook.[10]

The first sentence is a complete distortion of the source, such that the article is appearing to say the opposite of what the source says. The word "only" is a value judgement added by the editor. On "small percentage", the source has Watts explicitly urging caution after the "small percentage" has been surveyed. The article, on the other hand, has him doing the opposite, i.e. making conclusions on the 40 stations surveyed.

The second sentence doesn't give a source at all (I assume it comes from surfacestations.org somewhere). The wording is bad, though, in that it says Watts intention is to attract volunteers "of varying levels of experience". What I find the project stating is this: "Anyone with a digital camera, handheld GPS and and basic observation and reporting skills can contribute to this database." That to me says, "no particular experience required, this work is easy."

See also User_talk:Alexh19740110#This_is_going_too_far. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Alex Harvey. Let's plan to delete the inappropriate POV language. 99.204.116.86 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Second. WVBluefield (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your assertion of complete distortion. The text appears entirely accurate. Restored William M. Connolley (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Here is the source:

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

And here is what you have in the text:

After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

So you are saying that you can't notice any differences in meaning at all; that would be a correct interpretation of your "entirely accurate" above, correct? And does Kim D. Petersen also still maintain that he can't notice any differences either? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the point with "only," and maybe with "predicted." Better to state "After 3% of the stations in the network had been surveyed, Watts said he expected..." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a start, and may be a diplomatic proposal, but we still have a kind of synthesis, and there is still bias through omission. After 3% of stations were surveyed, Watts has done a lot of stuff. How about, After 3% of stations surveyed, Watts' blog won the 2008 Wizbang award. A true statement, but purely original research and synthesis. In order for this not to be synthesis, we need to follow the actual linking of ideas that is in the source. After 3% of stations were surveyed, Watts urged caution, but nevertheless felt doubtful that NOAA's temperature reports were accurate. He said at the time, "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

BUT, is this source actually reliable? It's an op-ed, and I am rather suspicious about it. The statements appear to contradict each other, suggesting the journalist has put his own spin on it. This is why I favour just dropping the whole thing. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(And of course there is the weight problem; why do we care about what happened after 3% of stations were surveyed now that 90% have been surveyed? What is so significant about the 3% mark?) Alex Harvey (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the 3% -- why not 2%, or 4%. How about "As the project began, Watts said he expected..."? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To avoid having individual editors calculate their own preferred percentages or descriptions of those percentages, etc., I've tried a rewrite of the section to avoid all that. The SurfaceStations.org section also had a flow where individuals seemed to be responding to information at the beginning of the project (e.g., Jay Lawrimore) when in fact their comments are referring to the present state of the project (2009). I've tried to rearrange things to give a better history and reflect a truer chronology of events (including responses to Watts' project). I've cited the actual numbers mentioned in the sources to avoid personal calculations. Haven't dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, but I think it's a good start. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very good, well done. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

the Wizbang thing

Either mentioning no award or explaining who gave him the award, either one, is preferable to offering zero context, as this article previously did. Why is the award important? If the company who gives out the award is irrelevant, then the award is irrelevant. If the award is relevant, then the reader would benefit from knowing why there is such an award — who offers it? just some guy? a private company? a consortium? the internet police? the secret one world government? Why should the reader care that he got an award unless they know who gave it to him? Awards are relevant, or not, depending on who's giving them out. No one cares about Little League trophies.

This article appears to be intensely edited by a few people at a rapid pace. Would it be useful to bring in some disinterested third parties?

Also, are informative edit summaries not as important as the guidelines suggest? Reversions here have been sparsely annotated. ~YellowFives 06:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference covers that. Putting too much detail in the text just makes it a clumsy read. At any rate, it is a user poll where individual users (>37,000 last year) cast votes and not simply something awarded by some company. Again, clearly stated in the reference. Q Science (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference does not cover that. Aylward has made a substantial effort to present his project as no less than The Weblog Awards, period, as though there was something official about it. That's good for his marketing, but bad for the Wikipedia reader. The sentence as currently written is extremely misleading and uninformative. "In 2008, his blog won a Best Science Blog Award" means nothing, and if that's the extent of our coverage then we shouldn't cover it at all. Seven more words are a brief and concise way of adding context and making our coverage meaningful to the reader:

• "from Kevin Aylward's private company, Wizbang LLC." But we could be even more concise if necessary.
• "from Kevin Aylward's private company."
• "from a private company, Wizbang LLC."
• "from a private company."

The last sacrifices much context, but is still more useful than what we have now. ~YellowFives 13:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. Now I start wondering if the award is notable enough to be mentioned at all... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you perhaps not aware of it because our coverage was lacking necessary detail? Atmoz believes that Wizbang LLC is not notable enough for mention. If this is true, then Wizbang's awards are not notable either. Particularly because the awards are so vaguely named The Weblog Awards, we are misleading readers into assuming that the awards are more important than they are, unless we explicitly state the company behind the award. ~YellowFives 15:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If Time Magazine gave an award, would you say "some private company"? Are the Oscars awarded by "some private company"? I consider your use of that phrase to be inappropriate. And by the way, the reference says exactly what I said above. Why do you claim otherwise? Q Science (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So "The Weblog Awards" are on the level of an Oscar or Time's Person of the Year? No. These are obscure awards by an obscure company, and we cannot expect the reader to recognize them. They do not have anything like the recognition of the Oscars, so we can't say "he won a Weblog Award" and expect that it means anything to the reader like it would if we just said "he won an Oscar." But in any case, we don't say "Barack Obama won a Person of the Year award." We say "In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year ..." We not only say that he won an award, we say who gave him the award. So if you want to claim that "The Weblog Awards" are comparable to Time's award, then we should treat them like Time's award, stating that they are Kevin Aylward's and/or Wizbang LLC's award, and we should have a whole Wikipedia article for them.

In response to the entirety of my first comment, you asserted "The reference covers that." And it does not. So I replied, factually, "The reference does not cover that." The reference does not make clear who owns the awards, or that they are just named The Weblog Awards as a marketing gimmick. And a fine gimmick they are. I recognize Aylward's marketing savvy. Good for him. Bad for Wikipedia's readership. ~YellowFives 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog awards are a dime-a-dozen. Leaving it in pacifies those that think it's important. -Atmoz (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether the award is in or out. If it's in, it should just be noted for exactly what it is. ~YellowFives 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• The "private company" doesn't determine who the award goes to so it's as irrelevant as it is uninformative (the BET, Golden Globes, Oscars, Tonys, etc., are all private company awards). Many sites, even those who don't like the process because of the outcome, such as Pharyngula [[1]], which came in second in 2008, & Deltoid [[2]] lobbied for the votes along with other sites [[3]] (just some quick examples) specifically because the internet voting Weblog Award indicates both popularity and intensity of following (an "American Idol" or "Britain's Got Talent" voting method). All the previously mentioned sites, favorable to the Weblog Awards or not, refer to the Awards without qualifiers. All these sites found no meaningful "context" in mentioning the "private company" source of the award (are there any that are not private?). Given the internet voting protocol for awarding them, adding the "private company" qualifier adds no meaningful information. The Weblog Award is well enough known amongst the internet blogging community as to not require the qualifiers. That information, if included at all, properly belongs in the "clutter cleaner"--the footnotes.

Any lengthy description of how the voting process works or who runs it (just like a discussion of "the private company/owner" for the BET, Grammy, Tony, Golden Globe, etc., awards) belongs in the footnotes. The awards are always referred to by their name, not their owner (Grammy & Tony don't own their respective awards). If you want to include details on the award-giver and/or how the voting process works, a footnote would be more appropriate. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's readership is not limited to the internet blogging community, so we cannot use that community's familiarity to determine what we report here. All of the examples you give, BET, Golden Globe, Oscar, Tony, Grammy, have at least two important differences from Wizbang's award.

