Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

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.[1] Since the other editor didn't provide a reason or start a discussion on the talk page, I'm removing the content per WP:BLPREMOVE. If anyone, including the original editor, disagrees with my edit, then please explain why. Don't just say I'm wrong. That's not an explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence says that he doesn't have a degree, not that he says he doesn't have a degree. There is simply no contradiction whatsoever, and the sentence you're removing is well-sourced and obviously consistent with biographical policies. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the third source where he says that he is not a degreed climate scientist, but a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist program. Again, how is it possible that he refuses to talk about his education when he's clearly talking about his education? This is not rocket science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And please note that edit-warring to include contentious WP:BLP content is a great way to get blocked or topic-banned. Now, take a step back and actually read the content that you're edit-warring over. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say, AQFK, given that you were previously topic-banned from climate change articles, that you too should tread lightly lest you end up back at WP:AE for edit warring in climate change articles. WP:KETTLE. Your edits appear to be POV-pushing in favor of either concern trolling for this particular person's opposition to mainstream climate science or even spilling over to outright support of climate-change denial. jps (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's weird to say that Watts is unwilling to discuss it when we're citing a source showing him discussing it, and not citing a source saying he discussed it unwillingly. The removal looks justifiable to me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, your posts have an extremely high bluster-to-content ratio; please knock it off. (You might notice, for example, that BRD is a three-step process and it's the duty of the Bold editor, not the Reverter, to begin talk-page discussion.) On substance: the two sentences in question are not, in fact, contradictory -- the possibly valid assertion is that the statement in the older source is made obsolete by the newer one. I've now corrected this by adding a time-based qualifier to the (properly sourced, obviously BLP-compliant) older claim. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

JBL: I see on wayback that Watts wrote "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" some time before November 2 2010. The publication date of Grant's book, which I think is what you refer to when you say "the older source", is some time in 2011. How did you calculate age here? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the WP:BLP violation by Joel B. Lewis. The source in question does not state that "and he was at one time unwilling to discuss his education" or anything close to that, nor that "however, and he's been reticent in discussing this." This appears to be unsourced WP:OR based on a misunderstanding of primary sources. Please remember that whenever WP:BLP issues is raised, the burden of proof is on those seeking to restore the contentious content, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: saying the words "BLP" repeatedly without making any actual claim about the nature of a violation does not and cannot put a burden of proof on anyone else. For a person deeply committed to wiki lawyer-style bullying, you are remarkably inept. Perhaps in your next edit you could make a first attempt at a substantive contribution to the conversation. --JBL (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

JBL: I hope that your dispute with A Quest For Knowledge has not caused you to miss the question that I directed to you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, sorry for the delay in responding. The status before the recent round of editing was that there were two claims: (1) that Watts does not have a college degree (in any field) and avoids discussing this fact, and (2) that Watts does not have a degree in climate science. The quote that you mention is perfectly consistent with both of these claims. --JBL (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Your statement makes no sense as I was extremely explicit in exactly what the WP:BLP violation was: you inserted contentious WP:BLP content that was not supported by the source. As I clearly explained:

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

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

Kudos to whomever removed the WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Skepticism"

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

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

The article doesn't say Watts is into "the philosophy of scientific skepticism" so I see no relevance. Watts is an acceptable source about his own beliefs, and no evidence has been supplied that the term is not neutral. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Using the term "skepticism" in Wikipedia's voice is to endorse the claim that Watts is a proper skeptic which is to say that he engages in scientific skepticism. If you want to quote Watts on his beliefs, do so. Put it in quotation marks, then. jps (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It says he's "skeptical about..." He's not - he rejects the mainstream scientific view. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism isn't in the article, and the phrase "skeptical about ..." isn't in the article. Anybody got anything to say about the article, or is this over? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

More important point: pedantry of this sort is incredibly inane, and never convinces anyone of anything, so just amounts to posturing and time-wasting. Less important point: the actual phrase in the article is "[Watts's] skepticism about ...." --JBL (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

JBL: In accordance with WP:CIVIL I will merely say at this stage that your remark above "might be considered uncivil". When Guettarda put a phrase inside quote marks, I believe it should be understandable that I took it as an attempt to make an exact quote, inasmuch as that's what quote marks are for. That doesn't mean I'm unaware that there's some sort of concern about skepticism, and perhaps we need no longer be diverted by talk of scientific skepticism, but you didn't respond to my suggestion that evidence is required, so why get impatient when I don't respond to your demand that I put parts of the article inside quote marks? --

