Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

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:

• 1) Create your own author page as described above. Example: Karyn Price (http://karynprice.ulitzer.com)
• 2) If you don't already have one, create a topic page for your company. Example: Bailiwick Company (http://bailiwickpr.ulitzer.com)
• 3) Create topic sites for your clients. Examples: Telx (http://telx.ulitzer.com), Veramark Technologies (http://veramark.ulitzer.com)
• 4) Submit your bylined articles, press releases, blog entries, and news stories for approval and publication on all relevant topic sites.

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)

Let's Get Consensus On the Education Question

On the question of Watts education (does he have a college degree, and what did he study in college) we have, so far, a gaping lack of solid references. None of the published bios of Watts contains any mention of his education, nor do any mentions of him in published sources, save the one N&R story, and the allusion there is somewhat vague and likely derives from Watt himself. Given this curious fact, I can see three courses of action:

• remain silent on the issue until we get a solid reference (i.e. remove any mention of college from the article);
• leave the article essentially as is (i.e. state that Watts attended Purdue University, period);
• append to the claim of his Purdue University attendance the fact that it is unclear whether he attained a degree or what he studied.

I would argue that Watts' credentials and education are highly relevant to his reason for being on WP. He has been called a scientist, and speaks with authority on complex matters of science. If he lacks a college degree, that information is important--and not necessarily damning or negative (people might interpret this as evidence of genius). So I think the issue is not whether noting the conspicuous lack of evidence of a degree is unfairly derogatory, but whether it is relevant and appropriate to include this fact.

We know journalscholars opinion on this matter. I would like to hear some other people's opinions on how we should proceed. Michaplot (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What we have is a reliable source stating that he attended Purdue. It cannot be included that it is unclear whether he obtained a degree because that would violate WP:NOR. Your arguments are irrelevant to the information currently on the page about his educational background that is both verifiable and from a reliable source. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Any one of the three is fine. However, it looks like Journalscholar continued to make edits anyway, adding ever more desperately questionable sources to substantiate Watts's education: as of now, the section continues "he was trained as a broadcast meteorologist...", which is also misleading as it implies that his training was complete.Belsavis (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that it is fine to, "append to the claim of his Purdue University attendance the fact that it is unclear whether he attained a degree or what he studied." would violate WP:NOR and is not allowed on Wikipedia. There is no valid reason to remove verifiable information from a reliable source. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am adding two more reliable sources which are shedding more light on this matter. The second one is primary source, an e-mail from Purdue University Registrar office. http://warming101.blogspot.com/2009/10/does-anthony-watts-have-college-degree.html http://sourcewatch.org/images/4/4d/Anthony_Watts.pdf Belsavis (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm watching this page, but, as a former Purdue student who did not get a degree there, I thought I would add some information. We really don't seem to have a third-party secondary source that he attended Purdue, and it was not at all uncommon (when I was there; 1970–72) for high school or community college students to attend classes at Purdue, for either university or other school credit. Normally, Watts' statement that he attended Purdue (although, actually, there isn't such a statement; a student working at a lab does not mean a Purdue student) would be sufficient, but the matter seems to be controversial and relevant. I would remove the entire paragraph per WP:BLP concerns. Using the letter apparently from the registrar and published at sourcewatch would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY, in the absence of a reliable secondary source, used in the article, which used or commented on that primary source.