• First, the Oscars and such are already fairly well known to the general public, rather than a small and insular blogging community, and hence need little or no explanation.
• Second, they are distinctively named (the "Oscars" or "Acadamy Awards" rather than "The Movie Awards"), and so do not imply that they are anything bigger or more official than they really are, and need no caveat.

Neither justification applies to this award. "The Weblog Awards" lack both recognition and distinctiveness. If the name was not so generic, then there would be less reason to make the distinction for our readers. As it is, SPLETTE did not know that this was the project of a small private company, so we can expect that many readers will be similarly unaware. Your edit is informative in its own right, as it explains the process, but it does not address the rest of these problems.

The "private company" does determine who the award goes to, because they choose both the categories and the finalist nominees. Watts could not have won the award without this deliberate action by Wizbang. This is yet another reason that the company needs to be mentioned.

The non-distinctive name of "The Weblog Awards" allows Aylward and his award winners to capitalize on the important-sounding gravitas of the unqualified definite article. That's great for them. But here at Wikipedia we have a duty to our readers, to make clear that this is a weblog award, not the weblog award, just one weblog award among many. ~YellowFives 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"'The Weblog Awards' allows Aylward and his award winners to capitalize on the important-sounding gravitas of the unqualified definite article."

I believe we have here the nub of the issue--your specifically-stated POV; that is, you don't like the idea that receiving the award might confer "credibility" to Watts blog and make it clear, here, that you have a POV that you want represented to minimize the "award"--my edits specifically addressed that. I tried to compromise and add context that described the award's mechanism so as to make clear how the award is received (internet voting). It is standard practice on both the web (as I documented) and the media to refer to the award by it's name without prepending the sponsor to it.

You don't have to like the name of the award or wish it were more descriptive or less impressive sounding--the name is what it is and that's the NPOV way to present it. I believe the continued removal of your reference by other editors indicates what the consensus is here, so I'm returning the article to standard form when citing such awards. If a reader cares, the references are there specifically so they can do follow-up research, if they are so inclined, to determine how significant the award is. This isn't an issue of "confusion" except insofar as you think we're confused as to your POV. --John G. Miles (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation is insulting. I never said or implied that I don't like the award, and I never said anything about "credibility." I think it's a fine award, and Watts won it fair and square. But it is a problem if readers believe the award to be something it's not. It would be a problem just the same if our article implied it was less well known than it really is. I went and read WP:NPOV just now to be sure that I understand the policy. There's nothing "POV" about simply stating the fact that it is an award from Wizbang. It is a fact, and facts are NPOV. Again, standard practice among bloggers is not relevant to Wikipedia. People other than bloggers read Wikipedia. We already have one person here who did not understand what the award was, SPLETTE, above. That's a problem, and it's a problem that is not addressed by your edit (which is otherwise informative in its own right), because the problem is not dependant upon the mechanism of the award. And the information is not in the reference. The reference does not make clear that Aylward invented the award. In any case, the full mechanism of deciding the award is not included in your edit, as the categories and finalist nominees are not chosen by a vote but are chosen directy by Aylward and his team.

This is not an issue of NPOV. The article is NPOV with or without the mention of Wizbang and/or Aylward. It's an issue of facts, and helping readers navigate ambiguity. The degree of specificity to which we cover a topic should be decided by the reader's likely understanding, and we already have evidence from this discussion of at least one person who was not aware of this particular fact. By your reasoning, all disambiguation on Wikipedia would be POV, and we are violating NPOV by qualifying "Anthony Watts" as "Anthony Watts (blogger)" because some people don't respect bloggers. We have an obligation to our readers to clarify any potential misunderstandings, and this one can be clarified without adding a single word, as my last edit showed.

Blogs in general are not reliable sources, but since you apppear to think they are, for you I will note that there is plenty of precedent for referring to these as the Wizbang Weblog Awards.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Among those are Power Line, Boing Boing, and the National Review Online. And the Online Journalism Review, a partnership between the USC Annenberg School for Communication and the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, refers to them as "Aylward's Weblog Awards."[23]

Since no one responded to my question about bringing in disinterested third parties, I'm going ahead and asking for RFC. In the meantime, while you cannot possibly claim that the word "Wizbang" is POV, a more serious distortion is your claim that there is a "continued removal of [my] reference by other editors" representing any kind of consensus. Only two people, you and Atmoz, have removed the reference to Wizbang. That's not much of a consensus. ~YellowFives 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation, it was a description. If you look for offense you will always find it--it wasn't intended that way, but I believe the description was an accurate one. I believe your complaint that not stating it is a private company (which doesn't address your basic objection anyway since all such awards are given by private companies) allows those who win "to capitalize on the important-sounding gravitas" by the use of the definite article "the" before "the" Weblog Awards (your words and contention) is a specific argument to not wanting to grant credibility to the winner who happened, in this case, to be Watts. My personal opinion is that that is a POV argument (it's okay, we all have them)--you need not agree and the discussion can still remain civil.

The original reference included the relevant information, though any sentence can be improved upon. I had already added more adjectives to try to be cooperative and address your needs (that other editors did not seem overly wrought about). What I object to is the effort to insert qualifiers to the name of an award for the explicitly stated reason that you don't like the name of the award because it adds credibility to the receiver. I consider that to be POV reasoning and it's okay for me to express that opinion based on a very explicit statement without your being required to consider it an insult; however, I wasn't the one making the argument complaining about granting some amorphous aggrandizement of the receiver of the award by the simple use of the proper article before a proper noun: the definite article "the" (you had removed the name of the award altogether, which suggests it wasn't simply about providing qualifiers to the word "the").

Having said that, I was personally planning on coming back to see if it could be further tweaked to satisfy your demands. I already tried it once and it was unsatisfactory to you because it wasn't your specifically required adjective. I pointed out the obvious--that the award is called what it is called and that the clutter and distraction factor is what is at issue here. Nothing whatsoever is lost by including it in the footnote. I think you will find that those who have worked on these BLPs in the controversial area of global warming where edit wars tend to break out consistently have decided deliberation and patience is the better part of valor. Progress was being made and a revert isn't final—it just allows time for the next day for thought and to provide additional suggestions. And any additional information you provided (as you did above) would have been taken seriously into account. I think you're projecting your intransigence on the issue onto the rest of us. Unfortunately, I haven't even had the time to follow your references so can't comment on your specific points (other than already addressed before) at this point, but I think it's fair to say we would have arrived at a mutually agreeable conclusion without the RfC.

By the way, "But it is a problem if readers believe the award to be something it's not" is also an original research conjecture on your part. That statement also requires no insult be taken. You are free to try to disabuse me of my opinion. But I do, again, believe it betrays an underlying POV that insists your demand be met without allowing additional discussion before escalating to the next defcon level. --John G. Miles (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"But I do, again, believe it betrays an underlying POV that insists your demand be met without allowing additional discussion before escalating to the next defcon level." — What defcon level? Just what exactly are you complaining about? I haven't reverted your latest edit.

It doesn't matter if all weblog awards are given out by private companies, we have readers with naive understandings of the Internet. A name like "The Weblog Awards" sounds official, and sounds like it could come from something like the W3C. We cannot assume familiarity on the reader's part. I have not changed any references. The original sentence did not include the relevant information. It did not make clear that The Weblog Awards are owned and invented by Aylward/Wizbang. You added the latter part of the mechanism by which the award winner is chosen, and while this is informative in its own right, as I've told you three times now it does not address the problem, because it does not make clear the source of the award. I did not say anything about "credibility" and again you are distorting what I've said.

"(you had removed the name of the award altogether, which suggests it wasn't simply about providing qualifiers to the word "the")" — This is also a distortion, completely untrue. I am fine with including the name of the award. I don't think such a generic name adds any information at all to the article, but I'm still fine with it. Any time you would like to stop making up falsehoods about me, you're welcome to.

Nothing is lost by including the single word "Wizbang" in the article text. It is referred to as the Wizbang Weblog Awards by many people, and this is much clearer for the reader.