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

Despite your "reticence" I've seen that you've put your theory on WP:FTN the Wikipedia:Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I'll explain there why you've gone to the wrong place. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you cooked your own goose with that one. Most of the reliable sources use some form of the word "denial". So if you want to go by the admin's "ruling" (which is not how WP:AN works, incidentally), we'd have to change all the instances of "climate change skeptics" to "climate change deniers". So, let's move on and get to WP:NPOV, shall we? jps (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I pointed you to an administrator's ruling (by which I mean an administrator's official conclusion on WP:ANI) beginning with the words "Use what the sources say ..." here. I said that if you want to override it you have to go to an administrator's forum (by which I mean a forum where an administrator makes rulings rather than a talk shop). Now, what do you mean? Do you accept it or do you want to override it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So it is your position we should change all instances of "skepticism" with "denial" since that's what the preponderance of the most reliable sources say? Do you accept it? If not, take your own advice. I'm satisfied that I'm on the right side here. jps (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No that is not my position, because I accept the administrator's ruling. Now, once again: Do you accept it or do you want to override it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The admin's "ruling" is that we should do what the sources do. The most reliable sources call Watts a denier. So.... you connect the dots. jps (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Over-coverage of Surface Stations using primary sources

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

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

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

The change added a non-self-pub blog post as a source and WP:BLPSPS applies so I undid it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, I guess you mean Carbon Brief, which is certainly a reliable source to rebut fringe claims -- see WP:PARITY. Watts advances a fringe position and his report was not peer reviewed, hence PARITY. If you like, we may remove the issue of the Muller paper being publicized before peer review; that way, we needn't reference Carbon Brief. Manul ~ talk 19:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Manul: Indeed, Carbon Brief. I don't know whether the rest of the (rather large) change is any good, but the blog was my only reason for undoing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Sorry to be a bit slow on coming back on this, my feeling was that significant points were left out, but you certainly stripped it down to more proportionate coverage. Have reinstated it, with points reintroduced: have yet to go over the BEST issue, the Guardian/Carbon Brief article covers aspects well but if that's too arguable we can review the paragraph on the basis of the other sources. . dave souza, talk 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Souleymane, Watts, et al paper was another of the primary sources that needed independent coverage for inclusion. In all, there isn't much scientific controversy in this surface station topic, right? We needn't belabor the point. I was going to keep the bit about Watts' reaction to the BEST findings, but then I read in the Guardian article that Muller contradicted the claim. I suppose we could cover that controversy in a controversy, but I ended up just dropping it. Manul ~ talk

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)

jps has also written to my talk page re going to WP:AE "in a few days" unless I "back down". I rejected the demand, I will welcome going to a forum where an administrator will look at jps's accusations. During the few days, I will not revert jps's most recent edit inserting "denialism" in the lead again and commenting "I'm done accommodating POV-pushers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as you don't edit war and let us have a conversation, then there is no reason to get admins involved. I understand that your position is that somehow the admin in question thinks that we shouldn't use the term "denialism" or its derivatives in the lede. I simply don't agree with that interpretation. I think that the admin is saying to use the best sources which I judge to be somewhat comfortable with using "denial" and their derivatives. jps (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

jps: I expected you to carry out your threat and make your accusations in front of an administrator. If you're now the one who's "backing off", I guess I will bear with your rudeness for a while longer. Now: your description of my position is incorrect -- I accept what the admin said about majority of sources. On that basis, I intend to remove your poorly sourced material from the lead of this BLP. I am allowing time first for the conversation you spoke of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of sources use "denial" and its derivatives. That is, we are talking about the majority of the reliable sources on the subject. jps (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What are those sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The book by Mann for one which is what we are currently using to source the statement. There are a few dozen more I can name, but the question is, how do you want to do this? I'll name a source and you name an equally reliable one that contradicts it? jps (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest, by adding something like "WUWT? is more often known as a denier blog." in the Watts Up With That? section of the article and following with 7 citations, you'd make checking and later lookup easy. I started the ball rolling by adding 6 saying skeptic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not really what we're supposed to do. What's with this attempted enumeration? Present your best source and we'll move forward. jps (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

