Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Education?

What education has Watts had? Which schools, which universities, what qualifications, that sort of thing. To me, the article makes Watts look like an uneducated person trying to pass himself off as educated, so if he has qualifications, listing them would correct that impression. --Theresonator (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We would love to, but he is singularly unwilling to share such qualifications, if they exist 108.11.132.83 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
He attended Purdue University but there have multiple attempts to negatively distort this simple fact, http://www.newsreview.com/reno/watts-me-worry/content?oid=602867 - I do not see the big deal or the need to negatively spin a simple piece of information.--JournalScholar (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a fact. Facts should be backed by verifiable sources, i.e. University records or degrees. All we have above is his statement on the matter.

Btw, the name of the University is Purdue, not 'Perdue'. Belsavis (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The source that says he attended Purdue is verifiable. I've looked and have so far been unable to find a source saying anything more about his attendance.--JournalScholar (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he graduated from Purdue, the registrar replied to an enquiry acknowledging that he attended for 5 years (!), but not confirming that he graduated with a degree. I'm not sure how that could be reflected in the page without it looking like a suggestion about his lack of credentials, however.Ninahexan (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So says sourcewatch which is not a reliable source. I've been unable to verify this from a reliable source.--JournalScholar (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you been able to verify that he does have a degree from a RS? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Does that page say he has a degree?--JournalScholar (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Does it say he hasn't? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What reliable source says he hasn't?--JournalScholar (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Merry-go-round? I fail to see the point of your question. We don't say he has a degree, and we don't say he doesn't have a degree. So we don't need a source for either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Then don't ask pointless questions. If I found a reliable source saying anything other than he attended Purdue I would have updated the page.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure to have 3 typos in this sentence, but I do find it curious that a Scholar misspells Purdue. Maybe you can keep in mind the famous Limerick about the young man from Purdue (whose Limericks stopped at line two). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I make spelling mistakes all the time and am certainly not concerned about them on a wikipedia talk page. I find it interesting that you are the biggest contributor and defender to William Connolley's BLP who was reprimanded for his unethical edits to climate change skeptics BLPs. Now of course you are here on Mr. Watts BLP to make sure it is as unbiased as possible I am sure.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar, please make yourself familiar with WP:NPA policy and stop attacking the reputation of other editors. Comment on improvements to the article, not on editors. You should also recognise that WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as articles, spreading unsourced accusations of unethical behaviour can get you topic banned. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with my source, http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 --JournalScholar (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The correct link is http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 (no trailing dashes). And the fact that you consider that piece of obviously worthless piece of propaganda as "your source" is somewhere between scary and sad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is verifiable by his edit history and I have witnessed it personally.--JournalScholar (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And the moon is made of green cheese. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
His edit history does not lie.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you believe the edit history, then you know that Solomon does, or, at best, is severely mistaken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe Solomon is correct and it is verifiable.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, if someone is advancing conclusions in a scientific field then their education and credentials are quite important. If I were to make claims relating to cancer treatments, yet not mention that my PhD was in geology, you can see how that might be relevant for the appraisal of my claims. If I had no degree at all then that information should be communicated, allowing the reader to judge how relevant that might be. In my opinion it is not enough for the page to mention that Watts attended a university, it should specifically state what qualifications and degrees he has attained. If it is a matter of him not having attained a university degree then it should specifically be reflected on the page, since his claims are within scientific fields. What is wrong with the page stating that he attended a university but has not confirmed whether a degree was awarded?Ninahexan (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it does not matter what you believe is relevant but what can be verified from a reliable source. Otherwise that would violate WP:NOR. All that can be stated is what is verifiable not what is unknown. Trust me, if there was a reliable source stating he did not have a degree it would have been listed here a long, long time ago by all the "unbiased" editors here. I've personally researched extensively and so far have found nothing one way or the other. Mentioning he attended a university is verifiable and part of his educational background. Have no fear, when a reliable source is found stating if he obtained a degree or not it will be added.--JournalScholar (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, how is it not appropriate to state that he attended Purdue but that there is no verifiable record of him having attained a degree? Isn't that actually what you have been stating? Yet you think it is not appropriate to mention the second half of the statement? Why? Attending a university is not the same as graduating with a degree, and that should be made explicit on the page, even more so because he has been directly asked and has not answered. It should state two facts: he attended Purdue, but there is no verification that he attained a degree. The latter is not an unsubstantiated claim, since it explicitly references the lack of substantiation either way. It also allows the reader more information to decrease a reliance on their assumptions about what attending a university means in terms of relevant credentials and training.Ninahexan (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not verifiable that there are "no verifiable record of him having attained a degree". A record can exist even if you have not found it. If this was allowed you could say anything you wanted by wording it this way. I cannot verify one way or the other anything more than is already stated. The page does not say he obtained a degree all it says is he stated that he attended a university. What reliable source do you have stating that he was directly asked and did not answer? The second part of your "facts" is not verifiable and therefore not considered a "fact". It is unsubstantiated because you do not have a reliable source to support it. You have not been able to verify if he obtained a degree or not by referencing a reliable source, that does not mean it does not exist. The problem is you are not providing them with verifiable information but your beliefs. You really need to believe me on this but if it existed someone would have added it already.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, to be clear, it is not verifiable that there is not a verifiable record? You are saying that there may be a verifiable record of him having attained a degree, but that we have not established that it does or does not exist? Or is it that there may be verifiable evidence that he did not attain a degree? That is aptly described as a "lack of verifiable record" for having attained a degree, and should follow the fact that he attended a university, since a logical inference that readers might make is that this entails the attainment of a degree. Clarifying that there is no record of the latter merely removes the assumptions readers might make on insufficient information. The relevance of education and credentials in fields where people advance theories and conclusions of a scientific nature is pretty obvious. If this page is to reflect the diligence of contributing editors it should include as much information as possible without bogging it down with trivialities. Credentials, education and training are directly relevant to this individual's notability, I am at a loss as to undersstand why this is the subject of debate.Ninahexan (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That is correct because a record could exist and by stating otherwise it would not be true. Without a source, especially on a BLP it violates WP:NOR. People can misread anything and this is not our concern as the current statement says nothing other than he stated he attended the University, it does not say he graduated or obtained a degree. If you wish to include information then you need to locate a reliable source so that the information can be verified. My argument will hold up in arbitration.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ninahexan. The statement that he attended a particular university, without explaining that he did not graduate is misleading. See, for example, the article on Matt Damon where it say he, "attended Harvard University from 1988 to 1992 but did not graduate." This is clearly important information in a biography--and in this case to include the fact that Watt attended Purdue without indicating whether or not he achieved a degree is incomplete information. It should be possible to determine which it is.Michaplot (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That is because you can find a reliable source stating that Matt Damon did not graduate. In relation to Mr. Watts, it is not misleading at all because it does not state he graduated or obtained a degree, this is all the information that has so far been presented that can be verified. Failing to source your claim would violate WP: NOR and is not permitted on Wikipedia and for good reason.