Talk:Watts Up With That?

Template:Community article probation

Linking WUWT and ClimateAudit: Original Research

Kim, I assume from your insertion of the template, that you wouldn't object to removing the phrase purporting the "same opinion" to these two sites. I think that's valid. Unless another editor disagrees, it should probably go. FellGleaming (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I wouldn't mind a removal - in fact i'm rather convinced that McIntyre doesn't have similar views to Watts (if one looks hard enough, McIntyre has stated this in some commentary), which is why i put the tags on the paranthesis sentence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To late, if your refering to the piece by jeet heer at any rate mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, by doing that i may have broken my 1r restriction, if i have please ping my talk page mark nutley (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And now Mark, you can quote the exact point in the Heer article, where this is written. Since you reverted with " remove cn and or tags, this stuff is in the ref". I can't find it in the ref, but apparently you can. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And now kim, perhaps you should look at what you made me revert ans you`ll see i fixed it mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is btw Wattsupwiththat.comand and climatedepot.com. The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community. As you can see what i did fixed and improved the article, feel free to revert my self revert mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a version that everyone may wind acceptable. Please voice your opinions here. FellGleaming (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No it`s wrong, what i had done actually fixed it, this is what needs to be there In The Globe And Mail Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT and the blog climatedepot "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community It is not CA mentioned by Heer mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the full text of the article? I'm a bit curious to know how a reporter best known for reporting on comic books knows what is "deeply worrying" to the scientific community at large. Did he attribute this in any way? FellGleaming (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No it`s behind a paywall now :( mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, and KDP's recent comments about undue weight in other areas, I will delete it. Three negative comments from three environmental reporters in such a short entry is really overboard. A comment by an actual climatologist -- either positive or negative -- would be appropriate I think. FellGleaming (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of criticisms

Why was this removed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC):

In The Globe And Mail, Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT: "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community".

See the discussion above. The list of journalists who had negative things to say about WUWT was becoming longer than the article itself. WP:UNDUE. Jeet Heer is best known as a comic book reporter in any case; his comment isn't very notable. FellGleaming (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can show that coverage is unbalanced then find positive coverage to create balance. Otherwise, don't take out criticism to create a false balance. Your personal opinion of Mr. Heer is not germane to determining reliability; The Globe and Mail is Canada's largest circulation national newspaper and considered a "newspaper of record" comparable to the role that the New York Times serves in the U.S. Will undo your revert if satisfactory justification is not provided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue of finding counterbalancing opinions; its a length issue. This is a brief article, and listing 20 opinions from 20 journalists on whether or not they like the site isn't helpful. We have several; any more detracts from the article, and risks COATRACKing it and appearing a poison the well scenario.

As was said above, a statement from an actual climatologist or scientist in a field relevant to the blog's content would be a step forward. But how many journalist opinions do we really need? Another dozen on either side...would that make the article more encyclopedic, or just look silly? FellGleaming (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have any problem with including reliably sourced criticisms, such as from newspapers. Any balance in the article I believe will occur naturally. I assume some newspaper columnists somewhere, such as Christopher Booker, must have given the site some positive reviews? Anyway, I'm not confortable with removing reliably sourced opinions from an article that isn't a BLP. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me add, I think our readers are able to read the information, check the sources, and decide for themselves whether the criticisms and praises are credible or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you wouldn't object to several negative opinions from columnists criticizing say, a site like RealClimate? I notice that blog has no criticism section yet whatsoever. FellGleaming (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just started working on that article. Here are my list of potential sources so far. Notice that it is a fairly assorted mix of praise and criticism. I want to take the article to Good Article level, if not higher, which requires it to be expanded greatly. That means that I need to use everything in reliable sources that I can find, which will include a mix of both criticism, praise, and stuff in the middle. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk page you linked says you "just completed Desmogblog, and nominated it for good article". Yet the updated article contains only positive references, and no criticism whatsoever. Why the difference between that site and this one? FellGleaming (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much negative criticism of DeSmogBlog. You might have missed the one negative criticism in the article, which is the second sentence in the second paragraph of the "notable media mentions" paragraph. If there was more criticism of the subject in reliable sources, I would have put it in there. If people click on the links in the references, I think they will find out more about that website. RealClimate is another story. I think that article is going to be an interesting one to expand, as opinions on that blog are a little stronger, on both "sides". Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think Heer was being critical of the site, he was saying how it had gotten so popular, i believe it should stay in myself mark nutley (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I agree with G William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, i will revert this per my reasons above mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New Delingpole reference