jps (talk: You have said over and over (I didn't count) that the majority of sources support an edit saying WUWT? is a "denialism" website. I have asked you: what are those sources? You are not answering. I will try again. What are those sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I responded above. The majority of the most reliable sources do so identify the blog. Michael Mann's book, published by an academic press, is my first source. Yours is the Scientific American article? I think I'm happier with the book by Mann. jps (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this to WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann and Watts have been in a personal feud for years. Mann shouldn't be used as a source for Watts or his blog, especially one that has been cited as diminishing the Holocaust or derived from from it. Sorry, nut this is a clear-cut BLP issue. There are enough sources with various descriptions that we none other that a "climate change blog." --DHeyward (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is incoherent; edit? --JBL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@ DHeyward, what evidence to you have of this alleged personal feud? Michael E. Mann is a distinguished professor, and in the hockey stick controversy#Controversy over MBH 1998 his work has been under attack from contrarians, fossil fuel thinktanks and deniers since 1998. Wattsupwiththat.com/category/michael-e-mann/ only seems to go back to 2011, there have clearly been earlier cases of Watts denigrating Mann's work but I've not found any cases of Mann personally responding: he covers Watts' blog briefly in his book, as cited. As for deniers, in 2008 Watts' blog featured guest posts by Roy Spencer, signatory to the Cornwall Alliance alliance declaration "We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." etc. . . dave souza, talk 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Denial" is simply a means to say that someone denies a claimed fact. Climate change denial has essentially nothing to do with Holocaust denial nor does it have anything to do with AIDS denial as the facts being denied in all those instances are very different sets. The claim that this is defamatory is a big stretch, I'd say. What it appears to me to be instead is a concern troll objection. jps (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Denial is a disbelief that something is true. Is the climate changing, yeah. Is man having an impact, yeah. Is man having a significant impact on temperatures, maybe. Is CO2 directly linked to an increase in temperatures, well according to the predictions from the models that is unsure, so people are skeptical. It is pretty hard to be in denial of a future event which has not happened and which has not been proven. Perhaps if the climate models were not universally so far off it would be easier to make the connection. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arzel, you seem to be in denial about some pretty basic physics here, disputing the 1896 science of Svante Arrhenius: and climate models seem to have done pretty well. That's an informative webpage rather than a reliable source, do you have any reliable source for your assertion that models were "universally so far off"? All of which shows the need at Wikipedia for accurately showing science rather than getting mixed up by attempts to deny there's any problem. . . dave souza, talk 19:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's simply is a "denial that something is true" than, Watts is not a denier as he readily admits that greenhouse gases will contribute to warming. Neither is Curry. There are many competing theories about why there is a hiatus so are all those voices "deniers" because they fail to agree? There are many competing claims about sea level rise and avg temperature in 2100. To use this language over other language such as "sceptic," which is at least equally as prevalent (and probably more so) in neutral sources, implies an agenda to make sceptics look the same as holocaust deniers. This is even mentioned in our article climate change denialism. It's pejorative and has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wattsupwithtat hosts a lot of text that outright denies the facts that outline that most of the global warming that has occurred in the last decades is due to human contribution of carbon dioxide. This is plainly not a scientific skeptic position and we've got the academic sources to prove it. WP:PARITY demands that you show your academic sources which dispute this characterization. When someone denies a fact and is called out in the literature, it is not Wikipedia's job to right the wrongs as perceived by those who support the deniers. jps (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your asking to prove the negative? How about all the papers that recognize a hiatus? Mann doesn't (well it depends on the phase of the moon whether he does or doesn't). By that logic, Mann is a "denier." "denier" is political rhetoric, not scientific. In that sense, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to choose sides. There are AGW adherents and AGW sceptics. WP is not the place to wage political fights and WP is not on any side. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What does a supposed "hiatus" have to do with the blog wattsupwiththat? You are confusing topics here. jps (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It demonstrates that "denier" is not a scientific term just a political one. The temperature record is pretty clear. But we don't categorize people into political buckets over scientific differences in meaning. Nobody has taken exception to being a sceptic or contrarian voice. "Denier" is not. Mann is sceptical that there is a hiatus but he is not a "hiatus denier" no matter how many scientific papers disagree with him. There are many competing views from ozone and water vapor to deep-ocean heat to trade winds to arctic measurement anomalies. All have been postulated and all have had rebuttals with various amounts of adherence. No one though, is labeled with a political term like "denier" for daring to challenge the consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's convoluted. I have shown you a peer-reviewed paper and two books published by university presses which identify WattsUpWithThat.com as a blog that hosts climate change denial. If you have a similar caliber source which disputes that characterization, let us see it. All I see are media discussions and books that are written from the perspective of climate change denial and thus can hardly be called independent enough to pass our sourcing guidelines. jps (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That statement is false, but I believe the appropriate place for discussion is BLPN now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply writing "that statement is false" does not make it so. jps (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually one of your sources complains about the bloggers, not the blogs. Since you have already said it's about the blog and not the blogger so BLP doesn't apply, that sources should be tossed (hint: it's the book). Here's one of many sources that manage not to call him (or his webiste) a "denier" [2] --DHeyward (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Protip: the source in question complains about both the blogger and the blog. We're using it as a source for the blog. If you want to start a discussion about sources for the blogger, be my guest. If you can't find academic sources that show Anthony Watts' blog does not include climate change denial, then you have failed to make your case. jps (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 March 2015

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

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

WUWT? ?

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

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

Characterizing WUWT

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

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

• The source or sources are not adequate. No, Mann's book alone is adequate, since Mann is a mainstream expert on the subject. The other two sources recently added[3][4] would also be adequate by themselves. All of these are high-quality academic sources. The last source specifically makes the point that, while Watts characterizes himself as "skeptical", some WUWT posts "sound denialistic". This source is against characterizing WUWT as "skeptical".
• But I found sources when I googled wattsupwiththat "skeptical blog". Yes, and you can search for other terms and find sources for those as well. The question is: what to do when sources conflict? This is normally resolved by looking to what the highest quality sources say. Sources from expert academics are better than newspaper sources, even if outnumbered by newspaper sources. Wikipedia prefers quality over quantity. Had Wikipedia (and the Internet) been around when Joseph Newman was making headlines, preferring popular newspapers as sources would have led to an article that mislead readers about the potential legitimacy of Newman's device.
• Mentioning "climate change denialism" is a BLP violation and/or a personal attack. No, accurately characterizing a blog according to high quality sources is not a BLP violation or a personal attack. Wikipedia uses terms like pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and climate change denialism in order to properly inform the reader, per the WP:PSCI policy.
• Something about the Holocaust. Let's not go down that path, okay?