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll add the dates of his attendance at Purdue, which has been confirmed by the registrar- http://sourcewatch.org/images/4/4d/Anthony_Watts.pdf. I assume this is not contested?Ninahexan (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is not a reliable source (a wiki) and cannot be used, the document listed violates WP: NOR. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a concern about the information in the early life section. We now have the statement that, "Anthony Watts grew up in Indiana, and stated that he attended Purdue University." This is supported by two references. Reference 9 does not include any mention of Purdue or Watts claiming to have gone to Purdue, it is relevant only to growing up in Indiana. The second reference is an article in the Chico News & Review, which says, "He thought back to 1978, when he was a student working in a lab at Purdue University..." In fact, this article does not reveal that Watts has definitively claimed to have attended Purdue, as a student who applied and was accepted to the University. It is quite common for high school students to work in college labs. Similarly, visiting students from other places, such as community colleges, might do internships in university labs. I am not sure we have a source for Watts claiming to have attended Purdue. We have a source for Watts claiming to have worked in a lab at Purdue. This may seem overly picky, but since this issue is contentious and some editors would rather have us not state that Watts does not claim to have graduated from Purdue, we should stick close to the sources. In addition, his reticence about his college experience and credentials, and the conspicuous lack of mention of these in the bios of him at Heartland or elsewhere (including his own blog), raise red flags. Is it possible that he never was a student--a full time enrolled student--at Purdue? Is the ambiguous and brief mention in the N&R article enough to even say he claims to have "attended Purdue"? I am not sure and I am interested in other editors opinionsMichaplot (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not common for high school students to be working in college labs or students to be visiting from community colleges. The statement of him referring to himself as a "student working in a lab at Purdue University" can clearly be interpreted to mean he "attended Purdue University" as it does not denote his enrollment status (full or part time) or if he graduated. Trying to spin this into more then it is reaching. Everyone else is not even arguing that he attended but that he did not graduate - which I do not know because I cannot find a reliable source that says so one way or the other. --JournalScholar (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You say it is not common, but I personally hosted a number of high school students at University of California, Davis where the young scholars program regularly brought high school students to university labs. As well, I have personally overseen dozens of community college students working in university labs. I did not argue that he did not attend. I said that we do not have a source that explains the specific circumstances of his attendance (visiting student, part time student, full time student). I do admit to having the temerity to suggest that the lack of sources might inform how we describe his education.Michaplot (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I know high school students visit during open house days but I have seen no evidence that it is common for them to do academic work there. I remain very skeptical about you community college claims. If you are not arguing he did not attend then there is nothing to debate on this point as that is all it states. Regardless, a second source has been added also stating he was trained at Purdue. All of the evidence available so far implies he was either a full or part time student at Purdue. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please look at http://ysp.ucdavis.edu/. Many universities have similar programs. In any case, the question is not how common it is for high school students or visiting students to work in a lab at a University. The issue is a valid source for the claim that Watts attended Purdue and whether he graduated from this institution. (It is quite clear from a primary source document that he did attend and did not graduate, but this document does not constitute a reliable source.) So what do we have for sources about his early life and education? An article from the N&R by a writer who appears to be a legitimate journalist (though it seems that the information about Watts' education was obtained from Watts, and it is unlikely the journalist checked the facts). I believe that is all we have. The new source I will have to object to and argue it should be removed. Here is why: the "publication" in which it appears is a Ulitzer site, which makes it dubious (Google removed Ulitzer from search results due to numerous copyright violations). The author is not a journalist but a publicist who runs a public relations firm. More importantly, if you look in the FAQs in members section of the Ulitzer website, you find the question: "I'm a PR Agent or Social Media Professional, How Shall I Use Ulitzer?" The answer is:
Approved and published stories appear on your author page as well as your company home page with stories by other authors from your firm. If they are related to one or more of the topics you created, they will also appear on these sites as well as all other relevant topic sites.
It appears that this may be exactly what Pat Meier-Johnson did. I do not believe the SOA World reference is a reliable source for these reasons. If you believe it is, I would like to hear your support for it.
It seems to me that the conspicuous paucity of sources for Watts' education and credentials is notable. I think the fair way to describe his education would be to say something like, "he claims to have attended PU (which we have a source for), "but there is no evidence he graduated".
In other news, it seems to me that the article does not yet cover Watts' latest peer reviewed paper in much detail, nor his connection with the Heartland Institute. Perhaps these should be included.Michaplot (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The alleged primary source document can be fake and is considered unreliable thus it cannot be used and I am not even considering it for the sake of argument. The Ulitzer page is poorly sourced including citations to a blog and I could not find a single negative news article about soa.sys-con.com or SYS-CON Media which is also indexed in Google News. Thus your claims of Google removing them from search results is not valid. It is quite normal for online journalists to be employed in other fields as well. Again there is no reliable source stating he did not graduate thus it would violate WP:NOR.
Watts does not have another paper that has been peer-reviewed and the Heartland information is already on the page. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The text now reads "According to writer John Grant, there is no record of him graduating". Here I must ask - who can know whether there is or isn't a record about that, apart from Anthony and perhaps the University itself? Surely some fantasy writer can't speak authoritatively about this subject? I'm new to this, and is wary of making edits, so I hope someone will please explain this oddity to me. Is it really credible that an outsider like this writer should have certain knowledge about what there isn't a record about? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrsphinx (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Oops didn't sign myself I see, well I'm new. Here comes my siggie Hrsphinx (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, nobody seems to have any idea how this writer should have the precise and all encompassing knowledge of everything relevant recorded at the university. And of course, should we accept that this writer, indeed does harbor this fantastic and massive knowledge about stuff recorded at the university, then we must also accept it proven that Watts hasn't graduated from the university, because there then would be a record about it at the university. It's safe to conclude from the other talking points on this page, that we cannot say if Watts has graduated - and then we do not accept the writer has the purported knowledge ... that he is in fact not credible. I shall therefore move to strike away what has been written indicating the writer should have, quite frankly, magic abilities. Hrsphinx (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that logic does not work. The writer in question can e.g. simply call the university and ask - or mail them, or even ask Watts. This is not something that is unknowable in principle, or even particularly hard to do if he is well-enough connected and/or credentialed. If he is reliably published, we don't generally dig into his methods of obtaining the information - the assumption is that the reliable publication process takes care of that. There may be exceptions, but I don't see this as one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, whatever kind of logic works here, I will accept it as the kind of logic that works here. Now, if the logic, here at Wikipedia, says, that there is no record of graduation, because this writer says so. Not because he proves so, nor because we are shown how he proves this, but solely because he says so, then we must also conclude that Watts has not graduated, since there would be a record of such, and this writer says there is not, therefore Watts has not graduated. Now, that must be logical I think, so I will now write, that Watts hasn't graduated according to the writer who tells the university has no records of Watss having graduated, and they would have if he had indeed graduated. That said, I am willing to learn if such logic doesn't work on Wikepedia as well. I pride myself of being humble, flexible and willing to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrsphinx (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
English is not Loglan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Not being one who readily engages in futile debates, there isn't more I need to learn about what kind of or lack of logic Wikipedia employs when deciding what's written in an article. My best wishes to you all. Hrsphinx (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In the "About Anthony" section of his blog, he states he is "not a degreed climates scientist". I think this is pertinent and have added it to the Early Life and Education section. Jhowar59 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If someone were to pay the $10 - would this count a source to finally note that he does/doesn't have a degree and in what field if so? The current semantics seem to imply a degree of some sort (other than climate science) and I think is misleading if Anthony himself is neither confirming nor denying he has graduated. http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/verifiers/degree/ Woofmaster (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