[1]

Substantial reference to WUWT made. Jprw (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly apropos, but needs some trimming somewhat to fall in line with the rest of the article. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the original Delingpole material that's been batted around a couple of times is that it's not about the blog per se which is the topic of the present article. Saying that Delingpole has been a guest poster at WUWT would be fine; making a brief mention of an especially noteworthy guest post by Delingpole would be fine (assuming the noteworthiness is established in reliable sources). But analyzing Delingpole's argument is a textbook example of WP:COATRACK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not Delingpole's argument. It's an argument by Steve Goddard, WUWT commentator. Delingpole is simply reporting on it, which makes it notable. I think the text needs to be rewritten to indicate this...it doesn't need to refer to Delingpole at all(just be sourced to him), and it needs to be trimmed a bit as well. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the point of the extensive volcano stuff mislabelled "guest postings" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Not every blog post pigged up by a partisan commentator in an editorial is notable or relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, but I think WMC's edit summary was unnecessarily provocative. Thepm (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is going back in, please suggest an alternative wording for it, thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested wording, given due weight: "" It would be great if can shorten it further. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Very constructive :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If this were a pop culture blog, would it be relevant to have a section about somebody's guest post on Lady Gaga? IF so, what would you write then? Thepm (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s not pop culture though. I think a rebuttal to what the MSM were saying (incorrectly) about the eruption is very notable, especially as the rebuttal was picked up and relayed via the telegraph mark nutley (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Some editors seem to be having trouble spelling Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Such editors should look at the extensive discussion on the article name on that talk page, and not attempt to re-import settled arguments onto other pages William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the consensus Here the use of the term is allowable within section headers and article content mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Um. The "consensus" there is thin indeed, especially compared to that at talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. But even granted your point, which I don't, all that does is make the use of the term "allowable" not "required" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

William, just how many average readers do you think will recognize "Climatic Research Unit email controversy," vs. Climategate? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people have heard of neither, so what's it matter? Guettarda (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from anyone who has read [2] these sources of course mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perspective

I think that "from a global warming skeptic perspective" is more accurate than "skeptical". In this contxt, "skeptical" has a particular meaning, that of disagreeing with the consensus, not the meaning it used to have William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot

MN has this wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please expound on your rationale? NW (Talk) 15:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Without taking a position in the underlying dispute, it seems that MN is stating that Monbiot retracted his comment about WUWT in the bolded paragraphs of [3]. It appears that what Monbiot retracted was his claim that 'it is incorrect to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average', not his claim that 'He must know that this source is highly partisan and untrustworthy.' As an example, if I were to say "NW, you have long been a terrible admin - and as such, your block of Lambteeth must have been wrong," but I later determined your block of Lambteeth was correct, that would not mean that I retracted my claim that you were long a terrible admin. (Note that I take no position on your terribleness as an admin, used only for the purposes of this analogy, nor on your block of Lambteeth, who I pulled out at random) Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion was delivered in the context of what he later admitted was a mistake on his part. The entire paragraph should come out. ATren (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He admitted to one mistake, but didn't retract the column. (note btw. that he still considers Bookers information wrong (just by month). And it has nothing to do with his opinion on WUWT. [on that account i find the use of Op-ed's/editorials/blogs overrated - which is an entirely different thing] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot made that accusation based on a mistake, he then manned up and admitted he was wrong and that the information on WUWT was in fact correct. What exactly is the issue here? Either we say he retracted or the whole lot has to go, which is it to be? mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article nom

