Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

BLP and minority viewpoints

FYI, there have been various comments about "majority sources" or "widely used" etc cetera, and Peter has referenced a related ANI from a year ago. I'm trying to make sense of BLP policy in this regard, and if you're interested, see the discussion I started at the BLP noticeboard.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (strikeout by author)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for noticing the statement by former administrator TParis. I hope that if you want an authoritative opinion about TParis's statement you will ask on an administrator noticeboard or a policy noticeboard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE, I deleted that noticeboard query when I became aware of the thread at the FRINGE board. But I think I disagree with TParis on the basis of BLP policy for public figures as explained (for now at least) in my sandbox here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All: I have taken this to WP:ANI, subject heading = "Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis", [1]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What bothers Watts most

Before recent edits by DHeyward, the text read

He further avers that what most bothers him about people who say there's lots of global warming is that "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (bold added)

Although the bolded phrase was not formatted as a quote, it does use the language used by the interviewer, and this is critical because it defines the pronoun "they" in Watts' quote. DHeyward altered the meaning away from the RS by changing the bold text so that it instead reads climate change activists. Watts was not asked about "climate change activists", he was asked about "people who say there is a lot of global warming". Many many many people say that, and while they might want the things Watts describes they are totally inactive trying to make it happen.

To cure this problem, I then imported a direct quote for the journalist's question. What's more WP:VERIFIABLE and objective than that? The result read

" Asked "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" he replied "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (Bold added)

OOPS! While "climate change activists" was somehow dandy, apparently the verbatim question-and-answer is somehow toxic waste, which D removed entirely, with the edit summary

rm. don't agree with interprtation of soundbite quotepull that spans multiple questions/answers. It's clear he means activists drawn to a cause and not everyone that believes in global warming (underline added)

Say what? "spans multiple questions/answers"?? No it doesn't. There is this question, followed by this answer. Read the transcript in the ref. Plain as my nose.

Side-bar, Watts' answer to the verbatim question "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" became the focus of commentary. There are 1500 Google hits on the verbatim question combined with "Watts". For example, Skeptical Science's Dana 1981 wrote,

Watts on His Motives and Double Standards

At Skeptical Science it is against our site policy to speculate about a person's motives, but in this case, Watts volunteered the information.

"SPENCER MICHELS: What's the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there's lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

"It is interesting that Watts responds to a question about a science-based opinion with a criticism about policy. For example, Watts is not most bothered that people are ignoring or unaware of the biases that he incorrectly believes exist in the temperature record. No, Watts is most bothered that we might implement an economically-beneficial carbon tax.

CONCLUSION The text should be restored to show both the question and the answer because

• What bothers him most about those people is highly relevant to a biography about the man
• The question is followed by the answer without interruption, contrary to D's edit summary
• Using both the question and the answer is objective and NPOV, whereas DHeyward's edit puts words in Watts' mouth, based on DHeyward's interpretation of the word "they". He says his interpretation is "clear". Well, it certainly isn't clear to me, because I prefer to read the RS text without committing WP:Original research.

@DHeyward: please self-revert.

refs for what bothers Watts most

References

Illegitimate science blogs

In the Nolan RS, he says WUWT won the bloggies because the "LEGITIMATE science blogs don't want to compete". Is that an RS for the assertion that Nolan thinks WUWT is the other kind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be an inference. Whether it's the other kind or "other legitimate" cannot be inferred. If it were an Oscar and a good film chose not to compete, it would be a "legitimate contender didn't want to compete" but it takes nothing away from the legitimacy of other contenders. Marlon Brando chose not to compete for the 'Godfather' Best Actor award but there was still a very good actor that won. --DHeyward (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann is a poor source

Michael E. Mann is a poor source for the claim that Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog are denier / denialist, for these reasons: involvement, lack of knowledge of the subject, history of name-calling.

INVOLVEMENT: Watts and Mann are on opposing sides of the climate change controversy. Watts has made accusations about Mann (example post: "Dr. Michael Mann's dishonest political messaging"), and Mann has made accusations about Watts (example post: "Is #AnthonyWatts really the best front man the #KochBrothers can buy?"). So the Mann source is written by a person "directly involved", who is not independent -- a primary source. WP:NOR says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT: We've seen no answer to the question: What qualifications does Michael Mann have to decide whether Watts is into "denialism" / is a "denier"? Mann is known to be qualified in climatology, which of course means he can say with authority that Watts is wrong, but saying it's because of denialism is a non-climatological diagnosis of a person. We can see that Mann has not studied Watts from this quote: "How can someone w/ a Meteorology degree have as poor an understanding of the atmosphere ... as #AnthonyWatts?" ... If Mann had done basic study of Watts (perhaps by reading this Wikipedia article), he'd have known Watts has no meteorology degree. So: he's no Watts expert.