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

@Manul: You are correct on policy, but backwards on implementation. As best as I can tell, the mainstream POV is that this blog is a skeptic blog, not a denialist blog. Please see the following.[5] The claim that this is a denialism blog appears to be a WP:FRINGE POV held by an extreme minority of sources. Per WP:NPOV, we absolutely should not be promoting the fringe viewpoint that this is a denialism blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream view as per a Google Scholar search eliminating the denialist sources that violate WP:FRIND is that it promotes climate change denial. "Skepticism" and "denial" both are WP:FRINGE positions. jps (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is still on WP:BLPN where arguments like Manul's above were discussed and were refuted or gained no consensus, there's no need to do it again here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah. Manul's point has the best reliable sources behind it. Global warming denialists who are muddying the waters don't trump the fact that we have three excellent sources that are better than the rest in terms of identifying what the content of the blog is. jps (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Manul: First, you said that there was a "strategy of relying upon newspapers and magazines while ignoring experts". I did an objective search of all reliable sources which includes newspapers, magazines and peer-reviewed academic journals. No experts where ignored. (In fact, where did you even get that idea from?)

Second, you stated "extreme minority of scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus on climate change". I agree. But that's not the issue that we're discussing. The issue is not the majority POV regarding climate change, the issue is the majority POV regarding the WUWT blog. You're conflating two different issues. You do see the difference, right?

Third, I think the first sentence of the quote you provided aptly describes the situation here:

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

Selectively choosing (aka WP:CHERRYPICKING) which sources to cite while ignoring the vast majority of reliable sources is classic WP:UNDUE. If we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source, you cite the majority.

Fourth, you state "the objections to characterizing WUWT as climate change denialism have been satisfactorily answered." They haven't even been addressed, let alone answered. Look, I came into this with an open mind. I was, and continue to be, willing to follow the sources, where ever they lead. I performed an objective analysis of reliable sources randomly selected by Google.[6] The result of that analysis is that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that this is a skeptic blog, not denialist. I will continue to have an open mind, but in absence of any objective evidence that says otherwise, the answer seems pretty clear. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain how you created the list you randomly selected from? Which search terms did you use, and which search engine? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, absolutely. I searched for "Watts Up With That" with the quotes using my Reliable Sources Search Engine, a link to which can be found on my user page under "Tools I find useful". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out, if you just use Google Scholar, you eliminate most of the erroneous hits you have to unreliable sources. Your Reliable Sources Search Engine doesn't work. jps (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I tried using Google Scholar, but it ironically cites unreliable sources such as WUWT[7] (so much for it doing a better job finding reliable sources, ha!), and most of the other hits are behind paywalls. In any case, you made reference to "erroneous hits you have to unreliable sources" I believe that you are mistaken but if there is any particular source that you believe to be unreliable, you are free to bring this to WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We have three sources that are listed in GoogleScholar that are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited. I understand that you may have problems if you don't have access to journals, but you can request them through resource request and can easily eliminate the unreliable sources. Using media sources as your primary means to answer the question is not acceptable when we have academic sources. jps (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The very first source returned by Google Scholar is WUWT.[8] That doesn't quite mesh with your claim that "GoogleScholar that are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited", now does it? Also, you stated that you found three sources which describe the blog as denialist. That number is meaningless without context. How many sources didn't describe it as denialist? That's the crux of the issue here: what do the majority of reliable sources say? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

First, I note that you didn't bother explaining the obvious contradiction between your claim that "GoogleScholar that are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited" and the fact that WUWT is the #1 source returned by Google Scholar. It is difficult to logically argue that the sources returned by Google Scholar "are excellent and better than all the other sources you cited" while simultaneously arguing that the very same sources returned by Google Scholar are denialist and unreliable.

Second, I'm not a supporter "of the "skeptic" status quo". I came in here with an open mind. What I am a supporter of is following reliable sources no matter where they lead.

Third, your claim that you were unable to find sources through Google Scholar which don't describe this blog as denialist indicates a severe flaw in your methodology. The very first reliable source I found through Google Scholar describes this blog as skeptic.[9] Or, is your argument that academic journals published by the University of Oxford are not reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That source you outline is great, but it hardly qualifies as one that can be said to make the point that WUWT is not a blog that engages in climate change denial. We all understand that there is very little distinction between what proponents call "climate change skepticism" and denial. I would like to see a link to the above article as I think it describes Watts' position particularly well and the academic source you are providing seems to illustrate that as well. jps (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, you haven't engaged the points that have been made. I'd rather not facilitate a IDHT loop, but just taking some (not all) of the missed points, what is your response to (1) a high-quality expert source that discusses and analyzes WUWT is better than a thousand newspaper articles that happen to mention WUWT while using the word "skeptical"; (2) the mainstream POV is determined by what experts say, not by counting newspaper articles; (3) the Joseph Newman thought experiment; (4) a high-quality expert source even tells us that WUWT should not be called "skeptical"; etc. You're focused on this source-counting procedure but you haven't addressed its underlying flaw.