I think I may have some additional info to add to this article before a GA reviewer gets to it in a couple of weeks time. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Until the voluntary topic ban is over, however, I'll probably just post suggested additions of text here to the talk page and someone else can add it. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that unless (as the person who nominated it) am forbidden from doing so.Jprw (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you nominated it then you should help it along :), as i am due a topic ban soon i`ll add any content posted here, it`ll make no difference to me in the long run mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I got my fingers burned when I first nominated an article (The Real Global Warming Disaster) and then requested fellow editors from the GW topic area to review it, upon which the nomination was promptly quashed (all according to correct WP procedure). So I'd rather be safe than sorry)) Cheers Jprw (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one of the strengths of the GA and FA promotion forums is that they often bring in outside observers to look over an article and offer helpful critiques and suggestions for improvement. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, an NYTimes blog appears to have some information in this entry for which I'll try to find the link:

• Hansen and Watts Agree: Cold Weather, Warm Climate." Nytimes.com Blogs 17 Jan. 2010. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this entry, Viscount Christopher Monckton used Watts' blog last month to give his version of the story behind Margaret Thatcher's advocacy for global warming action. You may not be able to find this one online somewhere:

• "Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign." Europe Intelligence Wire 22 June 2010. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Available here. Note especially the subtitle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems ok to use as source for information for this article. This source is an example of confusing citations I often find in Infotrac. Infotrac gives the source as a Financial Times' newswire. The Guardian, however, appears to be running the piece as if they published it. Who actually published it? Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LSE (Ward's institution) is attributing it to the Grauniad.[4] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tag and edit warring

• The article appears to have been nominated for GA with an expansion tag still in existance. I take it that the expansion of that section is still considered necessary then. I notice that there have been some battles over tags on this article in the past so I am unclear as to who still thinks the expansion tag is needed and who does not.
• There have been several reverts over the last month. In fact I count 10 in the last calendar month. These are fairly clear edit warring and are clearly not good faith improvements in general or reversions of clear vandalism. This means that the article fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria part 5. This should be sorted out for the article to be rated as good. It is poor practice having an article rated as good when it is being edit warred over.

Maybe things need to settle down, the tag needs removing by consensus, the edit wars need to cease completely for a few weeks and then an attempt at GA. The only edit I have ever done prior to this comment was a minor edit to remove a space therefore technically I could review this article. However, as I would fail it and tell you to come back later I think this would be extremely controversial and so I will leave it up to someone not involved in the current arb case. Polargeo (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the expand tag – it appears to be a remnant from an earlier time. What would be really helpful would be for someone to review the article as it stands, list the deficiencies preventing it from reaching GA status, and then let other editors have a go at rectifying those errors before a re-evaluation took place in, say, a fortnight. Any takers or is this too optimistic a timeframe? Jprw (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree a minimum of two weeks from now edit warring free may be adequate. One thing I would require up front is a source for the list of contributors. You are effectively saying these living people contribute to this skeptic blog with no given source for this statement. A separate source (or inline citation) for each one may even be necessary. Polargeo (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had a search history as a cite for the contributers? has it been removed? mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears it was added on 23 March [5]. I cannot see any attempt since then to source this information. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I`ll do it now, i could have sworn this had been sourced using the search function at the site, i must be thinking of another article mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with the sources you have added so far. However, the posts are all on Anthony Watts's blog and all posted by Anthony Watts. This may need checking by the BLP crowd as they seem to have a real problem accepting blog posts of any sort on BLP issues. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources Mark are providing are not valid references, and certainly don't verify anything more than "A search on watttsupwiththat shows that these names have been used on the blog." For instance, is there an author titled "Whooping Shit?" Based on mark's methology, there is - [6]. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How exactly are these not valid refs? Are you perhaps thinking these people do not post on the blog? How exactly have they failed verification? mark nutley (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I clicked on the links, and they didn't demonstrate that the people you say were authors were authors at all. For instance, what at http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Basil+Copeland leads you to believe Basil Copeland is an author. Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::How about this A Guest Post by Basil Copeland sorry i did not realize you had trouble reading the actual search results mark nutley (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you asked another long term contributor to verify it's acceptancce as a source you'd get an informed opinion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem. But even further than that if the source was to the actual person's post. Would this be adequate? I am not sure if the BLP checkers would accept it. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an author page for authors - for instance, [7]. I don't know why these weren't used for the other personages. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay so you are saying the author page on the blog is an acceptable source to list these people as contributors. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using the "authors" page from the blog is an adequate source. By the way, Mark and Hipocrite, we should be allowing JPRW to make these edits as we're supposed to be following a voluntary topic ban until the ArbCom case is decided. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing contributors