HISTORY OF NAME-CALLING: This was stated at the beginning of the WP:BLPN discussion: Mr Mann is known for labelling others, for example calling Roy Spencer an "evolution denier" , calling Judith Curry a "disinformer", calling Steve McIntyre a source of "denialist drivel" -- which should suggest not that they all are guilty, but that he likes to accuse.

In that WP:BLPN discussion and on this talk page other editors have objected that "denier" is pejorative, that Mann "has a known personal beef with Watts", and so on. I've taken the Mann source out (without taking out a use of the source in the Surface Stations section). I don't think anyone has objected to there being criticism of Watts, but we already have lots of that, and name-calling is a different thing than disagreement. Let's see whether there really is a consensus that Wikipedia should relay Mann's calling Watts denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars was published not by Greenpeace or by The Heartland Institute, but by Columbia University Press, one of the leading publishers of academic books. It doesn't get much more reliable than that. Watts and his blog has run attacks on nearly all highly visible climate scientists. That does not magically insulate WUWT from qualified criticism. And while I'm not much into guilt trips (note: believing weird things is not a crime in most modern legal systems): Do you seriously deny that e.g. Spencer can be described fairly as an "evolution denier" [2]? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would take issue with any language that evokes the image of "holocaust denialism" which is what that word does. It should be considered a form of Godwin's law and the party that invokes "denier" or "denialism" should immediately cede the argument. It's really not disputable that the term was used to evoke this imagery and it's shameful that we are even debating it. It has no encyclopedic value considering there are less hostile terms that can be used. Continuing to use it even after the holocaust reference has been pointed out is beyond the pale. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Denial is the usual word for it, and it is the right word for it. Climate change denial is clearly in the same category as evolution denial, moon landing denial, Al-Qaida-9/11 denial, AIDS denial, and, yes, holocaust denial. All of those are easily refuted, far-fetched ideas, posing as science, and denying scientific facts that, in most cases, collide with the ideologies of the deniers. They are all attractive to people who do not know a lot about the subjects and like the "results" the deniers "get". Look it up: Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No. It's not. Applying "denial" to political topics is very recent with "Holocaust denial" followed by "AIDs denial" and I'd submit the WP article was created to support its use in climate change in much the same way that mythical Global warming hiatus was created on Wikipedia as a generic, multiple occurence event that really only applies to a single, specific case. WP is not a reliable source. "Denier" use here is incorrectly and inappropriately conflated with a non-political use of "denial" as a psychological term used by Freud. This is by design. They are not even close with regard to climate science and its use has been appropriated much the same way that adding "gate" to a name means it must be a scandal and taint those that are touched by it. It's use is intended to remove all discourse on the topic by making its defense unpalatable. "Denier" in this case is a pejorative term misapplied by Watts' ideological opponents for ideological reasons, not scientific reasons. It's very difficult to find any aspect of climate change science that Watts disagrees (the same with Curry, Lindzen, et al). What they find is there are political disagreements over scale and priorities. In places where there is scientific uncertainty (such as the average temperature in the year 2100), it is incorrect to label lower projections as "denial". Mann chooses to label those that don't follow his political outlook as science deniers is an incorrect application and pejorative in its use. We certainly don't label Mann as a "fraud" because certain people call the CRU email controversy "climategate." I would hope we don't quote or use the term "fraud" in his bio just as we shouldn't use "denier" in Watts bio. --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

DHeywardIf there is anyone operating under ideological pretense that would obviously have to be Watts. Mann is a scientist whose research is published by a university press in a peer-reviewed book; therefore, his statements are regarded as highly reliable by Wikipedia. The attempted verbal gymnastics to dismiss his characterization of Watts as a climate change "denier" engaged in climate change denialism is not based on "politics", but science. That is to say, the only individual being scrutinized here to offer an expert opinion of that nature is Mann, as recognized by his peers and the university press publishing his work in book form.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not the editor that brought up ideologues or politics. Editors that support the "term" denier at least have the intellectual integrity to realize his book was political. "Denialism" is indisputably used today as a political term to stop debate. It is not a scientific term. A book publishing house is not "peer reviewed" either, they rely on the reputation of the author. This particular book was about politics as much as science and it even says as much in its description. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors edit according to community policy