At present, the lead paragraph says nothing about his position on climate change, which is pretty remarkable. I propose to add a sentence to the effect that he opposes the scientific consensus on CC. Thoughts? --JBL (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article. By all means, go for it. Just make sure you say what the article says. Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I took a swing, what do you think? --JBL (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Skepticism"

This revert reintroduced the claim that Watts is engaging in skepticism. The implication is that his beliefs are supported by the philosophy of scientific skepticism which is not supported by the sources. It is what Watts and his fellow climate-change-disbelievers call themselves, but Wikipedia should not be in the business of adopting their philosophical approaches. We need to neutrally describe his opposition and calling it "skeptical" is not neutral.

jps (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Watts is into "the philosophy of scientific skepticism" so I see no relevance. Watts is an acceptable source about his own beliefs, and no evidence has been supplied that the term is not neutral. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Using the term "skepticism" in Wikipedia's voice is to endorse the claim that Watts is a proper skeptic which is to say that he engages in scientific skepticism. If you want to quote Watts on his beliefs, do so. Put it in quotation marks, then. jps (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It says he's "skeptical about..." He's not - he rejects the mainstream scientific view. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Scientific skepticism isn't in the article, and the phrase "skeptical about ..." isn't in the article. Anybody got anything to say about the article, or is this over? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
More important point: pedantry of this sort is incredibly inane, and never convinces anyone of anything, so just amounts to posturing and time-wasting. Less important point: the actual phrase in the article is "[Watts's] skepticism about ...." --JBL (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
JBL: In accordance with WP:CIVIL I will merely say at this stage that your remark above "might be considered uncivil". When Guettarda put a phrase inside quote marks, I believe it should be understandable that I took it as an attempt to make an exact quote, inasmuch as that's what quote marks are for. That doesn't mean I'm unaware that there's some sort of concern about skepticism, and perhaps we need no longer be diverted by talk of scientific skepticism, but you didn't respond to my suggestion that evidence is required, so why get impatient when I don't respond to your demand that I put parts of the article inside quote marks? --

"Skeptic" and related terms are the point-of-view of Watts and company. We can attribute his belief about that, but we should not adopt it Wikipedia's voice. We need a neutral phrasing. jps (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite your "reticence" I've seen that you've put your theory on WP:FTN the Wikipedia:Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I'll explain there why you've gone to the wrong place. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you cooked your own goose with that one. Most of the reliable sources use some form of the word "denial". So if you want to go by the admin's "ruling" (which is not how WP:AN works, incidentally), we'd have to change all the instances of "climate change skeptics" to "climate change deniers". So, let's move on and get to WP:NPOV, shall we? jps (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I pointed you to an administrator's ruling (by which I mean an administrator's official conclusion on WP:ANI) beginning with the words "Use what the sources say ..." here. I said that if you want to override it you have to go to an administrator's forum (by which I mean a forum where an administrator makes rulings rather than a talk shop). Now, what do you mean? Do you accept it or do you want to override it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So it is your position we should change all instances of "skepticism" with "denial" since that's what the preponderance of the most reliable sources say? Do you accept it? If not, take your own advice. I'm satisfied that I'm on the right side here. jps (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No that is not my position, because I accept the administrator's ruling. Now, once again: Do you accept it or do you want to override it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The admin's "ruling" is that we should do what the sources do. The most reliable sources call Watts a denier. So.... you connect the dots. jps (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Over-coverage of Surface Stations using primary sources

Wikipedia articles report on a topic from a distance by summarizing secondary sources. Extensive use of primary sources tends toward original research and often verges on being promotional (whether intentional or unintentional). Connecting together material from primary sources is almost always original research. Wikipedia doesn't give a play-by-play detailed breakdown of events via primary sources. Also remember, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles" (WP:FRIND).

Apart from the use of primary sources, the Surface Stations section was disproportionately large; huge, even. I've rewritten the section using three of the best secondary sources that cover it.

There is also the problem of interpreting the Menne et al paper that rebutted Watts. The Wikipedia article gave a long quote from the paper which had the effect of placing undue weight on particulars while missing the much more important part of the conclusion: "we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting". Giving prominence to that long excerpt suggested that there is more "controversy" than there actually is. Manul ~ talk 18:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The change added a non-self-pub blog post as a source and WP:BLPSPS applies so I undid it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, I guess you mean Carbon Brief, which is certainly a reliable source to rebut fringe claims -- see WP:PARITY. Watts advances a fringe position and his report was not peer reviewed, hence PARITY. If you like, we may remove the issue of the Muller paper being publicized before peer review; that way, we needn't reference Carbon Brief. Manul ~ talk 19:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Manul: Indeed, Carbon Brief. I don't know whether the rest of the (rather large) change is any good, but the blog was my only reason for undoing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave souza, my change to the section was in the direction of removing whitewashing and removing material that promoted Watts' view. There was undue weight on fringe claims sourced to Watts himself. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting Watts' particular fringe views; we only consider inclusion when independent sources report upon them. Manul ~ talk 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit slow on coming back on this, my feeling was that significant points were left out, but you certainly stripped it down to more proportionate coverage. Have reinstated it, with points reintroduced: have yet to go over the BEST issue, the Guardian/Carbon Brief article covers aspects well but if that's too arguable we can review the paragraph on the basis of the other sources. . dave souza, talk 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The Souleymane, Watts, et al paper was another of the primary sources that needed independent coverage for inclusion. In all, there isn't much scientific controversy in this surface station topic, right? We needn't belabor the point. I was going to keep the bit about Watts' reaction to the BEST findings, but then I read in the Guardian article that Muller contradicted the claim. I suppose we could cover that controversy in a controversy, but I ended up just dropping it. Manul ~ talk


Contradictory content.