We seek high-quality expert sources that actually discuss WUWT, not simply mention it in passing. That is another factor in valuing quality over quantity.

Using your source-counting methodology, Wikipedia may have (at one point) described Newman's energy machine as a "potential perpetual motion device". On the other hand, experts knew it was a flop. That example was intended to trigger an insight into why the source-counting method does not produce accurate articles. When assessing consensus, we can ignore editors that are inside IDHT loops. Manul ~ talk 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: First, you stated "you haven't engaged the points that have been made". That's a rather strange thing to claim given that I've been extremely straight forward by directly confronting the key issues.

Second, you stated "a high-quality expert source that discusses and analyzes WUWT is better than a thousand newspaper articles". Again, I examined all reliable sources, including expert ones. Why do you perpetuate this falsehood?

Third, and perhaps most importantly, you haven't addressed the issue of all the other sources which don't categorize this blog as "denialist". Again, it is completely meaningless to claim that A number of sources say B, without including the C numbers of sources which say D. This has already been explained. Why won't you address this? Yet again, this is the heart of the matter: What is the majority viewpoint regarding this issue? You haven't even bothered to address the issue at hand.

Fourth, you're right that I haven't addressed Newman's energy machine because that's not what we're talking about, nor do I care. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Fifth, speaking about refusing to engage in the points that have been made so far, I note that you have not retracted nor apologized for the false claim about "strategy of relying upon newspapers and magazines while ignoring experts"? Would you like to show some good faith and admit that you were wrong?

Sixth, speaking of WP:IDHT (your words, not mine), you have not acknowledged that the fact that you've conflated two different issues (the majority POV regarding climate change versus the majority POV regarding the WUWT blog). Why won't you address this?

Finally, I am approaching this with an open mind. You cannot just simply stomp your feet and announce that you are right. You have to provide objective evidence in favor of your position. How many posts have you made and you haven't even bothered trying to provide any objective evidence?

WP:IDHT (again, your words, not mine) indeed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, taking these in order,

1. I continue to notice that points have not been addressed. For instance, what do we do when sources conflict? What about the high-quality expert source that says WUWT is not a "skeptical" blog? Do we ignore this conflict, and what is the policy-based reason for ignoring it? The typical resolution is to defer to the higher quality sources.
2. We seek high-quality, expert, independent sources that actually discuss WUWT. This is the gold standard; it is the basis for writing an accurate article. Everyone should agree on this. Do you? We have several such sources that characterize WUWT as a climate change denialism blog. You say there are others that do not. From what I see, you've only mentioned [10], which is not as high quality and does not discuss WUWT apart from a mention in a parenthetical reference.
3. Please just tell us what sources you propose. You're still not answering the point: the mainstream POV is determined by mainstream experts, not by counting newspaper articles containing (or not containing) a certain phrase. Everyone should agree. Do you? I have never claimed that "A number of sources say B". I care about what experts say, not about counting newspapers.
4. I had hoped the Newman example would provoke thought about this source-counting strategy. If it fails with Newman's device, why should it succeed with WUWT, or with any other topic?
5. I acknowledge that I should have been more clear about "while ignoring experts". When you source-count like this, it effectively ignores experts, because experts are few and newspaper/magazine articles are many. That you started off with the list of newspaper and magazine articles indicated to me that you completely missed the points I gave.
6. You made what I consider to be an extraordinary claim: that the characterization of WUWT as denialism is WP:FRINGE. High-quality, expert, independent sources that actually discuss WUWT are relatively few in number. When you wrote "extreme minority", it seemed you misunderstood (and still misunderstand) the role of experts when covering scientific topics on Wikipedia. By turning the phrase around, I was attempting to bring attention to this point. I know very well the two uses of "extreme minority" -- the point was that your use of "extreme minority" was misguided, resulting from not understanding the important role of experts.
7. The objective evidence consists of the already-mentioned sources which are high-quality, expert, independent, and which actually discuss WUWT.