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I agree it should be omitted for not meeting that standard regarding the use of "denier." --DHeyward (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition of denialist in English: A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. [3] The holocaust has nothing to do with this topic, so please stop invoking it. — TPX 11:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. All due respect, I know it's Remembrance Day and all, never forget, sure, but I can't believe the reason there are no climate change deniers on WP is because the whole concept of denialism was co-opted by the Nazis in the mid-20th century. Hugh (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Michael E. Mann and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars are absolutely a reliable sources for whether Anthony Watts (blogger) and blog is deniers or sceptics. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Of course Mann is a good source for this information. Peter Gulutzan's arguments are bizarre. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a useless criticism of Gulutzan's argument, straight from the "Is not!" "Is Too!" school of debate. Marteau (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument isn't persuasive. It's similar to disbarring Christopher Hitchens from our articles on religion, on the basis of not having particularly nice things to say, 'name calling', and being on the opposite side of the issue. — TPX 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is not a single argument for dismissing the peer-reviewed source that has basis in any policy. See WP:BIASED, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mann is only reliable for his opinion about Watts, and that is what this is. Peter is right on target with this. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Mann says that Skeptic equals Denier. Skeptic and Denier have different definitions. Mann is not an expert on the English language, and his defining of the word Skeptic to be the same as Denier has no weight. His opinion is simply is opinion and should be treated as such. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you're confused here Arzel. Mann is not being used as a source for English language usage - he's being used to say that Watts isn't actually a skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic or denier. I can see how this discussion might be confusing - you really should check out what the article - and ideally, the source - says before weighing in. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Not confused. Mann's opinion of what is the definition of a true skeptic is the issue. Mann is not the arbiter of who is what. He can state his opinion on the issue, but it cannot be stated in WP voice. Frankly this whole issue of what is a "true skeptic" is Orwellian in its approach. The issue is a Catch 22 making it virtually impossible to rationalize. It is not even clear what constitutes a "true skeptic", virtually anyone that is skeptical about projected increase in temps, the future effect of CO2 on temps, or man's impact on climate change is labeled a denier. That is not science. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG, Mann GOOD source

(1) Agree that Mann's opinion is RS for Mann's opinion;

(2) Fact of Mann's opinion still RELEVANT with due WEIGHT

(3) General Rebuttal (updated)

3a, Peter reason 1 (involvement);

Peter, have you read Mann's book? Do you consider yourself "educated" within the meaning of NOR as you quoted? If so, then with reference to the book's contents, please explain the particular details the book fails to provide so that educated people can arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise, you're slam of Mann's book has very little to do with RS-quality assessment, and instead has everything to do with your dislike for Mann and/or derivatives of "denial" applied to Watts.

3b, Peter reason 2 (lack of knowledge of the subject);

"The subject" at hand is knowledge of the criteria which disginguish genuine scientific skepticism from denial. Mann is a full professor engaged in hardcore research. To these sorts, the philosophy of science needed to tell these things apart is as fundamental as needing bread in order to make toast. On the flip side, do we have any evidence whatsoever that Watts has training in genuine scientific skepticism?

3c, (history of name-calling); Uhhhhhhhhh......... pot's fan calling the kettle black? You've actually read Watts' blog, right? Moreover, show me where its written that we assess a given RS on the basis of their manners or rhetoric?

(4) We should write Watts' says "skeptic", Mann and AAAS say "deny", other researchers observe the terms are pretty useless due to lack of clear dilineation and what's important are the views underlying the labels; I'll work on that more eventually but see little point while there's this daily quibbling.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The Mann book is a high-quality source that is reliable for this information. Agree that the arguments against are somewhat bizarre.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Mann's accomplishments are those of a real scientist and his ability to thoughtfully distinguish between skepticism and denial may be safely presumed well within his expertise. If Mann's judgements on this dimension are not RS no one's are. Hugh (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mann quote has been restored and there is strong support for keeping it. Okay, as long as there are no attempts to expand or emphasize it, perhaps it's not bad enough to be worth further argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(A) This thread's consensus -- Is Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars an RS? (Answer, yes)

(B) Unasked and unresolved by this thread -- What text actually goes in the article?