As I've been accused of being a climate change denier, and hence agreeing with Watts, I would hope that this comment would be taken seriously. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No we have a reliable news source stating that he attended Purdue (was a student working in a lab), we also have a second source saying he was trained at Purdue. I find it ironic that multiple commentators are attempting to use Sourcewatch to claim he did not obtain a degree but did attend while also trying spin his testimony to being a student there as if he did not attend. Your "tesimony" cannot be verified and is thus unreliable. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to read your sources. All the sources connecting him to Purdue are quoting him, except for the alleged letter from the registrar. And being a student at a lab at Purdue does not mean he is a Purdue student. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The one source is quoting him, the second is stating he was trained at Purdue. He explicitly referred to himself as a student working in a lab at Purdue. Thus the page correctly states that he attended Purdue it does not say in what capacity. The argument again is not whether he attended Purdue or not but whether he obtained a degree from Purdue, no one has currently presented a reliable source that can be verified one way or the other. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs and Sourcewatch (wikis) are not reliable sources and cannot be used on Wikipedia. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs perhaps, but Sourcewatch is actually a quite credible source and has been cited regularly in wikipedia and academia. If its good enough for an academic cite, its good enough for wikipedia. Don't just go declaring stuff at random uncredible and then attempting to word that as wikipedia policy. Thats acting in bad faith. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just support one of your recent edits with a blog source?Michaplot (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs by professional journalists are acceptable sources. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He'd never do that ;) [1] [2] — ThePowerofX 18:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:) I am thinking he might not have realized it was a blog, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I think a thorough review of the sources for this page is in order. There are actually several blogs and other lower quality sources, and Watts' one peer reviewed paper is not really mentioned or described in the text of the article, though it has several high quality sources associated with it. I may create a new section in the Talk pages for discussing which sources to keep and which to get rid of.Michaplot (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Watt's paper does not need to be mentioned in the article text to be listed as a selected publication. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin--thanks for your "vote" and comments. I am glad that someone else agrees with me--that if we are to apply rigorous standards to this page, we cannot interpret the one reliable source (News & Review article) as supporting Watts' attendance at Purdue. This is certainly a tricky case in that here we have a person who has very assertively inserted themselves into an acute political debate, has done so from the position of an expert (i.e. scientist), and has published on the topic. He has taken very vocal and public stances on various issues that potentially affect the fate of the world, has contributed some interesting information to the field, and has remained steadfastly tendentious in his analyses (global warming being one, but there are others not mentioned on the page). People want to know what his credentials are. I believe claims should be judged by their inherent quality alone (and anyone could in principle become an expert in even a highly technical and complex field with no degree whatsoever--history is full of autodidacts), but it is also true that we do judge claims by whether their originators are speaking ex cathedra. Why should I listen to a "blogger"? If they have a Ph.D. from MIT in a relevant field, I am more inclined to take them seriously. So--I suppose in this case we have to balance the patent importance of reporting on the credentials of this person and BLP concerns. I am really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I do think it would be fair and not derogatory to report that no sources exist related to Watts education and so it cannot be determined whether he obtained a degree, which is a fair (NPOV) assessment of the state of the evidence. But on the other hand, I agree this may be crossing a line vis-a-vis BLP concerns. I respect your opinion on this matter, so thanks for the contribution to this discussion. I hope other people chime in!Michaplot (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly accepted to interpret a statement by Watts stating that he was a student at Purdue to having attended Purdue. Please provide a source were Watts claimed to have been a scientist. I find it very disturbing that you are editing based on unsourced allegations and personal opinions. Stating that no source exists for anything would violate WP:NOR and is not allowed on Wikipedia. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Watts's statement appears to be that he worked at a lab at Purdue as a student. It's likely he intended to say he was a Purdue student, but he didn't actually say that. He could have been a community college student, or even a "student of life". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication that he was a community college student or anything other than he attended Purdue which is all the page states. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no indication in the statement so far quoted that he was a Purdue student. If he wanted to say that, he could have said it. He was a student, at Purdue. We don't know he was a Purdue student. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement, "when he was a student working in a lab at Purdue University" can be directly interpreted to that he "attended Purdue". Multiple editors here already agree he attended because they are attempting to edit in information stating he did not graduate from unreliable sources. Just like if he wanted to say what you are alleging he could have said that as well. There is not a single source (including blogs) stating that he was anything but a Purdue student. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I started this section with an overview of the situation--there is no reliable source that definitely addresses Watts' education. No one objected to that (except you) and I have not seen general agreement among editors that he attended Purdue as a Purdue student. You can interpret the N&R article in a variety of ways, and as Arthur Rubin and I have both pointed out, another possible interpretation is that Watts was not enrolled at Purdue. As you point out, unless we have a reliable source, we can't even say he was a student at Purdue, no matter that I personally believe he probably was.Michaplot (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that can be directly interpretted that Watts attended Purdue but not in what capacity (full or part time student). We have multiple editors who by their actions agree with this as they attempted to edit sources stating he did not graduate. Your belief that he was a Purdue student is simply further agreement that he did attend and the interpretation is correct. Not being able to locate a reliable source for the information your wish to obtain is not a valid argument for removal of other verifiable information. --JournalScholar (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Surface Stations Project

We should briefly note the results of Richard Muller, who commenced his own research project, in large part, due to the concerns raised by Watts. — ThePowerofX 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. We should note particularly the issue discussed (with sources) in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature of how Watts said “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong", then when the results weren't what he wanted "contended that the study’s methodology was flawed".. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Some pertinent quotations:

When the Best project was announced last year, the prominent climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts was consulted on the methodology. He stated at the time: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."