I removed some contradictory content. The content in question says that he is unwilling to discuss his education, but the very next sentence says that he states that he does not have a degree in climate science. Which is it? We cannot say that he's unwilling to discuss his education when the very next statement shows him discussing his education. Both statements cannot be true. I've been reverted although the summary edit doesn't really explain why other than to claim I'm wrong without providing a reason.[1] Since the other editor didn't provide a reason or start a discussion on the talk page, I'm removing the content per WP:BLPREMOVE. If anyone, including the original editor, disagrees with my edit, then please explain why. Don't just say I'm wrong. That's not an explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence says that he doesn't have a degree, not that he says he doesn't have a degree. There is simply no contradiction whatsoever, and the sentence you're removing is well-sourced and obviously consistent with biographical policies. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read the third source where he says that he is not a degreed climate scientist, but a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist program. Again, how is it possible that he refuses to talk about his education when he's clearly talking about his education? This is not rocket science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
And please note that edit-warring to include contentious WP:BLP content is a great way to get blocked or topic-banned. Now, take a step back and actually read the content that you're edit-warring over. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say, AQFK, given that you were previously topic-banned from climate change articles, that you too should tread lightly lest you end up back at WP:AE for edit warring in climate change articles. WP:KETTLE. Your edits appear to be POV-pushing in favor of either concern trolling for this particular person's opposition to mainstream climate science or even spilling over to outright support of climate-change denial. jps (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's weird to say that Watts is unwilling to discuss it when we're citing a source showing him discussing it, and not citing a source saying he discussed it unwillingly. The removal looks justifiable to me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
AQFK, your posts have an extremely high bluster-to-content ratio; please knock it off. (You might notice, for example, that BRD is a three-step process and it's the duty of the Bold editor, not the Reverter, to begin talk-page discussion.) On substance: the two sentences in question are not, in fact, contradictory -- the possibly valid assertion is that the statement in the older source is made obsolete by the newer one. I've now corrected this by adding a time-based qualifier to the (properly sourced, obviously BLP-compliant) older claim. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
JBL: I see on wayback that Watts wrote "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" some time before November 2 2010. The publication date of Grant's book, which I think is what you refer to when you say "the older source", is some time in 2011. How did you calculate age here? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the WP:BLP violation by Joel B. Lewis. The source in question does not state that "and he was at one time unwilling to discuss his education" or anything close to that, nor that "however, and he's been reticent in discussing this." This appears to be unsourced WP:OR based on a misunderstanding of primary sources. Please remember that whenever WP:BLP issues is raised, the burden of proof is on those seeking to restore the contentious content, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear: saying the words "BLP" repeatedly without making any actual claim about the nature of a violation does not and cannot put a burden of proof on anyone else. For a person deeply committed to wiki lawyer-style bullying, you are remarkably inept. Perhaps in your next edit you could make a first attempt at a substantive contribution to the conversation. --JBL (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
JBL: I hope that your dispute with A Quest For Knowledge has not caused you to miss the question that I directed to you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, sorry for the delay in responding. The status before the recent round of editing was that there were two claims: (1) that Watts does not have a college degree (in any field) and avoids discussing this fact, and (2) that Watts does not have a degree in climate science. The quote that you mention is perfectly consistent with both of these claims. --JBL (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: Your statement makes no sense as I was extremely explicit in exactly what the WP:BLP violation was: you inserted contentious WP:BLP content that was not supported by the source. As I clearly explained:

The source in question does not state that "and he was at one time unwilling to discuss his education" or anything close to that, nor that "however, and he's been reticent in discussing this."

Which part of this is unclear? You added content that the source doesn't support. I'm not sure how this can get an simpler. All contentious WP:BLP content must be directly supported by the sources. You didn't provide any sources that say that "he was at one time unwilling to discuss his education" or anything close to that, nor that "however, and he's been reticent in discussing this." or anything close to that. This is Wikipedia 101. You have to provide sources. Again, which part of this is unclear? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kudos to whomever removed the WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 March 2015

The abbreviation for the website is given as WUWT? however there are two instances in the article of the abbreviation WUWT being used. These should be corrected to be WUWT?. Michaplot (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I've changed one of them, but the other one was inside a quotation so I thought it should probably be left as it is. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WUWT? ?

I have never seen the name of Watts's blog abbreviated to "WUWT?" outside wikipedia; moreover, my experience reading this article is that the extra punctuation is extremely distracting. Is there any hope of consensus for a mass change WUWT? → WUWT ? --JBL (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Joel Lewis, and recommend the plain "WUWT" abbreviation be restored. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2015

Per (brief) discussion above, change all instances of "WUWT?" to "WUWT" to match sources and common sense. --JBL (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) JBL (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Characterizing WUWT

Terms such as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, AIDS denialism, and climate change denialism are used by mainstream experts to characterize works that significantly depart from mainstream understanding. The WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:PSCI, mandates that the mainstream reception of fringe works be prominently stated, which may include the use of such terms if adequately sourced. Indeed this is how Wikipedia articles are written in practice; see for example Gavin Menzies, whose work is called pseudohistory in the first paragraph.

Opposition to using such direct characterizations on Wikipedia has occurred before. The objections in this case bear similarity to past objections with regard to other fringe topics.

  • The source or sources are not adequate. No, Mann's book alone is adequate, since Mann is a mainstream expert on the subject. The other two sources recently added[2][3] would also be adequate by themselves. All of these are high-quality academic sources. The last source specifically makes the point that, while Watts characterizes himself as "skeptical", some WUWT posts "sound denialistic". This source is against characterizing WUWT as "skeptical".
  • But I found sources when I googled wattsupwiththat "skeptical blog". Yes, and you can search for other terms and find sources for those as well. The question is: what to do when sources conflict? This is normally resolved by looking to what the highest quality sources say. Sources from expert academics are better than newspaper sources, even if outnumbered by newspaper sources. Wikipedia prefers quality over quantity. Had Wikipedia (and the Internet) been around when Joseph Newman was making headlines, preferring popular newspapers as sources would have led to an article that mislead readers about the potential legitimacy of Newman's device.
  • Mentioning "climate change denialism" is a BLP violation and/or a personal attack. No, accurately characterizing a blog according to high quality sources is not a BLP violation or a personal attack. Wikipedia uses terms like pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and climate change denialism in order to properly inform the reader, per the WP:PSCI policy.
  • Something about the Holocaust. Let's not go down that path, okay?