"I think you're projecting your intransigence on the issue onto the rest of us." — This is another distortion. Before this current comment, where I have had to respond to your multiple distortions, I have previously said nothing indicating anything about anyone here. Stop putting words in my mouth.

"By the way, "But it is a problem if readers believe the award to be something it's not" is also an original research conjecture on your part." — No it is not. I read WP:NPOV earlier and it was obvious that there is nothing POV about the word "Wizbang". I have read WP:NOR now and it is obvious that a discussion on a talk page has nothing to do with it. You are wrong about both charges.

You can demonstrate otherwise by quoting the parts of NPOV and NOR that the word "Wizbang" supposedly violates, and explaining exactly how the word "Wizbang" violates those policies. Don't speak so vaguely. Explain exactly how this edit violates NPOV and NOR, quoting the relevant section of those policies. Until you do so, all you're doing is hand-waving over some magic wiki words. ~YellowFives 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and NOR are policies concerning articles, not talk pages. I would be violating NOR if I said in the article, 'In 2008, his blog won Wizbang's internet voting-based "Best Science Blog" Weblog Award, which most people do not care about.' I would be violating NPOV if I said in the article, 'In 2008, his blog won Wizbang's internet voting-based "Best Science Blog" Weblog Award, but he didn't deserve it.' If I express on the talk page my point of view that the award is so generically named as to be misleading, this is no different from you expressing your point of view that this article should be titled "Anthony Watts (meteorologist)." Neither point of view is in violation of the NPOV policy. You are using the phrase "POV" to mean something much more broad than the policy addresses. Only the specific content of the article is subject to this policy, so you need to explain how the word "Wizbang" is prima facie a violation of NPOV and/or NOR. Otherwise your claims are not based upon the policy, and you are just complaining about your own speculation on my motivations. ~YellowFives 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating several points, but I'm not interested in clarifying each individually at this point. "Wizbang" has an editing history that doesn't exist in a vacuum and which, to me, indicated a clear POV bias in wanting to include it. Your objections to the naivete of readers of the article about assuming "the internet voting-based Weblog Award" is going to send them into a confused state is just something I don't agree with and that the editing history shows other editors didn't agree with either. I don't think you'd be so insistent on inserting the company's name (which is irrelevant, as I've indicated above and available to any "confused" reader in the footnote) if the company's name were "Official, Inc"/"The Academy, Inc." which would give us "the Official Weblog Award" or "the Academy Weblog Award." As you've stated yourself, there is very much "something in a name"--and it's the name that you think will diminish its impact (as you have specifically stated as the reason for wanting to add it to already NPOV language that is completely adequate in describing the award) and why I consider it a form of POV. Believe it or not, I still believe we could reach additional and mutually agreeable compromise, but the next "defcon" level of a CfR has already been reached, so I'm assuming we're stuck in the mud until that is resolved." --John G. Miles (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are conflating the WP:POV policy, which refers only to the content of articles, with what you imagine the motivations of other editors to be. Read the policy. Quote the relevant part that you believe I am violating, and explain exactly how my edit violates the policy. You need to stop focusing on other people's character and motivations, and start focusing on the article content. What is the policy-based problem with my proposal of changing one word to "Wizbang," and specifically how does that violate policy?

Of course I would not be insistent upon inserting the company's name if it were called "the Official Weblog Award", because that would be misleading. Are you listening to anything I've said? The whole problem is a misleading award name, and "the Official Weblog Award" would be very misleading. I don't know what that's supposed to prove, except that I am opposed to just including misleading terminology without providing clarity to the reader. There would be the same problem if the award were named "Fake Weblog Award," we would owe it to the reader to make clear that the award is not fake. If the award were misleadingly portrayed as unimportant, that would be a problem for Wikipedia too.

You claim that the company's name is "available to any confused reader in the footnote." This is blatantly false, as Tsh's comment below makes clear. The ownership of the award by Wizbang is not articulated in the footnote, so you can stop pretending otherwise.

It's time for you to quote the policy you claim I'm violating and explain exactly how my edit violates that policy, as a matter of article content. Please focus on content, not the other contributors and what you imagine everyone's motivations to be. ~YellowFives 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

comment

It was I who first introduced the weblog award into the article. I did so because of the tag at the top of the article asking for more secondary sources. The discussion above seems excessive for such a minor point. I apologise for apparently starting such a controversy! In my opinion the short form, weblog awrd, with the link, is perfectly adequate. Poujeaux (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked up other references to the weblog awards on wikipedia. There are many such references, and in almost all cases, they are just referred to as The Weblog Awards, with no mention of Wizbang. This includes the wikipedia article blog awards. In only one case are they referred to as Wizbang Web Awards. So there is no need to mention Wizbang here. I remain puzzled by the storm in this teacup. Poujeaux (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be self-referential. We are not a reliable source to cite for our own purposes. If we do something differently on other pages, this might indicate only that the problem is widespread and needs to be fixed on those other pages as well.

If you searched for "Weblog Awards" then some of the results you found will not relate to this Weblog Awards. There are two different awards called The Weblog Awards. In cases like Cake Wrecks where the site has won both of "The Weblog Awards," we make the distinction by mentioning Kevin Aylward for this one. The distinction should be made on all pages where either award is mentioned, so that this confusion does not spread further through Wikipedia. ~YellowFives 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wizbang RFC

In the case of a generically-named award, is it preferable to mention the source of the award, like this? ~YellowFives 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is essential to understanding the "history" of the current dispute. YellowFives' specifically stated purpose, per the above discussion, is to denigrate any credibility the award might confer--a POV motivation. The current language is NPOV and neutral and is best left as is. The footnotes provide any interested reader the relevant info YellowFives is concerned about. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

John G. Miles is knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting me, and after having this pointed out to him three times, twice on this page, and once on his talk page with a plea to cease this character assassination, he prefers to remain incivil by claiming I said things that I quite obviously never said. He complains that I even asked for RFC, which he calls "escalating to the next defcon level" instead of a part of dispute resolution. This thread should not be about me and my supposed motivations, but John has chosen to make it all about me instead of the content.

This is not about credibility. I have never spoken about credibility. This is about clarity in the content of the article. There would be the same problem if the award were named "Fake Weblog Award," we would owe it to the reader to make clear that the award is not fake. If the award were misleadingly portrayed as unimportant, that would be a problem for Wikipedia too. Insinuations about editors' motivations are irrelevant. The relevant issues that have been raised are Wikipedia's content policies, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It's obvious that the word "Wizbang" does not violate either of these, so there is no policy-based reason for keeping it out. ~YellowFives 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about your character, YellowFives, it's about a characterization of your comments. The editors are fully competent to have read the above discussion, but I'll repeat it for your benefit here:

• From [this diff]: "'The Weblog Awards' allows Aylward and his award winners to capitalize on the important-sounding gravitas of the unqualified definite article."

