Talk:DeSmog

Source question

While searching for sources for this article, Academic OneFile listed an article by the Southern Rockies Nature Blogwhich reviewed and gave its opinion on DeSmogBlog. I did not include this information in the article, because the source is a blog. Does everyone agree with this, or should the blog's opinion be included in this article? The blog in question is sourced 14 times in Academic OneFile, but I otherwise couldn't find any other secondary sources which discusses this blog. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mu! Who is Chas Clifton? And why is/what makes his views interesting/relevant? Blogs are reliable to the opinion of their authors (sps), but opinions do need to be relevant (weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As blogs increase in number as newspapers dwindle in size and circulation, the issue of when and what blogs to use as sources is going to, I predict, become an increasing headache for WP editors, including me. The fact that Academic OneFile has even started including a sundry list of blog articles in its database is an indicator, IMO, of the growing presence of blogs as information sources. Cla68 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But it still doesn't answer my questions. If blogs are to be included (anywhere) then they must be attributed as opinion, and they must be relevant (as in: quite a bit more than just on-topic) for the context in which they are used. At some point in time we will quite probably have a WP:SPS/N board, which will deal with at least some of the aspects of it. (but then again, it seems the net is already responding somewhat to it, by co-integrating blogs into domains (ie. scienceblogs.com) that are more trustworthy than others - hopefully with an aspect of "you will get the boot, if you are doing sloppy research"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether the source meets the WP:V standards. As Chas Clifton does not appear to meet the WP:SPS standard of being an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", then his blog would only be suitable as a WP:SELFPUB source about himself or his blog, in a context based primarily on more reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave, i agree. That was the question that wasn't answered by Cla86 (i thought he might have more data - since he didn't link an article). Questions to answer (in general) when using blogs is: Is it relevant? Does it represent a significant view? Is the author generally thought to be "in the know" on the subject/topic? etc etc. Really questions that should be asked whenever a source is used - but rarely are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a link to the article on the blog, but I didn't look really hard. The thing is, the decision as to whether to include the blog's opinion should be separate from what the blog says. I don't have a problem with not including the blog's opinion, but I think the decision as to which blogs to consider and which ones to omit will be a difficult one throughout the wiki. Where does the line get drawn? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I made some changes. This isn't the JH page, it is the DSB page. Etc. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess, then, we'll need to remove the redirect on his name. One of the reasons another editor said that this blog was notable was because of the public roles performed by it founder and operator. A blog is a product of its owner, is it not? Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC believes that the paragraph about the site's founder should not be in the article. I believe it should be. Other interested parties please join in the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a paragraph about the founder belongs. ATren (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. This goes directly to what makes the blog notable. Our readers should be aware of who the founder is along with their political affiliations. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course a paragraph about the sites founder should be in the article, people like to know who sets these things up after all mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There doesn't seem to be any clear reason for including this, and the heap of pointless redlinks don't help William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that he is the founder, and a paragraph about him is therefore relevant. The red links can be removed if you like. ATren (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather a bad rationale. For one: Hoggan is not specifically prolific on the blog, that would be Littlemore (iirc) and secondly: Either the blog is independently notable or it isn't.

If you want biographical material about Hoggan - then make an article, and wikilink to it (the infobox would be the place). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone were to nominate this article for Featured consideration someday, and that's not necessarily out of the question, I would expect that there would be information on the site's founder and owner. The two sources listed, the opening press release and the news article which reported on the new blog, both expound on who he is and what he does. The owner, in this case especially, has publicly provided a vision and set goals of what he wants his blog to achieve. Therefore, a brief profile of the founder and owner is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring what is staring you into the eyes: The founder has very little to do with the blog (he doesn't write very often). And while you are correct on FA - that would be a situation where the amount of content made it due weight. At the moment it isn't.... its simply material that gives very little information about the blog. (which in case you've missed it, is the overwhelmingly important part). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may add something, however, Kim's conversion of the references into a more adaptable code was extremely helpful and I feel totally in the spirit of a wiki, as in cooperative and collaborative. I did not thank him/her for it heretofore, but do so now. Cla68 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad reference ...

The page currently displays a citation error. The following reference needs to be either (a) actually used, (b) removed if it is never going to be used, or (c) moved to the unused comment if it will be:

<ref name="marketwire">{{cite press release | url=http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/James-Hoggan-Associates-Inc-Media-Advisory-1066864.htm | title=James Hoggan & Associates Inc.: Media Advisory | date=October 28, 2009 | publisher=[[Marketwire]] | accessdate=2010-03-09}}</ref>

I would fix it myself but am barred from doing so. --GoRight (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved to the "Not used yet.." section. It was in the deleted James Hoggan bio section which may come back ? Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may come back, depending on how the discussion above goes. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I just added a criticism section after noticing from the Watts Up With That article that such sections apparently should be included in these types of articles. I noticed that someone feels that criticism sections should be posted high in these types of articles. Does the same editor or any others think that the same thing should apply here? Cla68 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that attention needs to be drawn to DeSmogBlog's partisan and restrictive comments moderation regime, with access normally granted only to commenters supporting the site's alarmist pro-AGW views. Constructive debate and the refutation of any inaccuracies in blog posts are routinely frustrated. The site has a low volume of comments, and has developed no "blog culture", unlike many other blogs addressing the climate controversy. I'm not going to barge in with a page-edit yet; just seeing how it flies here first.--Thon Brocket (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Detail on "outed" organizations

I added a sentence, using the Littlemore Sun article as the source, naming four of the organizations that this blog has "outed." Before adding them, I checked the blog itself and confirmed that what was reported in the Sun was accurate. There are at least four posts in the blog "outing" those four organizations. Should the reference also include links to the blog articles which "outed" those organizations, or is the Littlemore cite sufficient? Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Article expansion

I think I've pulled about as much information as can be pulled from the available sources for this article. I think all that's left now is to start stubs on some of the redlinks. I had asked WMC to do that and as far as I know he didn't say no. I guess I need to go ask him for an update on how that's going. Any further input on the article, such as to my question above, is, of course, always welcome. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla there are a heap of Monbiot refs in The Guardian -- see my latest edit. Jprw (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you. I'm also going to add a paragraph summarizing the various press releases the site has issued over the years. The paragraph may be borderline synthesis so if anyone objects once I post it, please say so. Once that is completed I plan on nominating this article for GA and while it's in the queue resolving the red links. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like me and mark nutley are going to take care of the red links. I'm going to ask WMC if he would improve the Watts Up With That article to GA-level status. It would be nice if both articles could achieve GA status about the same time. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just found some more references to ths blog on the National Post [1] [2] site. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job

Cla in a very short period you've got the article looking very good -- far superior to WUWT. It would be interesting to see if the latter could also be brought up to scratch. Jprw (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect WUWT to be brought up to an equivalent level very soon. If not, I will be very disappointed. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)