Manul ~ talk 22:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: You are correct on policy, but backwards on implementation. As best as I can tell, the mainstream POV is that this blog is a skeptic blog, not a denialist blog. Please see the following.[4] The claim that this is a denialism blog appears to be a WP:FRINGE POV held by an extreme minority of sources. Per WP:NPOV, we absolutely should not be promoting the fringe viewpoint that this is a denialism blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The mainstream view as per a Google Scholar search eliminating the denialist sources that violate WP:FRIND is that it promotes climate change denial. "Skepticism" and "denial" both are WP:FRINGE positions. jps (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is still on WP:BLPN where arguments like Manul's above were discussed and were refuted or gained no consensus, there's no need to do it again here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nah. Manul's point has the best reliable sources behind it. Global warming denialists who are muddying the waters don't trump the fact that we have three excellent sources that are better than the rest in terms of identifying what the content of the blog is. jps (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, see the first and second bullet points above, which discredit your strategy of relying upon newspapers and magazines while ignoring experts. The mainstream POV in a given field is determined by mainstream experts in the field, not by counting newspaper and magazine articles. There is no "extreme minority" here except the extreme minority of scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Here is an additional source that deserves mention:

The Internet...provides an environment where individuals can selectively source their information...This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.

This is the mainstream POV as shown by expert sources, and per WP:NPOV it must be included. This has been a recap of the BLPN thread to confirm that the objections to characterizing WUWT as climate change denialism have been satisfactorily answered. Manul ~ talk 04:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: First, you said that there was a "strategy of relying upon newspapers and magazines while ignoring experts". I did an objective search of all reliable sources which includes newspapers, magazines and peer-reviewed academic journals. No experts where ignored. (In fact, where did you even get that idea from?)
Second, you stated "extreme minority of scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus on climate change". I agree. But that's not the issue that we're discussing. The issue is not the majority POV regarding climate change, the issue is the majority POV regarding the WUWT blog. You're conflating two different issues. You do see the difference, right?
Third, I think the first sentence of the quote you provided aptly describes the situation here:

The Internet...provides an environment where individuals can selectively source their information

Selectively choosing (aka WP:CHERRYPICKING) which sources to cite while ignoring the vast majority of reliable sources is classic WP:UNDUE. If we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source, you cite the majority.
Fourth, you state "the objections to characterizing WUWT as climate change denialism have been satisfactorily answered." They haven't even been addressed, let alone answered. Look, I came into this with an open mind. I was, and continue to be, willing to follow the sources, where ever they lead. I performed an objective analysis of reliable sources randomly selected by Google.[5] The result of that analysis is that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that this is a skeptic blog, not denialist. I will continue to have an open mind, but in absence of any objective evidence that says otherwise, the answer seems pretty clear. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain how you created the list you randomly selected from? Which search terms did you use, and which search engine? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, absolutely. I searched for "Watts Up With That" with the quotes using my Reliable Sources Search Engine, a link to which can be found on my user page under "Tools I find useful". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As was pointed out, if you just use Google Scholar, you eliminate most of the erroneous hits you have to unreliable sources. Your Reliable Sources Search Engine doesn't work. jps (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I tried using Google Scholar, but it ironically cites unreliable sources such as WUWT[6] (so much for it doing a better job finding reliable sources, ha!), and most of the other hits are behind paywalls. In any case, you made reference to "erroneous hits you have to unreliable sources" I believe that you are mistaken but if there is any particular source that you believe to be unreliable, you are free to bring this to WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
We have three sources that are listed in GoogleScholar that are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited. I understand that you may have problems if you don't have access to journals, but you can request them through resource request and can easily eliminate the unreliable sources. Using media sources as your primary means to answer the question is not acceptable when we have academic sources. jps (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The very first source returned by Google Scholar is WUWT.[7] That doesn't quite mesh with your claim that "GoogleScholar that are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited", now does it? Also, you stated that you found three sources which describe the blog as denialist. That number is meaningless without context. How many sources didn't describe it as denialist? That's the crux of the issue here: what do the majority of reliable sources say? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer as far as I can tell is "zero". I haven't been able to find any sources better than the three I found, in spite of asking for you and other supporters of the "skeptic" status quo to provide some. It needs to be the majority of the most reliable sources not just sources in general. Note WP:SOURCECOUNTING as a problem. jps (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I note that you didn't bother explaining the obvious contradiction between your claim that "GoogleScholar that are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited" and the fact that WUWT is the #1 source returned by Google Scholar. It is difficult to logically argue that the sources returned by Google Scholar "are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited" while simultaneously arguing that the very same sources returned by Google Scholar are denialist and unreliable.
Second, I'm not a supporter "of the "skeptic" status quo". I came in here with an open mind. What I am a supporter of is following reliable sources no matter where they lead.
Third, your claim that you were unable to find sources through Google Scholar which don't describe this blog as denialist indicates a severe flaw in your methodology. The very first reliable source I found through Google Scholar describes this blog as skeptic.[8] Or, is your argument that academic journals published by the University of Oxford are not reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That source you outline is great, but it hardly qualifies as one that can be said to make the point that WUWT is not a blog that engages in climate change denial. We all understand that there is very little distinction between what proponents call "climate change skepticism" and denial. I would like to see a link to the above article as I think it describes Watts' position particularly well and the academic source you are providing seems to illustrate that as well. jps (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
AQFK, you haven't engaged the points that have been made. I'd rather not facilitate a IDHT loop, but just taking some (not all) of the missed points, what is your response to (1) a high-quality expert source that discusses and analyzes WUWT is better than a thousand newspaper articles that happen to mention WUWT while using the word "skeptical"; (2) the mainstream POV is determined by what experts say, not by counting newspaper articles; (3) the Joseph Newman thought experiment; (4) a high-quality expert source even tells us that WUWT should not be called "skeptical"; etc. You're focused on this source-counting procedure but you haven't addressed its underlying flaw.
We seek high-quality expert sources that actually discuss WUWT, not simply mention it in passing. That is another factor in valuing quality over quantity.
Using your source-counting methodology, Wikipedia may have (at one point) described Newman's energy machine as a "potential perpetual motion device". On the other hand, experts knew it was a flop. That example was intended to trigger an insight into why the source-counting method does not produce accurate articles. When assessing consensus, we can ignore editors that are inside IDHT loops. Manul ~ talk 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Manul: First, you stated "you haven't engaged the points that have been made". That's a rather strange thing to claim given that I've been extremely straight forward by directly confronting the key issues.
Second, you stated "a high-quality expert source that discusses and analyzes WUWT is better than a thousand newspaper articles". Again, I examined all reliable sources, including expert ones. Why do you perpetuate this falsehood?
Third, and perhaps most importantly, you haven't addressed the issue of all the other sources which don't categorize this blog as "denialist". Again, it is completely meaningless to claim that A number of sources say B, without including the C numbers of sources which say D. This has already been explained. Why won't you address this? Yet again, this is the heart of the matter: What is the majority viewpoint regarding this issue? You haven't even bothered to address the issue at hand.
Fourth, you're right that I haven't addressed Newman's energy machine because that's not what we're talking about, nor do I care. Let's stay on topic, shall we?
Fifth, speaking about refusing to engage in the points that have been made so far, I note that you have not retracted nor apologized for the false claim about "strategy of relying upon newspapers and magazines while ignoring experts"? Would you like to show some good faith and admit that you were wrong?
Sixth, speaking of WP:IDHT (your words, not mine), you have not acknowledged that the fact that you've conflated two different issues (the majority POV regarding climate change versus the majority POV regarding the WUWT blog). Why won't you address this?
Finally, I am approaching this with an open mind. You cannot just simply stomp your feet and announce that you are right. You have to provide objective evidence in favor of your position. How many posts have you made and you haven't even bothered trying to provide any objective evidence?
WP:IDHT (again, your words, not mine) indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, taking these in order,