That is a specific argument about your wanting to reduce the credibility the award grants (you called it "gravitas," I called it "credibility") to the "award winners," which in this case is Watts' blog. That's a specifically POV statement of why you want to add an unnecessary qualifier. That's not character assassination, it a characterization of your very specifically-worded POV comment and it's an accurate one. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an additional note. Wikipedia indcates that The Weblog Awards is ["among the major blog awards."] The owner of the award remains unmentioned. --John G. Miles (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be self-referential. We are not a reliable source to cite for our own purposes. If we do something differently on other pages, this might indicate only that the problem is widespread and needs to be fixed on those other pages as well. ~YellowFives 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We're not editing the article (where your criticism would apply, this is talk. The information is useful for editors in making a decision. --John G. Miles (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be a generically named award, but the source of the award is the votes generated by web users, not the name of the company which organises the process. I saw no reference to Wizbang made on the Weblog Awards site, it is not a name which will provide any additional useful information. I agree that the intention of providing this detail is to denigrate the award - which did seem to have been taken seriously by the organisers and the voters. Tsh (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The source of the award is not just the votes generated by web users. Aylward and his team choose the categories and they choose the finalist nominees. Watts could not have won the award without these deliberate actions on the part of Wizbang. That you noticed no reference to Wizbang on the Weblog Awards site is precisely the problem. Thank you for demonstrating that there is a problem of confusion and misdirection here. This discussion is about clarity, not about denigrating anything. But it's not our problem if the organizers and voters took something seriously that we don't take so seriously. We're not in the business of protecting their hurt feelings. We are here to provide clarity to our readers. ~YellowFives 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. By adding a word in front of the generally accepted phrase, you may not be incorrect, but it is confusing. For example, there was an event called the Flora London Marathon. Would you want to fall it the Unilever Flora London Marathon (if the Flora brand was actually owned by Unilever). Adding 'Wizbang' is misdirection, not clarification. Anyone who cares about the ownership of the award can follow the links and check for themselves. Tsh (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[This] is just a pointer to an RfC comment placed before the RfC section heading by Poujeaux (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Miles (talk • contribs) 09:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The intentions of Poujeaux, the editor who put the mention of the award in, do not matter. The intentions of Wikipedia's various editors are completely irrelevant. What's relevant is what content we present to the reader, not who chose to present the content, and not how the content ended up in the article. Please focus on content, not character, John.

But that comment above is useful, because it demonstrates the problem well. There are two different awards called The Weblog Awards, both of which are mentioned on Wikipedia, necessitating better differentiation. In cases like Cake Wrecks, Kevin Aylward has been mentioned for the purpose of differentiation. I think Wizbang is better known than Aylward, so Wizbang is preferable for us to mention, but it would be an acceptable compromise if we mentioned Aylward instead. ~YellowFives 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove In-Article Mention of Publishers Unless Direct Influence on the Published Material Can be Established

I'm proposing we return the article to its direct and undistracted state by removing the inclusion of publishers in the article proper (it's already in the footnote reference) unless the publisher has a verifiable impact or influence on the content of the report/book/paper it publishes. That the publisher in this case (Heartland) specifically disclaims such suggests it is nonnotable to include it in the article proper. The only reason I can see for mentioning the publisher is to try to associate the publisher with the report content, something that is clearly not the case in the surfacestations.org project as specifically stated in the report. This "game" of cluttering otherwise clear articles has been played before. I clarified the relationship in a kludge to clarify the original publisher kludge out of respect to the process, but we need to eliminate uninformative "clutter" from articles unless a clear reason for inclusion can be established. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That the report is printed by Heartland, instead of by a regular printer of science, is very much a relevant information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially if Heartland sees the necessity for a disclaimer that makes it more, not less notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement "which disclaims Watts' views as reflecting those of the Institute" is silly, as this is standard stuff. Otherwise we'd be saying "in a paper published in Science, which does not necessarily reflect the views of the American Association for the Advancement of Science," or "in a presentation at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, which should not be interpreted as an official AGU position statement" and so on for practically every published paper and report. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

• The whole purpose of the proposal is to keep POV in the form of 'personally favored or disfavored publishers, no matter how reputable, with zero input into the reports they publish out of encyclopedic articles—exactly what is being done here.
• The "silly" insertion is the insertion of the publisher itself as the publisher has nothing to do with the report's content and you're right, SBHB, it is "standard stuff" and, consequently, the whole "we have to include the publisher" is irrelevant unless someone is trying to insert an original research suggestion that the publisher somehow influenced the report--that's the "stuff" that's not standard. If you look at the credits in the report, Heartland has nothing to do with it whatsoever. This is trivial clutter already included in the references.
• As long as the irrelevant material is included in the article-proper, it is completely proper to point out that the impugned influence does not exist unless demonstrated otherwise. --John G. Miles (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific articles/books/papers are published by other-than-scientific-journals/magazines all the time. Even were that not the case, it's a non sequitur to claim it imputes some magical significance to what the report reports (which is exactly the point KDP is trying to make--that a nonscientific publisher [i.e., they publish articles, books, and reports in addition to scientific ones] somehow influences the content of the report itself. If you want to make that WP:OR claim, Kim, then source it; otherwise it's irrelevant. The absurdity of insisting that the publisher be prepended to the report's title is made clear by the damage to an encyclopedia that would occur if we had to mention "published by" every time a source is used quoting a statement made by a scientist in a nonscientific publication (magazines, book publishers, etc.). --John G. Miles (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It has to be made crystal-clear that the report is essentially self-published and is not published by a scientific journal or government agency. If you can think or a way to do that without mentioning Heartland, that's fine. I'm curious to know why you think mentioning the role of Heartland would be damaging to Watts -- presumably you have a low opinion of Heartland, but I disagree that they're so fundamentally as bad as you appear to think. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Its not that its Heartland that has published it that is important, but that it is essentially self-published. Which is a pertinent fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific publishers usually have some sort of peer-review process in place. And (as said) just as Boris, i'm rather indifferent as to stating that it is Heartland that published it, its the self-published nature that is the pertinent info. The trouble here is that it is being presented in a context where its weighted against scientific material, and without that caveat - we are presenting a minority view without due weight given to the majority view. (this is the central tenet of NPOV) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim, "its being presented in a context" about the views of Anthony Watts--it is his biography and his views are not the proper subject of "peer review" as to whether they're his views or not. It does not matter that they are his scientific views--he still gets to hold them without "peer review." One does not "caveat" someone's viewpoint, even when its about science. No one caveated or felt the need to caveat Jay Lawrimore's scientific statement in a non-peer reviewed source in the article, nor should it have been. It's prima facie absurd.

This whole shifting series of arguments has been a red herring and a moving target of reasons to clutter the article-proper with what is already provided in the references. "Peer review" and "self-publishing" wasn't even mentioned until the untenable nature of the previous line of argumentation by SBHB became clear. Other contrary-to-Watts views, non-peer reviewed opinions are included in the article without SBHB's now-obligatory "published by" (and let's now add "non-peer reviewed") such-and-such source. The same is true of a multitude of other scientific viewpoints in other articles, biographical and otherwise--the publisher is irrelevant to the views expressed.

The report, whether self-published or not (a debatable point), is perfectly acceptable in a WP:BLP regardless. It is Watts views as expressed in the report which are relevant to a biography about Watts. --John G. Miles (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are forgetting to assume good faith. To answer your comments: The context within this biographical article, is that Watts holds a minority view on a scientific issue, as such it is fine to present that view, but we cannot per WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE, which equally applies to a BLP article), present it without the context of the majority view (NOAA here), and we also have to present it with a due consideration of the relative weight of the minority view vs. the majority. In this case, we have a scientific institution (NOAA) that represents the majority view, and on the other we have Watts' view. When considering the material from NOAA vs. the material from Watts, we cannot give them equal weight - sorry - that goes against WP's NPOV policy. By presenting the reality of Watts material (that its basically self-published) we are changing the scales again, so that the weight evens out, and are working back towards NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "good faith," but with relevancy. No one is asking you to discount NOAA (which was not a comment on the SurfaceStations.org project). You also assume a "majority opinion" exists on the SurfaceStations.org project where none has been demonstrated. In fact, every response by NOAA, the NCDC, and others suggest just the opposite--that they take the project at it's word as regards siting issues (photos don't lie) and, rather, follow up with scientific analysis as to whether the siting issues addressed by the report have relevance. I have not seen the siting issues of the project itself challenged, but as they say, the WP:BURDEN is yours if you're claiming a majority opinion regarding the SurfaceStations.org project (which is the only thing Watts' report published by the Heartland Institute is about). --John G. Miles (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm? The report is not only used to present information about siting in the article - it presents a conclusion that is in stark opposition to what NOAA says. Perhaps you should try reading the section again? And the burden is not on me to present an argument as to whether NOAA is the mainstream position... (as a sidenote: a position such as "photos don't lie" is rather naïve.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