EnvironmentClimate changeClimate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds, The Guardian

At least one of those skeptics, Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But neither Mr. Watts nor other longtime critics of climate science seemed satisfied with the report. Mr. Watts contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies.

Climate Skeptics Stay Unswayed, The New York Times

Muller elaborates "First, there were issues around station quality - Watts showed that some of the stations had poor quality. We studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately."

There's plenty of room for scepticism, The Guardian

— ThePowerofX 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean we should include quotes from Muller too? I should have no problem finding these for you. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The quotes above are notable because they establish Richard Muller's interest and involvement. According to Muller, Anthony Watts had shown that some surface stations were not ideally situated, and therefore he thought it important to re-examine the issue in considerable detail, consulting with Watts and other sceptics along the way. Watts was impressed with the experts Muller had pulled together and was happy to accept the results. I grouped these quotes together because they have precise relevance to the matter at hand, helping to explain Muller's involvement and conclusion. What quote(s) from Muller do you have in mind, and how do they improve the article? — ThePowerofX 00:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mullers work should be discussed on his page. The quotes are notable on Muller's page since they are discussing Muller's work not Watts. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Muller is a notable physicist. His efforts are described elsewhere in detail. I do not propose we describe his work here at considerable length, only Muller's involvement as it pertains to Anthony Watts. The NCDC and BEST studies were embarked upon as a direct consequence of the uncertainty raised by Watts and his Surface Stations project. On what basis should we ignore them? — ThePowerofX 11:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Him being a notable physicist is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that his BEST project has nothing to do with Watts. His involvement has nothing to do with Watts. Watts comments on many scientists on his website and their work that does not make it relevant to his BLP. Muller and Best should be discusses on Muller's BLP. BEST was not started because of Watts. Watt's BLP is not a place for anyone that references Watts work. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep making assertions of fact without providing adequate sourcing. Let me reiterate: Richard Muller has stated repeatedly that his research was inspired by skeptics.

Ros Donald: What was it about previous temperature data work that moved you to start the BEST project?

Richard Muller: Three years ago I felt major issues were raised about previous studies. I was not convinced they came to scientifically solid conclusions. They had used only a fraction of the data. We did a study in which we used essentially all of the data. There were issues about station quality - Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality.^[3]

We have established that Muller consulted directly with Anthony Watts and that Watts provided data to the BEST team ("As a reflection of my increased confidence, I have provided them with my surfacestations.org dataset to allow them to use it to run a comparisons against their data."^[4]). The BEST website explicitly mentions Anthony Watts on its FAQ (http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/). Thus the project is relevant and conclusion germane to the topic of Surface Stations. — ThePowerofX 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So? You do not include someone else's work on the page of the person who "inspired them". Should every one who used one of Einstein's papers be mentioned on his Wikipedia page? The carbonbrief is not a reliable source. The BEST website mention is rudimentary and simply states they used some of Watt's data, BEST otherwise has nothing to do with the Surface Station project and Watt's was not a BEST team member. Using your logic any future study that uses Surface Station data or cites a paper authored by Watts should be referenced on Watt's BLP. That makes no sense. --JournalScholar (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The ideas and work of other scientists are mentioned on Albert Einstein's article (in considerably more detail on the main articles linked in each section). Many of Einstein's ideas are no longer in contention and it would be difficult to include every notable disagreement regarding someone of Einstein's stature. We do not face the same problem here. Anthony Watts' only scientific contribution is to contest the reliability of the US surface temperature network. His work has generated a great deal of press attention. Wikipedia requires us to describe his work and any notable dispute surrounding it. The Carbon Brief interview with Prof. Richard Muller is sufficient for his own words (his answer is reprinted by The Guardian). The key to resolving this misunderstanding is notability. If Watts' analysis is correct, then practically every climate scientist in the world is working with erroneous data. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was established to resolve this very dispute, using data supplied to them by Anthony Watts. I ask you again, on what conceivable basis is their involvement not notable? — ThePowerofX 17:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Which work is mentioned that Einstein did not collaborate on? The Carbon Brief is a unreliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia. The surface stations project is directly related to weather station citing classifications which was not an objective of the BEST project, http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives/. Thus it is clearly false that BEST was established to resolve Watt's concerns. The alleged "notability" amounts to a rudimentary and improper use of some of Watt's data and some commentary by Watts. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