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

I'm sorry, but it's like you didn't even bother reading any of the previous posts. All of your points have already been addressed (and in many cases, several times over). If you didn't understand it the few times around, it's unlikely that another round of repetition is going to resolve your lack of understanding. To be honest, I don't see any point in repeating the same things over and over again if it's simply going to fall on deaf ears. But do understand that per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." If you don't want to meet that burden, fine, but don't expect anyone to continually explain the same things over and over again if you're unable or unwilling to understand the responses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's take the first one. How do you propose that we deal with conflicting sources? And what do we do about the high-quality expert source that says WUWT is not a "skeptical" blog? If you have explained your proposal, then sorry I must have missed it. Please humor me and point it out. Manul ~ talk 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll humor you. We handle it the same we always handle it: "If we have 10 sources about something, and 9 say one thing, and 1 says something else, you don't cite the oddball source, you cite the majority."[11] See? Already asked and answered. Now you humor me: Why should I repeatedly answer the same questions over and over again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That is against current practices and guidelines for scientific topics, as I have been explaining. Please see WP:RS, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." The example of the Newman device should drive home that this is just common sense. A foxnews.com article (one of the sources you gave) does not cancel out a high-quality expert source, obviously. Wikipedia looks to experts. Quality over quantity. Manul ~ talk 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, already asked and answered. Since I did you the courtesy of humoring you and you failed extend the same courtesy in return, I'll leave it as an exercise to you to scroll up and read the responses. As long as you continue to ignore questions that have already been answered, this discussion is at a stand-still. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wherever your argument can be found and whatever form it has taken, our policies and guidelines take precedence, especially with regard to scientific topics. Manul ~ talk 01:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One last point...I agree 100% that we should be following our policies and guidelines, and that's exactly what I've been arguing in favor of this whole time, and this applies to all topics, not just scientific topics. In any case, you may have the last word. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I bet we will reach consensus the 17th time you pretend not to understand the importance of weighing different sources rather than counting them. At least, that seems to be the view of the helpful administrator who protected the page. --JBL (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I understand the importance of weighing different sources, and if you look up my record, you would note that I'm one of the top 5 contributors to W:RSN (or at least I was the last time I checked). I understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines very well, thank you very much. The problem is that you haven't provide any real evidence to back up your position. Anyone can cherrypick which sources to follow and which ones to ignore. Indeed, it's easy to purposely seek out sources that fit some pre-conceived notion. Perhaps you didn't do that purposely and this is merely a case of confirmation bias. But either way, that's not evidence. You have to provide an objective analysis of what the sources actually say. It's sad that this discussion has gone on as long as it has without you providing any real evidence to support your position. We're still at square one. :( A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the put-denialism-in side has an ability to repeat claims (though have you noticed how the claim that there are dozens of supporting sources has disappeared?) but no ability to provide real evidence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Looking at this edit, what immediately jumps out is that there is a problem of giving equal validity. Indeed I introduced the problem when I made the compromise to include both "skeptic" and "denial", though now it seems more stark. We should not imply equal validity unless we have comparably high-quality sources supporting the "skeptic" characterization. What are these sources? This entire thread boils down to that question. Manul ~ talk 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Presumably it's the list that Peter posted in the article and AQFK posted at BLPN. There are two sources worth looking at in those lists, as far as I'm concerned: Painter & Ashe 2012 which only mentions WUWT as an example of the kind of ideology they are outlining (which I would say is climate change denial) and Morello 2012 from SciAm which says, "But several climate scientists said skeptics were misinterpreting the leaked drafts' conclusions." which seems to me, anyway, to identify the blog as being firmly in the climate change denial camp in the sense that our article on the ideology explains it (where scientists disagree with so-called 'skeptics'). There are the three additional sources I provided including Mann, Dunlap, and Liu. One additional source might be Lemonick's interview of Richard A. Muller in SciAm who is a scientist who is about as sympathetic as could be said to be to Watts personally (though the blog is another matter). I would argue, however, that this interview is mostly elucidating opinions of Muller and perhaps Lemonich rather than getting at a dispassionate evaluation. Nevertheless, here are relevant quotes from the article for those who can't get behind the paywall (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v304/n6/pdf/scientificamerican0611-84.pdf):

• "Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming."
• "Anthony Watts, whom some climate scientists consider a denier, not just a skeptic, has denounced you for going public before the final results are in. Why did you go public?"
• "Lemonick: Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic? Mueller: No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there. I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process."

To my estimation, these six sources most firmly place the blog as at least sympathetic to what we describe, for better or worse, on Wikipedia as climate change denial. How we discuss that is all that remains. I agree that there are WP:GEVAL problems we need to avoid.

jps (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• The very recent discussion of this topic at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard is archived here. Opened 22 March; last posting was on 25 March 2015. The arguments are much the same as here. No consensus was reached. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources?

Does anyone have access to this article?

• [12]

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

It is here.