NOAA represents NOAA, Kim. You'll have to point out the special Wikipedia "person-from-NOAA safe haven" rule when it comes to establishing "majority opinion." But it's irrelevant to anything I've said so I won't be addressing it in the future anyway. I've never disputed the quote of the NOAA individual. The sole point is that the fact that the New York Times published his opinion is irrelevant and requires no mention, despite the fact that the NYT is a nonscientific, non-peer reviewed source. That's the whole point, but at this point I'm tired of continually re-addressing what seems like a moving target as to why an irrelevant publisher need be specifically mentioned in-article at all. It's time to let others add to the debate. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are focusing on the wrong issue.... this conclusion from the report (which we cite from the report) "the errors in the [U.S. temperature] record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature...during the twentieth century." is an inferred statement by Watts (and a statement about a scientific issue) - and it stands in stark contrast to the conclusions by NOAA. And as such we have a minority view (Watts) vs. a majority view (NOAA). Therefore we cannot present them as equally valid (per WP:UNDUE). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a new section for this material in bio

The following quote

"In 2006, Lorraine Ann Blanton was arrested and accused of trying to extort money from Watts by threatening letter. Blanton allegedly threatened to tell the news media about an intimate relationship the two had had in the mid-1990s. Watts dated Blanton in 1996 and 1997."

is under the "Career" section of Watts' bio. I'm not especially particular about where it goes, but it just seems that it doesn't belong under a history of his career. Someone with more experience in this type of material (perhaps the person who added it) might have a better suggestion for categorizing it within the bio. --John G. Miles (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Imho it is non-notable and should be removed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with KDP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At the AfD, it was argued that this was notable, and is partly a reason the article wasn't deleted. IMO, the event is certainly not notable, but if this article goes back to AfD those arguing that it isn't notable enough to be in an article can't turn around and say it is enough to establish notability. -Atmoz (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since I brought it up during the AfD... Let me clarify the point... get ready to understand a subtle point... For a news article to write about some dating/extortion event that targetted Mr. Watts, that implies that Watts is notable. Only notable people are targets for extortion. If I cheat on my girlfriend, no one's going to try to extort money from me. That's because, I'm not notable. Capiche? I did not suggest that this nonsense should actually appear in Watts' article, because WP:NOT#NEWS. Moreover, I have already expressed an opinion that it should be removed. This dating stuff is drivel; it is unencyclopaedic, and it positively should be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No. If it's notable enough to make him notable, then it's notable enough for his biography. -Atmoz (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You can't have it both ways, Alex. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Having it both ways am I... During the AfD I argued that Watts is notable because (a) he just obviously is, kinda like the "sky" is "blue", a view that gained a lot of support; and (b) I then found ~300 news hits about him over a 20 year period, with presumably a number lost that predate the internet era. This dating/extortion thing happened to be one of those ~300 hits. I made some passing reference to it, arguing that obviously he's notable, or he wouldn't be targetted by an extortionist, and that the same wouldn't appear in a news article if he wasn't notable. I don't know who then decided to put it in Watts' article, but I do know that whoever it was, I was the one who had to fix it up so that it was properly referenced. I am a little lost as to exactly what it is I'm trying to have both ways. If it helps, I do now regret mentioning it in the first place during the AfD. That might have caused me less work and occasioned less Wikidrama... Alex Harvey (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do try to keep your story straight: in the AfD you presented the extortion stuff not as "one out of ~300" but as 2 of your "15 or so" pieces of evidence, a significantly larger weight. But really, the larger issue is that the article should be deleted. These marginally-notable people shouldn't have bios; it just causes too much grief for all concerned. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you have such a good memory for detail. Meanwhile, the only thing that's changed around here since the last AfD is that "ClimateGate" has come along, brought with it 159 MB of data and as yet unanalysed FORTRAN code and 9.8 MB worth of IPCC emails. Curiously, for someone as "non-notable" as Mr. Watts, they certainly talk about him a lot! My belief that A. Watts is notable remains unchanged. It has with it exactly the same reasons, and I think with millions of angry comrades the world over reading through Phil Jones' and Michael Mann's emails right now, support for not deleting Mr. Watts' biography is rather likely to be skewed my way. Do you think perhaps editor Hipocrite's suggestion below could in fact be the better way of avoiding Wikidrama? Because that way, on the contrary, has my full support... Alex Harvey (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Biography?

This article appears to be a coatrack to get this individuals NN opinions about climate change in the encyclopedia. Why do we have a section on his views sourced to only himself? Why are we discussing what's in his otherwise non-RS "research report" in a section on SurfaceStations.org? Time to stubify this. Hipocrite (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I fully agree. Let's turn the article into a stub, and end all this arguing. We don't need WP converage of SurfaceStations. What we need is to help the curious reader understand who Watts is, and the morbidly curious will no doubt make up their own minds by reading Wattsupwiththat or RealClimate. We can then get on with our lives. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Advertising copy

I've removed a section that appears to contain pure advertising copy. Referring to alexa figures and some material on Watt's website itself, the section contained a manufactured story about blog traffic. --TS 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is interesting. The above message would pretty much define exactly what I did today, too. Somebody had inserted an unaudited graph of readership directly from the site. Advertising fluff. --TS 18:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, do you have any real reason to doubt Watts' figures? This is a site about the man & his work; we generally WP:AGF with the subjects of our bios. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why His Blog hasn't got its own article page?

If you look at alexa, wattsupwiththat.com is well in front of realclimate blog in terms of audience. Why it doens't earn its own article in wikipedia?Echofloripa (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of whether or not it meets the general notability guidelines, not how much traffic it gets. RealClimate has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so it has an article. If you can find similar coverage for the Watts blog, then by all means create an article for it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his blog deserves a page. This is what I found in less than 5 min. Notable mention: [24] Maybe less so: [25] [26] 85.76.37.150 (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Views on an Endangered Species in Chico"?

This section has a lot of detail on a subject that appears to be a very minor part of Watts' notability to the average reader -- and our report is blatantly POV/OR. I think this belongs (cleaned up) over at the Butte County, California article, with just a brief, NPOV mention here. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph -- this is a 2001 dispute, irrelevant to Watt's notability, and blatantly POV/OR. OP is welcome to discuss the matter here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have fixed it by trimming some of the excess detail rather than deleting it altogether. I might give it a shot later. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Pete Tillman that the section is POV. The section simply states the facts. I believe the only phrase that might be taken as POV is "The claim ignores the fact that..." This could be changed to "This claim is contrary to the scientific opinion that..." or something similar. As for OR, what about the citations. The only bit that is not publicly available is the quoted phrase "farmed out of danger" which comes from his now removed website. In any case, as far as wikipedia policy, the section should not have been removed for POV alone. If the removal was due to the other issue (relevance) than, OK, but I disagree that the issue is irrelevant.

It is true that Watts' notoriety is based on his prominence among bloggers on global warming, and as a weatherman. However, he was rather involved and rather publicly on the issue of Butte County meadowfoam, which was (and still is) a regionally very contentious and alive issue. I would also argue that if someone is making themselves a contestant in a politicized issue like global warming, it is relevant to know something about that persons views on other areas besides GW. As the GW controvesy page and list of people who deny global warming page and other such pages on wikipedia reveal, many of the disputants in this issue have other ideological positions. Knowing these is relevant to understanding a particular person's views, in my opinion.

I do agree that it is relatively minor for people outside of N. California, but I contend:

• so what? It is still a part of his public activities and it does have impact on the world;
• it is at least a regionally active and important issue;
• it provides information about Watts' views on other environmental issues besides GW, which is relevant to people who want to know more about Watts views.

I do not see this information as relevant to the Butte County Page, but it might fit on the Limnanthes floccosa page, which I just looked and noticed that it needs some correcting of inaccuracies. Still the main information could go there, with a citation on the Watts page.