  1. I continue to notice that points have not been addressed. For instance, what do we do when sources conflict? What about the high-quality expert source that says WUWT is not a "skeptical" blog? Do we ignore this conflict, and what is the policy-based reason for ignoring it? The typical resolution is to defer to the higher quality sources.
  2. We seek high-quality, expert, independent sources that actually discuss WUWT. This is the gold standard; it is the basis for writing an accurate article. Everyone should agree on this. Do you? We have several such sources that characterize WUWT as a climate change denialism blog. You say there are others that do not. From what I see, you've only mentioned [9], which is not as high quality and does not discuss WUWT apart from a mention in a parenthetical reference.
  3. Please just tell us what sources you propose. You're still not answering the point: the mainstream POV is determined by mainstream experts, not by counting newspaper articles containing (or not containing) a certain phrase. Everyone should agree. Do you? I have never claimed that "A number of sources say B". I care about what experts say, not about counting newspapers.
  4. I had hoped the Newman example would provoke thought about this source-counting strategy. If it fails with Newman's device, why should it succeed with WUWT, or with any other topic?
  5. I acknowledge that I should have been more clear about "while ignoring experts". When you source-count like this, it effectively ignores experts, because experts are few and newspaper/magazine articles are many. That you started off with the list of newspaper and magazine articles indicated to me that you completely missed the points I gave.
  6. You made what I consider to be an extraordinary claim: that the characterization of WUWT as denialism is WP:FRINGE. High-quality, expert, independent sources that actually discuss WUWT are relatively few in number. When you wrote "extreme minority", it seemed you misunderstood (and still misunderstand) the role of experts when covering scientific topics on Wikipedia. By turning the phrase around, I was attempting to bring attention to this point. I know very well the two uses of "extreme minority" -- the point was that your use of "extreme minority" was misguided, resulting from not understanding the important role of experts.
  7. The objective evidence consists of the already-mentioned sources which are high-quality, expert, independent, and which actually discuss WUWT.

Manul ~ talk 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's like you didn't even bother reading any of the previous posts. All of your points have already been addressed (and in many cases, several times over). If you didn't understand it the few times around, it's unlikely that another round of repetition is going to resolve your lack of understanding. To be honest, I don't see any point in repeating the same things over and over again if it's simply going to fall on deaf ears. But do understand that per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." If you don't want to meet that burden, fine, but don't expect anyone to continually explain the same things over and over again if you're unable or unwilling to understand the responses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, let's take the first one. How do you propose that we deal with conflicting sources? And what do we do about the high-quality expert source that says WUWT is not a "skeptical" blog? If you have explained your proposal, then sorry I must have missed it. Please humor me and point it out. Manul ~ talk 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine, I'll humor you. We handle it the same we always handle it: "If we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source, you cite the majority."[10] See? Already asked and answered. Now you humor me: Why should I repeatedly answer the same questions over and over again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That is against current practices and guidelines for scientific topics, as I have been explaining. Please see WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." The example of the Newman device should drive home that this is just common sense. A foxnews.com article (one of the sources you gave) does not cancel out a high-quality expert source, obviously. Wikipedia looks to experts. Quality over quantity. Manul ~ talk 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, already asked and answered. Since I did you the courtesy of humoring you and you failed extend the same courtesy in return, I'll leave it as an exercise to you to scroll up and read the responses. As long as you continue to ignore questions that have already been answered, this discussion is at a stand-still. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Wherever your argument can be found and whatever form it has taken, our policies and guidelines take precedence, especially with regard to scientific topics. Manul ~ talk 01:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
One last point...I agree 100% that we should be following our policies and guidelines, and that's exactly what I've been arguing in favor of this whole time, and this applies to all topics, not just scientific topics. In any case, you may have the last word. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I bet we will reach consensus the 17th time you pretend not to understand the importance of weighing different sources rather than counting them. At least, that seems to be the view of the helpful administrator who protected the page. --JBL (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I understand the importance of weighing different sources, and if you look up my record, you would note that I'm one of the top 5 contributors to W:RSN (or at least I was the last time I checked). I understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines very well, thank you very much. The problem is that you haven't provide any real evidence to back up your position. Anyone can cherrypick which sources to follow and which ones to ignore. Indeed, it's easy to purposely seek out sources that fit some pre-conceived notion. Perhaps you didn't do that purposely and this is merely a case of confirmation bias. But either way, that's not evidence. You have to provide an objective analysis of what the sources actually say. It's sad that this discussion has gone on as long as it has without you providing any real evidence to support your position. We're still at square one. :( A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed the put-denialism-in side has an ability to repeat claims (though have you noticed how the claim that there are dozens of supporting sources has disappeared?) but no ability to provide real evidence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter, all you seem to be able to do is google "WUWT" and "skeptic" in quotes. I'd like to evaluate the sources we have and it seems very much to me that the best sources we have identify much of the content on WUWT as being at least sympathetic if not outright supportive of climate change denial. Whether we use the word denial or not is not really of any consequence to me. I would like to avoid "skeptic" as it is somewhat equivocal in this context, though as Short Brigade Harvester Boris points out in the BLPN thread there are very few who are not sympathetic to climate change denial who determine that there is a major distinction between the two labels. My only interest is making sure the reader knows what the blog does and it seems pretty clear to me according to the most reliable sources that what the blog does lines up pretty closely with what is discussed in our article on climate change denial. jps (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, what immediately jumps out is that there is a problem of giving equal validity. Indeed I introduced the problem when I made the compromise to include both "skeptic" and "denial", though now it seems more stark. We should not imply equal validity unless we have comparably high-quality sources supporting the "skeptic" characterization. What are these sources? This entire thread boils down to that question. Manul ~ talk 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Presumably it's the list that Peter posted in the article and AQFK posted at BLPN. There are two sources worth looking at in those lists, as far as I'm concerned: Painter & Ashe 2012 which only mentions WUWT as an example of the kind of ideology they are outlining (which I would say is climate change denial) and Morello 2012 from SciAm which says, "But several climate scientists said skeptics were misinterpreting the leaked drafts' conclusions." which seems to me, anyway, to identify the blog as being firmly in the climate change denial camp in the sense that our article on the ideology explains it (where scientists disagree with so-called 'skeptics'). There are the three additional sources I provided including Mann, Dunlap, and Liu. One additional source might be Lemonick's interview of Richard A. Muller in SciAm who is a scientist who is about as sympathetic as could be said to be to Watts personally (though the blog is another matter). I would argue, however, that this interview is mostly elucidating opinions of Muller and perhaps Lemonich rather than getting at a dispassionate evaluation. Nevertheless, here are relevant quotes from the article for those who can't get behind the paywall (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v304/n6/pdf/scientificamerican0611-84.pdf):
  • "Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming."
  • "Anthony Watts, whom some climate scientists consider a denier, not just a skeptic, has denounced you for going public before the final results are in. Why did you go public?"
  • "Lemonick: Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic? Mueller: No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there. I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process."
To my estimation, these six sources most firmly place the blog as at least sympathetic to what we describe, for better or worse, on Wikipedia as climate change denial. How we discuss that is all that remains. I agree that there are WP:GEVAL problems we need to avoid.
jps (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The very recent discussion of this topic at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard is archived here. Opened 22 March; last posting was on 25 March 2015. The arguments are much the same as here. No consensus was reached. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources?