JS, your argument is clearly false in that one of the primary objectives of the BEST project is stated on the page you link is to "to help resolve criticisms of the temperature record". Their FAQ on "There have been many criticisms of station quality" states "One of the elements that we have analyzed is temperature records from only the very best sites (as classified by Anthony Watts and his team) contrasted with the poorer sites." . . dave souza, talk 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am now repeating myself, still, Muller's answer to The Carbon Brief was published elsewhere. "First, there were issues around station quality - Watts showed that some of the stations had poor quality." (There's plenty of room for scepticism The Guardian) It's clear that user JournalScholar is not taking the necessary time to read responses to his objections. — ThePowerofX 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that general information about Muller is not appropriate, but both the BEST, which Watts was involved in, and Watts new study were released the same week. Watts comments on BEST both before and after were in the news. Note that the sources for this section include reliable sources that explicitly make the connection between Watts, and his new study, and the BEST. This was very notable Watts news, and I believe is relevant and appropriate for this article.Michaplot (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Watts is not a part of the BEST team and it has nothing to do with the Surface Station project. The only connection is his alleged "consulting" and comments on the BEST project. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, one of tne of the primary objectives of the BEST project is to "to help resolve criticisms of the temperature record". Their FAQ on "There have been many criticisms of station quality" states "One of the elements that we have analyzed is temperature records from only the very best sites (as classified by Anthony Watts and his team) contrasted with the poorer sites." The project was set up to answer his criticisms, amongst others, in cooperation with him. . . dave souza, talk 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be desirable for someone with knowledge of the studies to trim back this section, keeping essential detail and deleting anything necessary. — ThePowerofX 23:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Watts drives Wiki Editors Bananas

How is it that this guy and a handful of others, though characterized as buffoons, has turned the Global Warming issue on its head? That is Despite all effort, especially in wiki to the contrary. That subject alone deserves analysis. That is, why are the wiki editors so wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

1. This is not a forum for general discussion. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

2. On which account do you think wiki editors are wrong?

3. Watts hasn't turned the Global warming issue on its head. He did contribute to the public confusion, and has a devout and loud following in the uneducated and Dunning-Krugerites. People refuse to believe bad news, especially if they're responsible. The press is often just as uneducated on the issue of GW and science in general, and the fact that Koch brothers have thrown millions of dollars their way is partly responsible.Belsavis (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ...That was an over the top response to a simple suggestion. I suppose I could write the text of a brief paragraph outlining the 1000s of edits and the whirlwind of activity concerting Mr Watts. Look what you just wrote in response to me? Dude!

Anthony Watts was a FEATURED guest of PBS's News Hour on "Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message" by Spencer Michels at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/why-the-global-warming-crowd-oversells-its-message.html

The national response in numerous media outlets (PBS's subscriber feedback site itself) was so hyperbolic that the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler, had to intervene as shown here in his longest analysis ever:

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/

Watts has most certainly upset the wiki editors. He has upset PBS and the entire news a blog world. That is his claim to fame. He is under the skin of everyone who has tried to mount a rebuttal, including you. Just read how over-the-top you are. Geese.

So I think there should be a paragraph added to the article that speaks to Watt's reality as a provocateur. He is simply the best I have ever seen. Keep the anti-Watts blather out of this discussion of his merits as a wiki editor bedeviler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary about that. Buffoons have often had widespread public following and have easily wreaked havoc, one Adolf Hitler being the most well-known example.Belsavis (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Watts' science bog is the most popular science blog on the entire internet, That fact alone affords him unique notoriety especially since the blog is often directed, negatively, at wiki editors.