So what could we do about these issues of relevance and NPOV? ThanksMichaplot (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with pete here, this is a story from ten years ago which made the local rag. Including it here is wp:undue given what watts is famous for then a bit story from a decade ago seems pointless mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a tag on this article ...

that states "A significant amount of this article or section's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject."? Which part or parts of this article do we suspect are not about Anthony Watts (blogger), his career, and his accomplishments? --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just read through all of it and it all seems to belong, dunno why there is a tag there. I see a few things which need changing though mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of this article is about climate change or a website. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would expect an article about Albert Einstein to mention his accomplishments and views in the area of physics but that wouldn't make that article about physics. (And no I am not comparing Watts to Einstein, merely using Einstein as an example.) Rather than talking in generalities, perhaps you could point out some specifics from the article to illustrate which material you feel is unrelated to Watts? --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the tag seems unneeded. Propose to delete it. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When the concern has been addressed, I would support removal. Until it is fixed the tag should remain. Verbal chat 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Watts Educational Background?

I have been trying to figure out what to make of Anthony Watts and remain puzzled on a few things, one being his qualifications and educational background. It seems to be a fact that he was a TV weatherman, but does he have any formal credentials in meteorology or science? If he has a degree, then in what, and where did he get it? It would be relevant to this article. It would be unjust to dismiss him as "just a TV weatherman" if he actually has good credentials. MrG 168.103.80.11 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

He is apparently not forthcoming with this information (see [27], but be aware that this is not a reliable source), but acknowledges that he is "not a degreed climate scientist" (see [28]). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can give him credit for not doing the creationist thing and claiming he's got a doctorate from a diploma mill. MrG 168.103.80.11 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

MN keeps removing the coatrack tag, but as far as I can see makes no attempt to discuss on talk (a common problem with him). Others (includng me) retain the coatrack concerns William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already notified each Verbal and MN to use the talkpage. This should be discussed here as soon as there was opposition to Marks removal of the tag and preferably before even that. Polargeo (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The coatrack tag has been there for 7 months. There was one single comment and one reply at the time it was tagged, then it was dropped. There hasn't been any comment whatsoever on this talk for nearly 3 months. So if the coatrack tag must stay, let's discuss it and come to agreement. A good start would be for those who are adding it to detail their reasons. ATren (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why i removed it. The websites are his so an article about watts will of course have information about his sites. As there is no article about the surfacestations project then all that information belongs here, unless we split it off into a new article of course mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The tag should stay until the concerns are addressed. As soon as you were reverted you should have discussed it. Putting the material here is coatracking because the material is not notable enough to be split off, so has been incorrectly placed here. Verbal chat 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You (Verbal) should have discussed Mark's removal of the tag rather than reverting it, particularly as he was not going against a clear consensus for the tag to remain. Mark should have also tried for consensus for a potentially controversial edit. So we are even. Please now discuss the tag and preferably take steps so a long standing tag can be removed. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No I was acting perfectly within wikipedia norms to restore the tag. MN should have then moved to the discuss stage, as I asked, rather than reverting again. I'm not accepting any parity of action, and find these meta discussions tedious and unhelpful to improving the article, which should be the focus here. Verbal chat 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are spot on but you could have skillfully avoided any meta discussion by not reverting twice and actually having the discussion. Polargeo (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What concerns? Which material? ATren (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You think the surface stations project is not notable? Sydney Morning Herald San Antonio Express The Economist Fox News New Scientist Washington Times The Australian plenty more out there, still think it`s not notable? O and are these sources reliable to ues in this article? mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not unless they mention Watts. If you think it is notable why not propose splitting it off? I believe it was decided in the past it wasn't (going on memory) Verbal chat 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not look? But yes they all mention watts as well, naturally as it is his website. mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have now read the article and the references linked to (A quick disclaimer here I mean the refs in the article not Marknutley's refs above). Therefore I take my neutral hat off here and enter the discussion. This article does not appear to me to be a coatrack. For two reasons 1) Coverage is very balanced and does not reinforce Watt's opinions 2) It stays focussed on science comments and arguments directly associated with Watt without straying too far into general coverage of the subject with certain reliable sources actually citing Watt several times. This seems perfectly reasonable within the usual wikipedia allowences. Just to explain this further it is not a one sided, lengthy and WP:Undue recounting of opinions from his blog and therefore not "biased" see first sentence of WP:COATRACK. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So are we ok to remove the tags then? mark nutley (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The stuff on surfacestations.org seems excessive. I've removed a bit of historical stuff. I'd say what reminas still looks rather coatracky William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with WMC, there is need for further refinement before the tag can be removed. Verbal chat 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m afraid i don`t. The historical stuff is necessary to give readers an idea of what it`s about. And as Polargeo says, thee is nothing coatracky about the current content. And instead of being vague verbal why not actually point to something specific? mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, can you please list specifics? ATren (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically the disproportionate coverage of a website in an article about a person, not a website. If you want to rename this article to be about the website then we could discuss where to merge the biographical data and what should be trimmed. Verbal chat 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that does not make it a coatrack. It may not be needed here but it would need to be biased coverage to make it a coatrack so the tag is incorrect unless you can argue that this article is being used to give biased coverage, which you have not done. If there is too much information on his blog then that is a case for splitting it off to his blog article but the sources reference Watt and Watt's blog is then used for his own opinions so it does not seem vastly off topic to me. I haven't got time to look at WMC's trimming right now but I suspect it has tightened up the coverage. Polargeo (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am happy that WMC's edit has removed some excessive coverage. I think the coatrack tag over the article is excessive in this case. Polargeo (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is still coatracky, but all the interested people ahve been alerted now, and some disagree, so there is no real need for the tag to remain. Perhaps it could go onto the talk page. However it would be nice if people could avoid adding spam references William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And can people please not reinsert The Hockey Stick Illusion. It is not a great source, especially for a BLP, and as the statement is already referenced this is a drama that can be avoided. Verbal chat 12:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But have you noticed that the particular reference does not back up that particular sentence. I suggest temporary removal of that sentence on methodology. Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why the book is a good source, as it goes into the surfacestations project in detail. Sorry but the only reason for this ref removal is pure POV pushing, and it is ridiculous that any usage of it is being reverted on sight mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I support full removal. This is not a RS. Verbal chat 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have doubled up the surface stations.org ref featured earlier in the paragraph as this covers it adequately. @Verbal The section sets out plainly Watt's experiment and position using his own sites/publications and then gives the NOAA response to his experiment. I see no problem with this as Watt is cited along with his publications and website by the NOAA pubs. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your saying this is not a reliable source on the surface stations project? Please leave you POV at the door, the book is certainly reliable to talk about this project mark nutley (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think Mark has a point. It is an adequate source to back up a simple statement on Watt's methodology but it is not needed as Watts own website is a far better source. Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS/N#The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion. The book doesn't say what Mark (and Cla68?) is claiming that it says. So, No. It is not an adequate reference. (and contrary to what Mark states above, the book doesn't go into detail about surfacestations.org, in fact it doesn't even mention surfacestations.org. I've quoted the entire text about Watts from the book on RS/N). I quite frankly find this disturbing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KDP. Just looks like what WMC said then and adding a spam reference. Anyway it is not needed so it should certainly be left out. I just trusted that Cla68 had read it and made sure it backed up the specific sentence he had added it to, but as it doesn't matter anyway I didn't follow it up, I will next time. Polargeo (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast meteorologist vs broadcast weather forecaster

I prefer broadcast meteorologist because that's what they're called. I have no idea what a broadcast weather forecaster is. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. No need to rip this up again. There was an RfC on this (archive 2), which concluded that "blogger" and "broadcast meteorologist" were the terms least rejected by people. Blogger was decided as the postfix in the article title (by "no consensus" => stays). Broadcast meteorologist was the (very close) second runner, and thus, per compromise reached, should be used here. (phew long one :-) ) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why 2

I prefer TL's version William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the version you reinserted is sourced, so I agree that it should stay. I've re-added the NYT piece since this is also sourced. Nsaa (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment of ArbCom Case

I have filed a request for sanctions here, for anyone that is interested in commenting. GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed content