Does anyone have access to this article?

jps (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is here.
Manul ~ talk 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56519/1/Sharman_Mapping-climate-sceptical-blogosphere_2014.pdf the blog WUWT is identified as a nodal importance to what the authors describe as the "climate sceptical blogosphere" but looks to identify most closely with our article on climate change denial. Their conclusions on what the blogs like WUWT are doing in the formation of discussions:

jps (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional source that clearly identifies WUWT as being part of the climate change denial community -- this one in an education journal:

jps (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Elshof, Leo (2011). "Can Education Overcome Climate Change Inactivism?". Elshof, Leo. "Can education overcome climate change inactivism." Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education. 3 (1).

For good measure I'll add this source I recently mentioned,

Manul ~ talk 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This edit lists sources obtained from googling with search terms such as "skeptical blog" and "skeptic website" (these terms are included some URLs) and forms the conclusion that WUWT? is known as a "skeptic" blog. This is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH, and one would do well to read the entire No original research policy. This also underlines the problem of conflicting sources as well as the solution of deferring to high-quality expert sources. Manul ~ talk 09:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I remind Manul that there is a discussion on WP:BLPN. If there is no consensus on WP:BLPN, then I expect most of the people who objected to calling WUWT a "denialism" site in the lead will not object to removing a sentence calling WUWT a "skeptic" site in the WUWT section -- that would be a part of a return to the status quo ante. Or, if/when the WP:BLPN discussion ends with a firm rejection of Manul's position, I don't think our keep-denialism-out side would rub it in by insisting on "skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: I see that the WP:BLPN discussion has now been archived after four days of inactivity. I am obliged now to remove the template about it. If there is further comment about the end of the WP:BLPN discussion, please put it in the previous thread "Characterizing WUWT" after Mr Tillman's notification. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The BLPN discussion obviously was not reaching consensus; also, it has been archived due to lack of activity in the past week. Unsurprisingly, I also agree substantively with Manul. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not find mention of this WP:NOR violation in the BLPN thread, which was archived twelve hours before "Again I remind Manul that there is a discussion on WP:BLPN..." was written. In any case, obvious cases of original research may be uncontroversially removed. Manul ~ talk 16:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been already objectively demonstrated,[12] the majority POV is that this is skeptic website, not denialist. In case anyone attempts to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, I remind all editors that per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If any editor attempts to add or restore any fringe POVs that this is a denialist website, such content should be immediately removed and without waiting for discussion per WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
For godsakes, use preview instead of making dozens of minor edits!--JBL (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
AQFK, do you understand what the aforementioned WP:SYNTH violation is? Manul ~ talk 20:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
These sources were all mentioned in the WP:BLPN discussion. It's not a policy violation to find sources. I've asked the administrator who protected this article whether it's correct now to remove the recently-added labels of WUWT, from either side. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
An administrator cannot magically turn a lack of consensus into consensus. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Peter Gulutzan: Correct, it's not a policy violation to "find sources". It is a policy violation to synthesize sources to form a conclusion that is not present in any of the sources. This thread is about your edit which synthesizes sources. This thread is not about any wider issue; only that edit. There's no shame in not being familiar with every line of Wikipedia policy. Would you please read WP:NOR? Re the admin, I previously explained to you that admins do not rule on content. Manul ~ talk 23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If there is WP:SYNTH issue, it can easily be resolved by citing sources reliable sources which support the majority POV and of which there are plenty. This seems much ado about nothing. Just cite the sources which cite the majority POV, case closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
AQFK, would you please start another thread if you wish to argue that characterizing a blog using high-quality expert sources is somehow a BLP violation? (I'd like to hear the argument, since it's never been explained.) As I mentioned to Peter, this thread is just about the synth edit. Manul ~ talk 00:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no violation of anything, the conclusion is present in all the sources, and indeed this is "much ado about nothing". But I am not telling Manul immediately what he/she should do, since I have a pending question to the administrator about what the correct conduct would be now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm sorry, where exactly did I argue that "characterizing a blog using high-quality expert sources is somehow a BLP violation"? (I'd like to hear that argument, too, since I never made it.) Please see strawman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
The administrator replied but did not directly answer whether going back to the status quo ante was appropriate (we only got an opinion that the BLP discussion ended in no consensus and a suggestion to continue discussion). So I can't just declare Manul's question moot. I puzzled for a while over the WP:SYNTH claim, wondering how something can be synth when it is (using the policy's wording) "explicitly stated by the source" in all cases, and finally I guessed that Manul must be objecting because one of the six sources said "skeptical" rather than "skeptic". I changed the article wording accordingly. Also I added one more citation. For Manul's second claim, that there is a WP:NOR violation, I failed to guess. Why should Manul object if I found some (though not all) sources via "googling"? Does Manul claim that these are not "reliable, published" sources (the WP:OR requirement)? What difference does it make that Manul can't find mention of the sources in the BLPN discussion, when it's plain that they are mentioned? I trust there is some serious basis for Manul's claims that we have not yet seen. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "skeptic" versus "skeptical" or whatnot. None of the sources you listed say that WUWT is "known as" a skeptic blog -- that is a conclusion you reached by synthesizing a number of sources together. Remember that we have at least one high-quality expert source saying that WUWT should not be called a skeptic/skeptical blog. Please read WP:NOR carefully; again, there is no shame in not being familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies.