Mark is apparently sourcing Blog contributors to search result pages on "What's up with that". That is problematic on several levels. First, these are, of course, primary sources. Secondly, a search result is not a static verifiable resource, but a dynamic result that can and will change over time, and in non-transparent ways, based on the internal organization of the web site. And third, of course, the result is at best as reliable as the web site, which, in this case, means "not very". Finally, it seems like the search returns every article which mentions the search term anywhere. I doubt that e.g. James Hansen has written for WUWT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but let us make this simple rather than arguing about search result sources that will be easily corrected. Is a posting on the blog itself which is credited to the individual sufficient to list the individual? Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - is WUWT considered a reliable source for information about living people other than its owner? It's a valid source for Watts' opinion because he can be tied to it by reliable third-party sources. We wouldn't use WUWT alone, without corroborating sources, as proof that it was authored by Watts. I'd think the same standard should apply for other contributors. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know BLP policy I would think so too (my own thoughts about BLP policy asside) Polargeo (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Recuse. I don't know the correct answer. I do know that a search results page is not a valid source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But that can be corrected. I hope this issue can be resolved here as there are enough people who should be able to give informed opinions but if not the BLP noticebord can sort this out. I would love to be able to say yes this is okay or not but there is some horrific BLP zeal on wikipedia over the past year which in my opinion needs pegging back as it goes against the ethos and even against what it is trying to achieve and enters into the realm of wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the blog has an "authors" page listing its main contributors. This should suffice as a source. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is still problematic. With BLP the blog can only be considered reliable for the opinions of one person (Anthony Watts) who has been confirmed as the blog's author by independent sources. Is it a reliable source for contributors? Particularly as we have to take Anthony Watts word that he has checked all of the contributors and confirmed they are who they say they are. Does the blog have a good reputation for fact checking? This really is a BLP issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But we can add "According to WUWT, contributors include..." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a solution. I am not bothered one way or the other I am just trying to give advice for GA review. Polargeo (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That still involves using a blog as a source of information about living people. And, quite frankly, it's the kind of thing that, if untrue, could be very embarrassing to people. Attributing something to an unreliable source doesn't make it BLP-appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But the reverse doubletake is that now its a statement about WUWT, no about the contributors. WUWT is OK for some kinds of statements about WUWT. Agree with the embarrassment part. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but bear in mind the concerns expressed recently about the case of Rosalind Picard, who appeared in a reliable source (the NYT) as signatory to a petition used by ID proponentsists to promote ID. Even though she is definitely shown in that RS to have signed it and had not published any rebuttal or retraction, many editors felt we shouldn't report this because she might not like it being more widely known. This must surely apply much more so to a fringe blog source, the only possible saving grace being that the individuals don't seem to be notable enough to have articles yet. Safest to delete this until the list is given in a better source such as a reputable mainstream newspaper or an academic book. . . dave souza, talk 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, I don't think that it makes a difference whether we attribute it or not. "Blogger X says Y about person Z" isn't a whole lot better than saying Y about person Z<source, blogger X>. And, when it comes down to it, WUWT is either a Watts, or Watts' guest contributors. It's not an institution or a corporation that can speak with a voice distinct from that of individual people.

Dave's point is important too. Who are these other people? Other than Goklany, there's no way to find information about them. There's no way to know which Evan Jones we're talking about? (Likely none of the ones listed on the dab page). Without some biographical information, it's a meaningless list. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe introducing a general sentence in the lead along the lines of "in addition to Watts, the blog has a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany", and then deleting the Contributors section, which seems to be more trouble than its worth. Jprw (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I would avoid singling out Goklany though to avoid any issues whatsoever. Just say that the blog has a list of regular guest contributors then reference the blog page with the contributor list. That way anyone who wishes to see the list can get it on the blog itself. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Also get's rid of the need to keep the list up to date. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

looks like we have a clear consensus: the Contributions section is toast. I'll do the edit now. Jprw (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Watts Up With That?