If Adolf Hitler is the most well-known example of a buffoon, why has nobody included it in his biography nor in the buffoon's page? So peculiar occupation in a historic figure would be worthy a mention. 80.174.254.227 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You know you lost your argument when you start comparing a person to Hitler. ergo, Watts is driving you crazy too.

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)

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.[5] 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)

"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)

Improving the lead

• The lead of a BLP, particularly the first sentence, is about why the person is notable -- why there is a Wikipedia article about this person. All sources point to Watts being known for blogging (look at title of the article) about climate change denialism.

• Wikipedia doesn't list credentials in the lead like that. For example we don't write "M.D." or "Ph.D." in the first sentence of a BLP, much less "AMS seal holder". See WP:CREDENTIAL.

• Use of a primary source like nvsos.gov is verboten; for one thing, it gives his personal address. See WP:BLPPRIVACY.

• Watts identifies himself as a former meteorologist on his website, and BBC News confirms it. Since this is not a self-serving or extraordinary claim, I added the primary source for good measure.

Manul ~ talk 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I left the section "Improving the lead" alone, but the change did the opposite of improving, and I have reverted it. There seems to be a belief that if Michael E. Mann disparages WUWT, that's enough of a fact that it should go in the article lead. But we already have three disparaging comments about WUWT, and zero complimenting comments, in the right section -- the section about WUWT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, you restored a link in direct violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. (I shouldn't need to quote a policy in order to convince someone not to give out a personal address on Wikipedia.) Please self-revert immediately.

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Now the lead doesn't even mention what his blog is about, which is quite bizarre since it's what he is known for. It appears that you wish to attribute the Mann source as if it were a singular opinion. No, Mann reflects the view of independent sources -- per WP:ITA we don't mislead the reader by implying that only Mann holds this view. Manul ~ talk 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That happens to be the address of IntelliWeather (it's published on the front page of intelliweather.com), but I acknowledge that such government-related sites shouldn't be publicized by Wikipedia and have replaced with a reference to WUWT which merely says Watts runs IntelliWeather. I apologize for the delay in making this change. As you can see, I do not accept your claims that Mr Mann's denigrating of WUWT belongs, but a bland modifier like "climate-related" would probably do no harm. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(The address of IntelliWeather is the same address reported by WHOIS for his other domains, and almost certainly his residence. Next time please don't blindly revert without looking at the explanation behind a change.)

You haven't really addressed the reasons I gave for the other changes to the lead. You say that Mann is denigrating Watts, as if this is some personal feud and not about scientific evidence and consensus. Please see WP:PSCI; it is Wikipedia policy that mainstream reception of a fringe view be prominently included. Since Watts is notable primarily for his fringe view, that view should be included in the lead, and therefore mainstream reception must be included in the lead also. Manul ~ talk 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking here about a peer-reviewed study by Mann of Watts or of WattsupWithThat, and in any case Mann is not recognized as an expert re Watts and his blog, and did not present "scientific evidence" about the blog -- he merely called it a name. And your claim that "all sources" agree with you is false. Earlier I referred to an administrative ruling, I'll repeat its contents on your talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My edit was partly in response to your removal of information from the lead that describes what the blog is about, which makes no sense to me. He's known as a blogger -- "blogger" is in the article title -- but the lead doesn't say what he blogs about. This doesn't even concern "skeptic" versus "denier". My point is that there must be something there to describe WUWT. You removed the something.

Also, there's no such thing as an "administrative ruling" on content. Admins don't rule on content. You linked to an ANI, not an RfC. It was a mistake posting to ANI because there's nothing for an admin to do (unless you were claiming vandalism). Try WP:NPOVN or some other form of WP:DR for content disputes. Manul ~ talk 02:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying I "removed" is misleading, what I did was revert an edit which had added Mr Mann's name-calling. Saying your point is there must be "something" is disingenuous, I suggested that a bland modifier like "climate-related" would do no harm, and I suggest it again. As for the admin ruling: it's about the fact that refusal to follow the sources in this area is misconduct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be time to ask for an end on Peter Gulutzan's editing of this page. Anyone want to join me in a request to WP:AE? jps (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)