Peter, are you saying you will concede point A if and only if you get your way on Point B? In my view, we haven't really focused on "B" yet, so I'm not ready to characterize this thread's consensus in the manner you describe. Also, I'm not sure if I'll have wiki time during the next week, but its not an emergency, right?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Re (A): the argument was about a far more specific point than that. Re (B): my objection was due to the addition in the article of quotes from Mann saying Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog are denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mann is a reliable source for climate science. He is not a reliable source for taking his opinion as fact with regard to blogs or other scientists. He may disagree with other climate scientists and those disagreements may be notable. But claiming that he can unequivocally label other people goes beyond his expertise. His critical analyses of scientists like Judith Curry or Spencer or Lindzen is notable but his name calling is not - nor does his name calling somehow extend to Watts when it doesn't extend to scientists. The argument that Watts labels Mann in his book is without merit since we wouldn't take Watts opinion of Mann for his bio. --DHeyward (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about the man, but his Blog. And Mann's book is not (only) on the science, but also on the political wrangling. It's published by a highly reliable publisher - that's our normal bar. Heck, we accept Fox News.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• All of which seems to miss the essential. Mann's book fully meets the requirements of a reliable source. Let's accept the opening statement that "Watts and Mann are on opposing sides of the climate change controversy". As the topic is science, Watts undoubtedly presents the minority view, and indeed his views at best are fringe and have characteristics of pseudoscience. Mann is a well qualified and respected source for majority [mainstream] scientific views on the topic area, and from that perspective Watts is both denying clear scientific findings, and promoting fringe views. Both WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI aspects of WP:NPOV policy require us to show how the minority/fringe pseudoscientific views of Watts have been received by the scientific majority, and Mann is a reliable source for that majority view, as required by weight policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• This discussion is a bit difficult to follow. The article seems (more or less) fine the way it is now in regarding using Mann for this content. What exactly is the proposed change? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The proposed change was what I said in the start of the thread: with respect to the quote where Mann calls Watts a denier and calls Watts's blog denialist: "[take] the Mann source out (without taking out a use of the source in the Surface Stations section)" since Mann is a "poor source" (WP:BLP says poorly sourced material should be removed). However, most editors on this thread rejected that argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"ungrammatical change"

@Guettarda: In regards to this edit,[4] can you please be more specific? What exactly is exist is the grammatical error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That you deleted "writer". I have copy-edited the text to comply with the policy you cited.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't meant to do that. Thanks for correcting my mistake. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to say what the blog is about

Please try to describe the blog.

We can't just say it's a weather and climate blog. It has an editorial bent and the sources show that it does.

jps (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't seem to support content.

In regards to this edit,[5] it states that the blog " most notable for" and cites sources which don't actually state what it's most notable for. For example, it cites a source which states, "a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts". Being the most notable out of some group isn't necessarily that same thing as what's it's most notable for. Sorry, I realize that I can be anal about these sort of things, but it seems a bit sloppy to me. Perhaps the wording can be tweaked to more closely match the sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a little frustrating when people revert rather than revise (the entire issue seems to be related to whether he is "most notable" for this rather than simply having the attribute), but anyway the wording has been changed and hopefully we can move on. jps (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

I don't think Canvassing is an appropriate action. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're banned from American Politics, broadly construed. jps (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts is not an American Politician. This is not a political article. Climate change is a global issue, not an American Issue. I see your response to canvassing is to try and bully me off the article. I would say that you are in violation of general sanctions for Climate Change articles. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Climate change is an issue in American politics. I can't see how Arzel's topic ban doesn't apply here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is about Watts and I don't think his political views are known. Climate Change is a science topic. The response to climate change is a political topic. Watts and his blog are known for being skeptical of the science. --DHeyward (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Watts comments a lot on the politics of climate change lambasting various governments and taking particular glee in decrying the politics of Al Gore and Barack Obama. jps (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, you all can make your opinions known as to whether Arzel is violating his topic ban here. jps (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue here

Seems to be that a fair amount of the editors above are climate change deniers themselves and are, thus, trying to minimize the discussion of Watt's denialism within the article itself. Essentially, they are POV pushing their anti-science and fringe denialism on the article. Many of the above editors really should be topic-banned from this subject area entirely. Silverseren^C 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not editors are climate change deniers or not. Editors get banned / sanctioned on en.wikipedia for actions not beliefs. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just explaining why all the weasel wording arguments are being made above to not explicitly describe climate change denialism, as sourced, as such. Silverseren^C 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because an editor advocates following WP:NPOV and WP:WTW, doesn't make them a climate change denier. In fact, I personally support doing more regarding climate change, however, I try to check my politics at the door. WP:BLP applies to all living people, even those with whom we disagree. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations removed.