The article name needs to be changed to this new, correct title. Does anyone know how to add a question mark when moving a page? Jprw (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You need an admin to delete the redirect page Watts Up With That? so that the move can be made. I will do it if nobody objects. Polargeo (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Move done now tidying up related stuff/links Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Jprw (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lead

Sounds too positive and could do with a critical ref – perhaps something general like "However, the blog has been described in some quarters as being highly partisan and selective in its reporting of data". Otherwise a valid point could be made that it is lacking in neutrality. Jprw (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: the above, I have added a sentence to round off the lead which is critical.Jprw (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One of those is no good, monbiot retracted his accusation after it was ponted out he was totaly wrong mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Can you please give the source/link for this. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s in the ref given Whoops – looks like I've boobed this was discussed above mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are still misrepresenting what Monbiot retracted. He did not retract his statement about WUWT. He did not base his statement on WUWT on the minor statement he retracted. You have been told this already - but you don't listen. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the previous thread where it was argued that he admitted a single mistake which was outlined but he didn't retract the column based on it. If only everyone would do the same when some part of their argument was proven wrong then this would be a lot easier. Anyway, the link is to the entry where he has already corrected his mistake so you are now saying he is still not credible even after he has corrected his mistake. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not saying he is not credible, but if his critique was based on a mistake which he manned up and admitted to then the critique within the article is based on the first false premise mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it wasn't. Please read the source carefully. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• "In some quarters" is weaselly and misrepresents the majority expert view of WUWT, so I've changed it to "in mainstream sources". . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Even more weaselly is saying mainstream sources when only one such source exists, so i changed it to reflect that mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also is`nt this a blog [8] mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this is an article about a blog. It is not a BLP therefore there is no blanket ban on blogs as sources. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is if they are not commenting on themselves wp:sps it does not involve claims about third parties; mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. "Caution should be exercised." So has it been in the use of this source? Polargeo (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No not really as it is being used to make a statement of fact and misinterpreting empirical observations Care to tell me how this usage of a blog equates to wp:sps it does not involve claims about third parties; A blog can`t be used to source statements of facts about a third partym you know that mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So remove it and find better sourced criticism. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not like i have not tried, there are no crits to be had, i have tried news, books and even scholar were funnily enough i got hits :) "watts up with that" but apart from monbiots column there are no MSM crits of this website, plenty of praise though mark nutley (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need to use whatever negative crits are out there as they help avoid articles sounding like glowing tributes to the subject. Jprw (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the NPOV argument is strong enough to not ignore this source. Maybe it should be changed to say something milder like "making errors in the interpretation of..." rather than "misinterpreting" because misinterpreting can suggest that it is deliberate and I don't think the source conveys this or even if it did it is not a strong enough source to say this. Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise I'll make the adjustment. Jprw (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That`s cool, i`m good with that. Nice one Polargeo mark nutley (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to the minore edit war over the blog ref i have removed it per wp:sps. Either people come to an agreement on the talk page here or it stays out mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Parrisian is, I take it, a sock? Jprw (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t know, he may be ratel. I have asked him on his talk page to stop edit warring, come to talk and also to disclose any previous accounts he may have had mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done -- edit warring/unhelpful, disruptive tendentious edits by socks are going to well and truly scupper this article's chances of reaching GA, and such activity should be pre-empted as much as possible. By the way the last line of the lead still needs tweaking and we might want to reconsider introducing the blog ref for the sake of critical balance. Jprw (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The blog ref can go back to help with balance, but go with Polargeo`s suggestion. There is a nice piece in the NYT about the site btw For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That? mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Watts Up is, like RealClimate, a moderated site which means reader comments are screened and subject to approval before being posted. I don't have a reliable secondary reference to source this, however, but I think it's an important piece of information for this article and should be included if a source can be found. Cla68 (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pub?