Now we might discuss how to deal with this terminology in the article. We only need one good source in order to write that WUWT has been called a skeptic blog (very different from being known as a skeptic blog), but if this is included then there must also be text citing the high-quality expert source which disputes the characterization. Manul ~ talk 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I guessed wrongly that Manul was complaining about the trivial-seeming difference between "skeptic" and "skeptical", it turns out Manul was complaining about the words "known as". Well, WUWT is indeed known as a skeptic blog, and the citations are evidence of that. Manul's nameless "high-quality expert source" is outweighed by the existence of other sources which are also academic and have reputable publishers (I'll try to avoid calling them "high-quality expert" since I don't see how such terminology could be objective). More importantly, when we're talking about what a thing is "known as", we're talking about terminology as used by reliable sources in general, not just academics. Knowing that at least one put-denialism-in editor thinks Wikipedia essays are evidence, I refer to WP:SSF "Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy". But what I see as evidence is the clear statement of an administrator, the majority of reliable sources matters for terminology questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Manul has made edits with the word "compromise" in the edit summary. The article text now has it that some say skeptic blog, some say denier blog. I only speak for myself, but I can tolerate the removal of most of the it's-a-skeptic-blog citations, since the original problem, the unattributed label "denialism website", is out of the lead. Minor problems remain: there's still a citation from Mann (this can be fixed by citing Dunlap + McCright instead), and "others have described ..." is vague (this can be fixed by saying "Dennis W.C. Liu has described ..."). jps: do you accept this "compromise"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the removal of Mann? It seems like an excellent source to me. Also, I'm concerned about WP:GEVAL problems with the labeling. It might be better to come to a means by which we don't use either term if we can. Anyway, there is some source sorting going on above. It would be nice to have a fuller description in my opinion. What do you think about the other sources being considered above? Some of them make the "skeptic" point a bit more clearly and in ways that seem to indicate that climate change denial is a good wikilink in some fashion. jps (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
jps: are you saying you accept this "compromise" except for an objection to replacing the Mann citation with a Dunlap + McCright citation, or are you saying no? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this solves the problems completely. I'm concerned that the current wording violates WP:GEVAL. I don't understand at all the replacement of Mann with Dunlap & McCright. So, I guess, "no" is the right answer. On the other hand, this is better than the wording was in the past. jps (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Manul: I realize you cannot be responsible for jps, but if your "compromises" are not even acceptable to the editors who share your general put-denialism-in opinions, then they're not compromises, they're just "accept X's demands so that Y can demand more". Unless there is some way around this intransigence, there is no reason to accept your recent edits which lack consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree 100% that AzureCitizen's addition of "some" and "others" is not reflective of the sources. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Saw this post when I circled back and examined the follow-up edits. I rephrased the text again to specifically indicate who is saying what here. Does that make it accurate and reflective of the sources? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure that the in-text attribution is well-done. It makes it seem like these are single opinions when, in fact, they represent something of a consensus. There is no disagreement that I can find that the blog is sympathetic to climate change denial. Even the sources which describe it as 'sceptic', if they go on to describe its contents, firmly place it in that category. jps (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the climate change denial article is written such that a skeptic equals denial. Your argument has been positioned from the beginning to make it impossible to find a middle ground. I am not sure you even believe there is a middle. If a person believes that there has been climate change but does not believe that future temps will increase even remotely (and lets be honest, they have not to this point) at the rate predicted by the IPCC models, is that person a believer, skeptic, or denier? Arzel (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Quantify your claims of how the temperature has changed and was predicted to change according to IPCC consensus. I am happy to entertain, if there are sources, the proposition that there is variance in possibilities. I'm not prepared to simply take the say-so of editors that there is a difference between what the media has called "climate sceptic" and our article on climate change denial. If you don't like our climate change denial article, I suggest you show some sources that make a distinction over there, but until you are successful in making a new article for us to consider, I am going to go with the assumption that there is no sourced difference except in the preferred terminology of the groups being described. jps (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, good luck making any changes there. The article is pre-defined to make no difference, and then that article is used as a shoehorn to frame people like Watts. A classic example of Confirmation Bias. Additionally, it does appear to be pretty clear that there is no difference to you. Regarding the original IPCC estimates, the observed values are either outside the margin of error or at the very least on the very low end of the predicted values for ALL models. This is not in debate. As someone that has done a lot of simulation modeling I find it distressing that anyone that is highly skeptical of the predictability of this models is called a denier. Until they actually predict the correct temperatures they are pretty worthless. On a personal note, I must ask why you even care what Watts says? If his views are fringe, as you believe, then very few people believe him anyway, and if the science is sound, as you believe, then history will be your vindication. To shout down opposing debate seems very un-scientific. The Climate Change proponents should be trying to prove their science wrong, that is the basis of statistical analysis. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Show me sources to meet your WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, this conversation is pointless. jps (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Something you won't like. I have done a lot of predictive analysis, and have also created models which model the past very well, but like these climate models they soon show that they are missing some important information. Climate modelers should spend more time trying to find out what they are missing and less time calling people deniers because their models don't work the way they claim. Predicting future events is difficult, so I have sympathy for those that think they can do it accurately. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's well understood that Curry doesn't really understand statistical modeling (citation: [13]). I guess you don't either. On the other hand, if you'd like to point me to your publications in climate science, I'd be willing to read your peer reviewed papers. Otherwise, can we get back on subject? jps (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It's just a fact that WUWT has been characterized as a skeptic blog and as a denial blog; the named attributions are just cruft. Manul ~ talk 01:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)/Archive_5&oldid=660892070"