Please discuss at Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Virginia_Heffernan. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Principle of least astonishment

The man's famously a global warming denialist. I inserted a single statement to that effect with three reliable sources identifying him as such. I'm surprised that this wasn't elucidated in the article more clearly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because he is not, he is a skeptic, everyone knows climate changes and Watts does not deny that mark nutley (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But the sources say he is a denialist in the sense of global warming denialism. Are you saying that the term only applies to those who deny global warming writ large? Or can it apply to AGW denialists as well? Also, why did you remove reliable sources? Is that de rigeur on these pages? I can understand re-writing the sentence, but removing three impeccible sources that discuss the author seems a might, um, contentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One of your doi`s does not work. And we have plenty of sources saying he is a sceptic, should we fill the lede up with then just to prove you wrong? mark nutley (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or... or... we could fill them up with both! Why not? One can be both a denialist and a sceptic, right? Are we really of the habit of removing any source where a doi malfunctions? Do you have policy or guidlines to cite for that kind of behavior being justified? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A policy for removing uncited contentious content? Gee let me think on it for a while, o ya, BLP. Why are you POV pushing? Try and retain a NPOV, he is a sceptic the term denier is pejorative and this is a BLP, we are meant to play it safe with them you know, not fast and loose mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean it needs to be excised completely. Many believe the term "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, but when we have reliable sources that describe something as a conspiracy theory or reliable sources that state someone is a conspiracy theorist, we are empowered to write about that in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From a BLP standpoint, I think this is very dodgy ground. Unless you can find him being quoted "denying", what you are adding a source which makes a perjorative allegation. Can you see the problem? Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

By reading his blog I would gather he has roughly the following opinions: CO2 is increasing, the increase in CO2 is partially (measurably) caused by man, increased CO2 retains heat, the increase in temperature (Global warming) due to this is small. In addition he is in my opinion very green. He for instance advocates for energy efficiency and solar power etc.91.153.115.15 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since that's only your opinion, we can't really use it as a guide. Instead, we should be going by the reliable sources, not our own evaluations. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, only that we can't use your personal evaluation to decide content. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

His opinion is correct, as is yours, lets use what the sources use mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance that Google search has to our discussion. Can you clarify? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see what "Anthony Watts sceptic" means? 1,080 hits for that means noting to you? Perhaps it means the majority of sources refer to him as a sceptic? mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it shows no such thing. The vast majority of those hits are to mirrors of a single commentator's unique sentence: "Anthony Watts, sceptic and scourge of climate change science, has used copyright laws to censor an opponent." See [29]. If we use the American spelling we get a googlewack which is 1/5 the hits for Antony Watts denialist. Anyway, this is all really silly, and I'm a bit surprised that you think a google search has any bearing on reliable sourcing considering your earlier insistence about wp:rs. WP:GOOGLE. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How sad, i am not saying this is a reliable source, i am saying a quick google shows him as a sceptic, try "anthony watts denier" for a comparison. It is obvious he is known as a sceptic is the point mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How happy. I'm saying that a quick google shows him to be five times more denialist than skeptic. It's obvious he is known as a denialist at this point. Okay, now that we've got that out of our systems, try giving me some reliable sources. Peer reviewed journal articles, such as the ones I offered, would be a great start! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Link please. As my search for it shows 3 hits only [30] mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The link is two rounds up! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But as you ask skeptical bloggers such as meteorologist Anthony Watts Climate change skeptic Anthony Watts mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, been looking at your peer reviewed sources, this is not a peer reviewed source, it is a joke this is a self published source and actually says The most successful, WattsUpWiththat.com, the US‐based blog of sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts the third one i can`t check as it is behind a paywall, but given your misrepresentation of these two sources i really can`t AGF with the third. You sir should be ashamed mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence & Wishart are well-respected publishers within their fields. They've been accused by conservatives as being biased, but that doesn't make them any less respected than any number of other social science journals which have had similar issues. The Alex Lockwood was a paper presented at five different conferences. This is not the same as journal publication, but it is a form of peer review. It's not simply self-published. The third paper is published by this group: [31]. You can read about their editorial policy and see what you think. In short, your casual dismissal of these sources is not very damning and your continued reliance on personal attacks is peculiar.

I appreciate your first link. It is a good SciAm article that illustrates what you are saying. The second one is a little less than equal to the other sources we're discussing. Doy you have any other sources I can go for? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I know who published the third source, i meant i can`t take your word for it that it describes Anthony Watts as a denier. This is due to your misrepresenting of sources. The media and climate change This is not peer reviewed as you say and does not describe Watts as a denier, it says his site is. The second source by Alex Lockwood [32] is self published, is not peer reviewed (talking at a conference is not peer review) and does not say he is a denier, it describes him as a sceptic. I see no need to provide you with further refs to prove the obvious, he is known as a sceptic mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Side note: In some fields, conference publications are indeed peer-reviewed. In computer science, they are the primary venue for publishing peer-reviewed science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also true in the social sciences which is, indeed, the context of this particular paper. We should, however, not link to the Alex Lockwood's personal site but rather the conference website since authors sometimes modify their papers after they present them (and thus, the modifications are not subject to peer review). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Fair enough. You can request the paper yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I'd send you the paper myself, but it seems you don't trust me and I'd like it to be as independent as possible for you to confirm one way or the other. I think it is fair that maybe these sources are dealing more with Watts' site rather than his opinions personally. Maybe we should use them for Watts Up With That? instead. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can send me the other paper to check then that would be great. However the same criteria will apply to the blog article, there are far more sources calling it a sceptic site than a denier site. But if you wish to present these sources with a suggested content addition on the article talk page id be happy to look it over. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone sent it to you before I could get around to it. Sorry it took me a day to get back to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i just read the text and i have a question for you. How did you get Denier from those three sources? Not a one of them call Watts a denier. The one actual peer reviewed on says On the popular skeptic site 'Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts Do you always misrepresent sources? I ask as all three which you presented and reverted back into this BLP did not call him a denier. Playing fast and lose with sources in a BLP is problematic, i hope it does not happen again or i`ll take it further than this rebuke mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Denier" or "Denialist"? Are they different or the same? All three use the term "denialist". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. [33] This does not describe Watts as a denier. [34] This does not describe Watts as a denier. Nor did the one peer reviewed source you presented. Not one of those sources support the content you inserted into a BLP. Continue on this course and there will be trouble mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I flatly disagree with you. I think all three do a great job of showing that Andrew Watts is in the denialist crowd. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Energy & Environment article cited does not state that Watts is a denier nor a denialist. A search of the article cited using "deni" as the search term shows two hits. The first hit states: "The story came a day after the climate change secretary Ed Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans." The second states, in regards to Les Hatton, "He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.”" There is absolutely no reference to Watts as either a denier nor a denialist in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it seems to plainly lump Anthony Watts in the denialist camp. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely I disagree. For me to make that jump would require that I engage in massive WP:SYN and it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what I can show in the sources. It is not in the cited source. This is a BLP. To insert potentially negative information into a BLP requires multiple reliable sources that verify the information. None of the articles call him a denier or a denialist. As a matter of fact, it does not technically identify Watts as a sceptic, only identifying his blog in that manner. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So you decided to misrepresent a source and engage in wp:or in a blp. mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not how I see it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So exactly where does it describe him as a denier? GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtney basically canonizes him as such, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that one non-peer reviewed journal describes him as such, what about the other two? There have to be multiple reliable sources to insert negative information into a BLP - believe me I know, having dealt with that in another article. You do not have the multiple sources required. The other two articles supported the article text as it was already written.