Why is there a problem with noting the lack of publications? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why has unverified content been reverted into this article? mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly

I took this out:

According to journalist Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster, in 2007 WUWT and its readers found that a significant number of weather stations used to capture temperature records were located in the US, giving the US a disproportionate impact on global temperature reports.

because it is silly William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also some more stuff that was more about Booker than WUWT William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To delete text because you feel that it is "silly" doesn't appear to me to be very helpful. We're supposed to be adding information to this article, not deleting it. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Booker wrote, or what WUWT found, but the connection it is plain and simply wrong and misleading. The number of weather stations in a given area is irrelevant for the "impact" that area has on any gridded temperature product (like the CRU, NASA, and NOAA temperature products). So this statement either needs a lot of context (which may be hard to source, since no-body would think it necessary to comment on such obvious nonsense, and no scientific journal would publish a note on such a trivial error), or it needs to go. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think we're supposed to be indiscriminately adding nonsensical material, I don't think there's much that can be done here. StuartH (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla is keen to push "verifiability, not truth". As far as Cla is concerned, rampant nonsense is fine as long as there is a source Cla considers reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting content without discussion

Can I please remind editors that the article is GA nominated and that instead of deleting/reinstating content without discussion (in short, edit warring) it would be much better to discuss on this page first. Otherwise, the GA nomination goes up in smoke. Jprw (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to talk to Cla then, because he is re-inserting total tripe into this article William M. Connolley (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The warring begins with deletion though. Let's make full use of this discussion board over the next week or so. Jprw (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, removing tripe is not warring, esspecially when backed up on the talk page, as I did. If you're going to try to help in this dispute, you're going to need to know what you're talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You took it out before discussing it first. Why bypass the discussion process, especially when you know that the article is up for GA? Deletions should be reserved for edits by obvious socks/vandalism, otherwise we are straight into a batttleground-type scenario. Jprw (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I took it out because it was tripe, which seems especially sensible given this is up for GA. Lets try this the other way round: do you think it is a good idea to have that text in the article? Or, perhaps the same question, do you have any idea whether that text is true or false? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WUWT, the most prominent sceptical blog, is referenced at least twenty times in The Real Global Warming Disaster, the most prominent book from the sceptics camp. It seems to me that it would be odd if the WUWT Wikipedia article did not at least somewhere reference this fact. As for dubious claims, shouldn’t we let the reader make their own mind up, and just let a major source speak for itself? Jprw (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jprw, that is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"None of WUWT's analyses have been published in the peer-reviewed literature"

This somehow got embedded in a link. I've taken it out. Does anyone have a source for it? Jprw (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't think tha absence of any sch publications is good enough? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From a GA point of view would that not make it original research? Jprw (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course it does. I view WMC's question as rhetorical. He is correct but that matters little here on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Heffernan

A rather bizarre removal by mark nutley of a Virginia Heffernan quote that was verified to a certified Twitter account seems strange. I can understand removing everything to the talk page, but why only the quote that disputed that which was published in the NYTimes? Explain? ScienceApologist (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no response here and mark seems to be insistent that this should not be left, I will remove the entire content. I will post it here below in short-order so that we may all consider whether any part at all is worthy of inclusion in this article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well gee, perhaps i would have had time to post here if you had not been so busy posting threats on y talk page. Your insertion of SPS sources is a problem, don`t do it again. Your removal of sourced content is also a problem, don`t do that again mark nutley (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