“ More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established. ”

Manul ~ talk 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

“ First, it suggests that the blogosphere is still preoccupied with framing climate change as an active scientific controversy. Whilst multitude scientific uncertainties regarding climate systems still exist, fundamental components of climate science such as the relationship between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and temperature increases are no longer considered contentious within the academic literature (IPCC, 2011, 2013). As newspapers such as The Los Angeles Times and The Sydney Morning Herald refrain from publishing reader letters which deny anthropogenic climate change (Lewis and McEvoy, 2013; Thornton, 2013), it is possible that scientifically-framed climate sceptical arguments may become increasingly rare in traditional mainstream media fora, instead retreating into the unregulated blogosphere environment. Second, it contradicts claims that climate science is ‘adrift in the blogosphere’ (Schäfer, 2012, p. 529) because even though few climate scientists themselves blog—and are suggested to mainly focus on addressing the “pseudoscience” suggested as existing within the climate sceptic blogosphere (Schäfer, 2012)—this does not mean that science itself is not an active topic of discussion. Finally, it also suggests that by not focusing on, or explicitly identifying, debates regarding the ideological foundation for climate change disagreement, which more explicitly highlights ‘attitudes and worldviews…[and] political ideology and personal values’ (Poortinga et al., 2011, p. 1022), the blogosphere may be playing a central role in perpetuating doubt regarding the scientific basis for subsequent climate change policy-making. pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.This conclusion therefore stands somewhat in contrast to the results found by Elsasser and Dunlap (2013) whose analysis of conservative columnists’ discussion of climate change shows a strong preoccupation with trend sceptical arguments, yet a concomitant emphasis on connecting the political figure of Al Gore with these arguments. ”

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

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

“ It is important for students to have structured learning opportunities to find and analyze how these tactics are employed by climate denial organizations and blogs like the ‘International Climate Science Coalition’, the ‘Friends of Science’, the ‘Science and Public Policy Institute’, or ‘Watts up with That’ and others. In helping young people recognize the common characteristics inactivist media campaigns teachers can better prepare them to apply and hone critical thinking skills when they encounter different applications of denial argument in the context of other science policy debates. ”

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

References

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

“ This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis. ”

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

WP:SYNTH

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

Again I remind Manul that there is a discussion on WP:BLPN. If there is no consensus on WP:BLPN, then I expect most of the people who objected to calling WUWT a "denialism" site in the lead will not object to removing a sentence calling WUWT a "skeptic" site in the WUWT section -- that would be a part of a return to the status quo ante. Or, if/when the WP:BLPN discussion ends with a firm rejection of Manul's position, I don't think our keep-denialism-out side would rub it in by insisting on "skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I see that the WP:BLPN discussion has now been archived after four days of inactivity. I am obliged now to remove the template about it. If there is further comment about the end of the WP:BLPN discussion, please put it in the previous thread "Characterizing WUWT" after Mr Tillman's notification. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The BLPN discussion obviously was not reaching consensus; also, it has been archived due to lack of activity in the past week. Unsurprisingly, I also agree substantively with Manul. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

As has been already objectively demonstrated,[13] the majority POV is that this is skeptic website, not denialist. In case anyone attempts to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, I remind all editors that per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If any editor attempts to add or restore any fringe POVs that this is a denialist website, such content should be immediately removed and without waiting for discussion per WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For godsakes, use preview instead of making dozens of minor edits!--JBL (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, do you understand what the aforementioned WP:SYNTH violation is? Manul ~ talk 20:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

These sources were all mentioned in the WP:BLPN discussion. It's not a policy violation to find sources. I've asked the administrator who protected this article whether it's correct now to remove the recently-added labels of WUWT, from either side. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

An administrator cannot magically turn a lack of consensus into consensus. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Peter Gulutzan: Correct, it's not a policy violation to "find sources". It is a policy violation to synthesize sources to form a conclusion that is not present in any of the sources. This thread is about your edit which synthesizes sources. This thread is not about any wider issue; only that edit. There's no shame in not being familiar with every line of Wikipedia policy. Would you please read WP:NOR? Re the admin, I previously explained to you that admins do not rule on content. Manul ~ talk 23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there is WP:SYNTH issue, it can easily be resolved by citing sources reliable sources which support the majority POV and of which there are plenty. This seems much ado about nothing. Just cite the sources which cite the majority POV, case closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, would you please start another thread if you wish to argue that characterizing a blog using high-quality expert sources is somehow a BLP violation? (I'd like to hear the argument, since it's never been explained.) As I mentioned to Peter, this thread is just about the synth edit. Manul ~ talk 00:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no violation of anything, the conclusion is present in all the sources, and indeed this is "much ado about nothing". But I am not telling Manul immediately what he/she should do, since I have a pending question to the administrator about what the correct conduct would be now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where exactly did I argue that "characterizing a blog using high-quality expert sources is somehow a BLP violation"? (I'd like to hear that argument, too, since I never made it.) Please see strawman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

The administrator replied but did not directly answer whether going back to the status quo ante was appropriate (we only got an opinion that the BLP discussion ended in no consensus and a suggestion to continue discussion). So I can't just declare Manul's question moot. I puzzled for a while over the WP:SYNTH claim, wondering how something can be synth when it is (using the policy's wording) "explicitly stated by the source" in all cases, and finally I guessed that Manul must be objecting because one of the six sources said "skeptical" rather than "skeptic". I changed the article wording accordingly. Also I added one more citation. For Manul's second claim, that there is a WP:NOR violation, I failed to guess. Why should Manul object if I found some (though not all) sources via "googling"? Does Manul claim that these are not "reliable, published" sources (the WP:OR requirement)? What difference does it make that Manul can't find mention of the sources in the BLPN discussion, when it's plain that they are mentioned? I trust there is some serious basis for Manul's claims that we have not yet seen. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "skeptic" versus "skeptical" or whatnot. None of the sources you listed say that WUWT is "known as" a skeptic blog -- that is a conclusion you reached by synthesizing a number of sources together. Remember that we have at least one high-quality expert source saying that WUWT should not be called a skeptic/skeptical blog. Please read WP:NOR carefully; again, there is no shame in not being familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies.