I've removed the following the following WP:BLP violation here.[6] According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say?

In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic":

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes you believe that "denier" is such a contentious term, and how does this support the enormous amount of content you've removed from the article that isn't the word 'denier'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Denier is not a contentious term, it is an accurate one. He denies the scientific consensus on climate change. That is a fact. I consider your attempts to not explicitly display that fact to be POV-pushing of one of the strongest types. You should not be allowed to be anywhere near this article with your clear partisanship on the subject. Silverseren^C 03:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is most certainly a contentious term, one redolent of holocaust denial, as has been often discussed both here and in the world at large. Please focus on content and not personalities. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Holocaust is the Holocaust. If someone denies an event or a subject, they are a denier for that topic. That's what the word itself literally means. Silverseren^C 04:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it is also a contentious term when applied to an individual. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, but as a tertiary source, we can't use primary sources to determine whether someone is a Holocaust denier, we have to rely on secondary sources; that's what an encyclopedia is. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a reverse reductio ad Hitlerum in a new form, based on a faulty argument and faked taking of offence. "Denial" is a normal English word that fills a useful function [7]. It's been in use long before the Holocaust, and long before Holocaust denial [8]. It's use in the phrase "Holocaust denier" barely registers compared to overall use of the word[9]. "Compare "You can't call me a vegetarian - don't you know they called Hitler a vegetarian?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Wow, are you serious suggesting that editors who follow WP:NPOV to be "POV-pushing of one of the strongest types"? That's absolutely insane. Did you serious mean to say that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind, QFK, that it is your opinion that certain edits are to enforce WP:NPOV. I believe it could be reasonably read that what you're saying is that anybody who perceives certain edits you advocate being non-neutral is insane. Please tone down your rhetoric. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable for editors to have good-faith disagreements about a dispute. However, that's not what Silver seren said. Instead, they called it "POV-pushing of one of the strongest types". That accusation is not simply highly offensive and a violation of WP:AGF, it's factually wrong. Silver seren is normally pretty level headed and I'm surprised they would make such an accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable for editors to have good-faith disagreements. It's not acceptable to use specious accusations of BLP violations to remove well-sourced material from an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is it specious? Claiming that is it does not make it so. Can you please explain? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what "well-sourced material" was removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge removed unsourced material about Heartland (at least, I can't find backing in the cited source), and removed undue material about Mann from the lead, but not from the article -- it's still in the section about blogging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article states,

1. blogger Anthony Watts was paid $44,000 by the Heartland Institute for a project on temperature data (photo caption)
2. The documents state (pdf) that in January his company ItWorks/IntelliWeather was paid $44,000 to "create a new website devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public". A total of $88,000 (pdf) is expected to be handed to Watts for the project by the end of 2012. Link to confidential "Proposed Budget" for 2012
3. We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.(quoting from Heartland's "2012 Climate Strategy" document)
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We know what it says. Is any more proof needed that A Quest For Knowledge was correct to remove the unsourced statement that WUWT is a "commentary blog created in 2006 - and for which he has received funding from the Heartland Institute"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. Despite repeated requests that we abide by WP:WTW, nobody has even bothered to attempt to support the contention that "deniar" is widely used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: Edits adding a quote in the lead for "climate change denial blog" have been opposed by (at least): A Quest For Knowledge, Capitalismojo, and me. Your claim about consensus is incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And how many editors support inclusion of the material?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion in the lead?