And no, I do not agree. Courtney mentions Watts in passing, and it is possible that the denier label only applied to Climate Audit and not Watts, if you parse the sentence. It does not use precise language. I have no trouble accepting that you acted in good faith as re Courtney, but there is no support in the other two sources for labeling Watts as a "denier." GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bizarrely close reading, but what do I know? I do think, though, that some measure of description of the guy should go here. I mean, he's famous for not accepting most of the "party line", as it were, in the realm of climate science. That this is not in the lead is, as the section header suggests, astonishing. Shouldn't something be there? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Not Accepting A" is not the same as "Accepting Not A". It's basic logic. "Not accepting" is the definition of sceptic. "Accepting Not A" is denial. Clearly, you aren't accepting the BLP issues. Do you understand the consequences of painting him with this border-line libellous smear? (And yes, that's the way the self-professed sceptics will see it.) Your edit if accepted is likely to be edit-warred on wiki, is certainly not concensus approved, and will get negative coverage off-wiki. Watts corresponds with "respectable scientists" like the NSIDC and solar experts. Your comment will also affect them. Slowjoe17 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really follow exactly what you are saying, because I've never seen this distinction made as such. Do you have a reliable soruce for "Accepting Not A" is denial and "Not Accepting A" is skepticism? I'd like to read one. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Slowjoe, but there is a difference between a skeptic/sceptic (see definition here) and a denier (see definition here). You basically changed the text from sceptic to denier and provided 3 references that you claimed stated that (and that all 3 were peer-reviewed). The sources do not state that Watts is a denier, and they are not all peer-reviewed. You are attempting to insert negative information into a BLP without having multiple sources to support your change and you misrepresented what the sources did say. It is not proper. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's basic logic. Very often we are taught logic with the situation where only "A" and "Not A" are possible. In this case, it's quite hard to see a difference between denial and scepticism. But if you look at more complicated logical situations, like criminal court cases where proposition A represents "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Then "not A" is the verdict "not guilty" which does not mean "proven innocent". It means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". This cover both "innocent" and "guilty but case not proven". I hope that you are with me so far.

If we convert this to Man Made Global Warming, a toy description has that proposition A is "science has proven that man has caused the earth to warm". The proposition "Not A" is "science has not proven that man has caused the earth to warm". Again, this "Not A" covers several positions:

1. The earth is not warming. (This is denialism)
2. The is warming, but Man has not caused the earth to warm (This is also denialism)
3. Man may have caused the earth to warm, but the science has not proven this to the observer's satisfaction

Scepticism covers all positions, whereas denialism covers only the first two.Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your basic logic is verifiable in this regard. Sources would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out Law of excluded middle. Check out Agnostic. Unfortunately, I can't find an RS which says "SA is mistaken, and here's why."Slowjoe17 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change any text, but I did add text. I would rather not rely on wikitionary, as I'm not sure it's really up to the task I'm asking for. While I take issue with much of the rest of your post, it also doesn't deal with the issue at hand: namely that the lead doesn't explain why Watts is most notable. I'd like a sentence in the lead to describe this. I think the three sources I provided show that he is particularly opposed to climate science and disbelieves much of the standard IPCC assessment points. I imagine linking to global warming denialism which is a redirect to another article with terminology perhaps more to your liking is fine. Piping or using alternative wordings is okay by me, as long as we can come to some agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand is your misrepresenting three sources to change the lede from sceptic to denier, a pejorative. And also claiming they were all peer reviewed when that was not the case, the issue here is that you have yet to explain yourself mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK is clear that we should discuss ways to improve the article, which is what I'm continuing to do here. I've answered all the concerns you list here already. If you think otherwise, please look for a more appropriate forum in which to discuss it, it really shouldn't be done on this article talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR you have not given a response as to why you misrepresented three sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP either do so or refrain from editing this article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I misrepresented none of the sources, I do not consider denialism if applied to a verified denialist to be a pejorative. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will continue to do so. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer this, were in any of those sources were the words Watts the denier or a variation thereof? I can tell you there are none, which means you did in fact misrepresent sources and your failure to acknowledge this leads me to suspect you need to be reported for it to ensure this does not happen again with a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are adequate for this. Whether that's the consensus text to go in here is another matter. I did not "misrepresent" sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the two sources linked to above. Both of them clearly label Watts a "denialist" as described in the article currently located at Climate change denial. There is no need for WP:SYNthesis to reach this conclusion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you are as wrong as SA, neither call Watts a denialist, and misrepresentation of sources is a serious issue, please don`t do it again. I will also point out that neither of those sources are good enough for a BLP given one is self published. mark nutley (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the proper representation of sources as misrepresentations is a serious issue, please don't do it again. Neither are good since one is self-published is a pretty funny argument, but maybe just a careless oversight in logic? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Don`t try your luck with these junk sources again. Neither are good as well you know one being selfpublished and the other just a rant published by a junk source. If you continue to push these crap sources on a blp i`ll have to take this issue further mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Take the issue further, please. I'll keep pushing if you'd like. I recommend going to the next step in dispute resolution which is WP:TO. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, your continued insistence that these sources call watts a denier when they clearly do not and your insistence that they are reliable when they are not means my next step is to file an RFE for your continuing disruptive behaviour. How many editors have now told you that these sources do not say what you say they do? Take the hint and stop deliberately misrepresenting sources mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:DR. It's pretty clear that Anthony Watts is a denialist and he's been taken to task for his ignorance of climatology and the scientific method in general by a number of sources that we have listed here. I will be clear as to what I think the sources say: The sources are are adequate as indicators that Anthony Watts uses his blog to promote the claims of global warming denialism. From this statement I manifestly will not back down. Whether we want to include such a statement in the article, or whether we prefer a different wording, is another matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not care what you think the sources say, nor what indicators you seem to be getting from them. We use what the sources say and none of those you presented say he is a denialist and that is that, this is your last chance, stop misrepresenting sources or i shall file an RFE mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources I listed clearly indicate that Anthony Watts holds the same characteristics as global warming denialists. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

SA, please clarify why you a) misrepresented three sources as peer-reviewed when they were not; and b) why you misrepresented the term skeptic/sceptic in the sources as denier/denialist. If you don't want to address this further, than I won't push it, but if you continue argue that it is appropriate without addressing the issue, or if you try and insert negative WP:BLP information into this article in violation of policy, I will seek sanctions. GregJackP Boomer! 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

a) I didn't, the sources are peer-reviewed. b) I didn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your choice. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuel for Thought

The following are all I get with a Ctrl + F for "Watts" from Fuel for Thought:

• On the popular skeptic site “Watts Up With That,” Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a “waste of more taxpayer money” and charged that it is nothing more than a “fast track press release service.” He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of “floods that didn’t happen” in an earlier NOAA report.”
• Dr. Indur M. Goklany, who has worked with the IPCC as an author, U.S. delegate, and reviewer, former analyst with the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the author of a book and numerous scholarly papers on climate change, posted annotations to Jones’s BBC interview at WattsUpWithThat, as follows:
• The reports from Joseph D’Aleo and E. Michael Smith on John Coleman’s TV special were of great use in addressing the NOAA and NASA datasets. The January 29, 2010 study by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, Surface Temperature records: Policy Driven Deception?, was invaluable in arguing that, contrary to its claims, EPA has no scientifically verifiable dataset on which to base its Endangerment Finding. What type of scientific organizations would change part of its historic dataset 16 times in two and one half years as NASA did?

I am confused as to how that supports the claim that Watts is a denialist. Could you please explain, ScienceApologist? If I am mistaken and you didn't actually state that or mean to state that, could you please clarify as to what you meant to say? NW (Talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike others in this debate, I don't see global warming denialism and global warming skepticism as being different things. Neither does Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked and the skepticism article was redirected, by WMC, based on a consensus of 3 or 4 people in a 24 hour period. Not nearly enough time for consensus to form. I've reverted, based on the last comment in the discussion, and will start working on the article. The two are different. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. If it is the same thing, why did you need to change it back to denialist from skeptic? GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That was the name of the Wikipedia article, wasn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the name of the article it linked to. I don't think there is anything different between the two. I reverted because I thought the person who changed the wording erroneously believed there was a distinction when there wasn't one and our article goes by the title "denialism". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)