Now we might discuss how to deal with this terminology in the article. We only need one good source in order to write that WUWT has been called a skeptic blog (very different from being known as a skeptic blog), but if this is included then there must also be text citing the high-quality expert source which disputes the characterization. Manul ~ talk 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I guessed wrongly that Manul was complaining about the trivial-seeming difference between "skeptic" and "skeptical", it turns out Manul was complaining about the words "known as". Well, WUWT is indeed known as a skeptic blog, and the citations are evidence of that. Manul's nameless "high-quality expert source" is outweighed by the existence of other sources which are also academic and have reputable publishers (I'll try to avoid calling them "high-quality expert" since I don't see how such terminology could be objective). More importantly, when we're talking about what a thing is "known as", we're talking about terminology as used by reliable sources in general, not just academics. Knowing that at least one put-denialism-in editor thinks Wikipedia essays are evidence, I refer to WP:SSF "Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy". But what I see as evidence is the clear statement of an administrator, the majority of reliable sources matters for terminology questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Why the removal of Mann? It seems like an excellent source to me. Also, I'm concerned about WP:GEVAL problems with the labeling. It might be better to come to a means by which we don't use either term if we can. Anyway, there is some source sorting going on above. It would be nice to have a fuller description in my opinion. What do you think about the other sources being considered above? Some of them make the "skeptic" point a bit more clearly and in ways that seem to indicate that climate change denial is a good wikilink in some fashion. jps (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

jps: are you saying you accept this "compromise" except for an objection to replacing the Mann citation with a Dunlap + McCright citation, or are you saying no? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this solves the problems completely. I'm concerned that the current wording violates WP:GEVAL. I don't understand at all the replacement of Mann with Dunlap & McCright. So, I guess, "no" is the right answer. On the other hand, this is better than the wording was in the past. jps (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Manul: I realize you cannot be responsible for jps, but if your "compromises" are not even acceptable to the editors who share your general put-denialism-in opinions, then they're not compromises, they're just "accept X's demands so that Y can demand more". Unless there is some way around this intransigence, there is no reason to accept your recent edits which lack consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% that AzureCitizen's addition of "some" and "others" is not reflective of the sources. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Saw this post when I circled back and examined the follow-up edits. I rephrased the text again to specifically indicate who is saying what here. Does that make it accurate and reflective of the sources? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that the in-text attribution is well-done. It makes it seem like these are single opinions when, in fact, they represent something of a consensus. There is no disagreement that I can find that the blog is sympathetic to climate change denial. Even the sources which describe it as 'sceptic', if they go on to describe its contents, firmly place it in that category. jps (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the climate change denial article is written such that a skeptic equals denial. Your argument has been positioned from the beginning to make it impossible to find a middle ground. I am not sure you even believe there is a middle. If a person believes that there has been climate change but does not believe that future temps will increase even remotely (and lets be honest, they have not to this point) at the rate predicted by the IPCC models, is that person a believer, skeptic, or denier? Arzel (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It's just a fact that WUWT has been characterized as a skeptic blog and as a denial blog; the named attributions are just cruft. Manul ~ talk 01:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2015

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

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

Contrasting skepticism and denialism

Peter Gulutzan, you said "Not in the source."[14] However it is in the source:

“ Denialists often misappropriate scientific skepticism...Muller showed Congress the colors of a true scientist, skeptical and grappling with evidence...Unfortunately, the tone of some of [Watts' and McIntyre's] blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, for example, has a posting...It is important that students understand the difference between the essential skepticism that all good scientists need and being a denialist or a knee-jerk contrarian.[15] ”

Liu is contrasting Muller's approach and Watts' blog posts as exemplars, respectively, of skepticism and denialism. To be absolutely clear, the paragraph says, in summary, (1) here is a property of denialism; (2) Muller did not show this property; (3) some of Watts' blog posts do show this property; (4) this is the difference between skepticism and denialism. Liu is a good source for sorting out these terms. Manul ~ talk 23:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion is not equal to fact. Liu's opinion is just that. He may think that some of the blog posts sound like denial, but that is simply his opinion. This is particularly important for things which are in the Eye of the beholder. Can't use WP voice of "fact" for which is opinion. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITA, "Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree." Independent mainstream sources converge on WUWT being climate change denialism (see previous threads). In scientific matters, Wikipedia aims to reflect the mainstream view. Manul ~ talk 01:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)