??? I have made a very clear-cut point here. Virginia Heffernan has verifiably said she regrets recommending Anthony Watts' blog. Is this something that we should take into consideration? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it can be verified to a forum post and a twitter account? No of course not, and you know such sources can`t be used mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there really an issue with using a "confirmed Twitter account" to verify that a person thinks something? I'm actually fine with removing the whole thing if she regrets it, but it seems very dishonest to keep in just the recommendation if she really does regret recommending it. Isn't that reasonable? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've answered my question by doing a search for "confirmed Twitter" at WP:RSN. I'll spare you the details, but suffice to say there are a lot of people that claim a confirmed Twitter account is simply a WP:SPS. In fact, there is a link that claims this very thing: WP:TWITTER. So, interestingly enough, we can use this source because we are referencing Virginia Heffernan's very own opinion. Whether it is appropriate for a WP:BLP, well, that's hard to say. It seems weird, though, that her opinion published by NYTimes is not in violation of WP:BLP but her own self-published opinion which expresses regret for the self-same opinion published by the NYTimes is not allowed to exist here. Interesting issue, I must admit! ScienceApologist (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to reinsert the reliably sourced content you removed now? And find a reliable source for what you wish to add? mark nutley (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not of the opinion that we should include opinions of people after they express regret for saying them without also letting people know that they expressed such regret. That seems to be a fundamental WP:BLP issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Were exactly does she "express regret" cos, i`m not seeing it. She allegedly says she does not endorse the views expressed on the site. And that she was sorry people (read activists here) that what she wrote was ideological. She does not say she regrets what she wrote at all, try and get it right ya mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote directly: "One regret: the Watts blog." ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem about using that source as a reference for her change of opinion. But it shouldn't be made to look as if it was being used as a source for factual statements about the topic of the article. Therefore, shorten it down: "She later stated she changed her mind and distanced herself from her earlier recommendation", without the rhetorical detail of why she did so. Or, preferably, remove the whole thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"She later stated she changed her mind and distanced herself from her earlier recommendation" The first part is not what she said and the second part is WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right AQFK. We have the quote exactly as she said it below. It is relevant, but I'm not sure how to handle it. We certainly don't want to indicate only that she made the recommendation full stop. I think that's being dishonest. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably clear Virginia Heffernan regrets commending Anthony Watts' blog, therefore my inclination is to remove her name altogether. Surely editors can agree? Wikispan (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably clear that an e-mail campaign by activists lead to her saying she did not endorse the views on the blog. She did not retract her opinion that it is a credible science blog at all. It may be better to remove the lot just to save the hassle mark nutley (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But we're, of course, not entitled to right great wrongs if this is the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Friends or colleagues may have conveyed dismay. There is nothing to be gained by speculating. Wikispan (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Workshop this content

New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended Watt's as a top Science blog on August 1, 2010 stating; "For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?" She later stated, about that piece that she had "[o]ne regret: the Watts blog. Virtually everyone who emailed me pointed out that it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there. I linked to it because has a lively voice; it’s detail-oriented and seemingly not snide; and, above all, it has some beautiful images I’d never seen before. I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs, so I frankly didn’t recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist”; I didn’t even know about denialism. I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog, and I’m extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological"

I'd say remove it all. Keeping a recommendation that was made in error and retracted is misleading, discussing the whole issue is of little relevance to the article. It may be useful to put the discussion into a FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps this all should go in at Virginia Heffernan, but I have no way of knowing whether it is highly relevant to her biography or not. Sometimes, some verifiable things don't belong in Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Only keep the NYT's RS if it attacks our Villain in this piece. Otherwise, absolutely all means should be used to Game and remove any positive mentions no matter how seemingly trivial. Only our "Vigilant Defenders of the One True Path" (obviously not found here) are allowed to have it the other way. If you want neutrality please leave the "science" related bio's and look at less important topics where the future of the Earth is apparently not held in the balance.99.141.242.135 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that I agree with everyone above that random internet comments always trump the New York Times. Why not? No need to wait for a retraction - we can retract ourselves based upon pretty much anything we want, right? The time when the NYT's controlled their own retractions and corrections is long past. We control, shape, form and create impressions now - and we'll be the judge of what the NYT really should have said.99.141.242.135 (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and the others are right: remove the whole thing. She said it, she regrets it, that's reliably enough sourced, end of story. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not one single source, reference, link or citation has been introduced in any way, shape or form to support the idea that The New York Times has in any way retracted, corrected or clarified the referenced quote from its edited and fully vetted reliable pages. Not a one is to be found here. What you people may email back and forth to each other off-wiki as you prepare your versions is not known to us here on the open and public side of Wikipedia.

Where, precisely, is The New York Times retraction to be found?99.151.162.27 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)