One can only guess, and apologies to anyone I might wrongly include based on what I see as an edit restoring the Mann quote in the lead: Ubikwit, Nomoskedasticity, Stephan Schulz, JzG, Joel B. Lewis, jps, Akhilleus. Is there a claim that seven to three is consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The silence is deafening

I've reverted the clear and obvious WP:BLP violation.[10] Despite repeated requests, no one has even bothered attempting to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. The reality is that this is rarely used by reliable sources. Seriously, enough is enough. If there is a legitimate argument for a minority/fringe viewpoint in the lede, why won't anyone provide one? The silence remains deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

An attributed opinion by an expert commentator in a book published by a major university press may be all kinds of thing, but neither is it a BLP violation not a fringe viewpoint. Can you decide on "minority" (which should be in the article) and fringe (which should be so rare that we cannot name well-known proponents)? I get the hopefully mistaken impression that you try to conflate the two concepts so that you can use policies about fringe viewpoints to suppress what you think is a minority viewpoint (it isn't, but that's a different discussion). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree it's a WP:BLP violation because I'm in the minority saying Mann is a poor source for labelling Watts and his blog. But in any case, since it's true that reliable sources prefer less pejorative terms, putting Mann's name-calling in the lead is (using a WP:BLP word) "disproportionate" as well as a WP:UNDUE violation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems to gloss over the fact that "climate change skepticism" means "climate change denialism" in common parlance; in other words, that comment glosses over the apparent attempt to conflate the usage of the term skepticism as meaning denialism with respect to climate change discourse with the usage of the term in the sense of scientific skepticism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

But this has been stated in other ways already here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: That sounds like WP:OR. Can you cite some reliable sources which specifically state that "climate change skepticism" means "climate change denialism" in regards to Anthony Watts? I'm not aware of any such sources, but you can easily prove me wrong by providing such sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

More sources for "denier", etc.

1. The Inquisition of Climate Science, p. 136 (peer-reviewed, academic press)
2. The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
3. Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, but anyone can search for sources which specifically use a particular term. Note that you didn't create a list of all the sources which don't use the term. The question we need to answer is, What do the majority of reliable sources say about a topic?. If 9 sources say A, and 1 source says B, we don't cite the oddball source. Instead, we follow the mainstream majority. This is how WP:NPOV works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not how "NPOV works".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not figuring, but I suspect "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" plays into this. We have a number of very good sources for "denier", and I'm not aware of any good sources that disagree. We have many sources using other descriptors, but not, generally, conflicting ones. If Journals A, B, and C say "the thingumi is red" and Journal D says "the thingumi is big", that's not reason to claim "the mainstream is against "big". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That first book ref above is a Columbia University Press imprint, it is not "peer reviewed" in any sense of the word. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian ref is an opinion column. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why Capitalismojo says that the first ref above, (James Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia U. Press, 2011) is not peer reviewed. What's the reasoning here? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Papers in academic journals are peer reviewed. Books are not peer reviewed. There is no indication in the book that it is somehow uniquely peer reviewed. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Books published by university presses certainly are peer reviewed, using the same double-blind system employed by journals. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, that's not universally right. Not all papers in all academic journals are peer-reviewed (in particular, that tradition came late to some of the social sciences), and some books are indeed peer reviewed. But that's quibbling around the edges - WP:RS says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (emphasis mine), so they are in the same general category of highly reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The book is wrongly described as being "peer reviewed", it is not. There is no evidence to suggest it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But that's quibbling around the edges...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aside from the fact that you've ignored Stephan's point about the wording of WP:RS, which says that books from "well-regarded academic presses" (which Columbia surely is), you have presented no evidence or argument that this book is not peer-reviewed. Books published with university presses typically are peer-reviewed; here's a page about the review process at Duke U. Press. Here's a general article about the review process at university presses which takes it as a given that manuscripts submitted to university presses will be sent to anonymous reviewers: William Germano, "Surviving the Review Process," Journal of Scholarly Publishing 33 (2001) 53–69. This article was reprinted as a chapter of Getting it Published: a Guide for Scholars and Anyone Serious about Books (U. Chicago, 2008)--Germano is an authority on academic publishing, so if he treats peer review as the norm for academic books, I can't see why we'd do anything different. So I'd say there's no reason to assume that this book isn't peer-reviewed unless we have evidence that standard practice wasn't followed in this case.

As Stephen has pointed out, however, whether this book is peer-reviewed or not is quibbling. It's a high-quality source nonetheless. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the ref doesn't say that the subject is a denier. It says he is the former meteorologist behind the argument that many deniers use about surface station reliability. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an errant reading of the text:

In a related argument, deniers say that the U.S. historical temperature record is unreliable because... The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts..."

He is being described as the leading denier motivating that claim. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the quote explicitly says. Sorry. "The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts" That doesn't say he is a denier, that says he is the foundation upon which deniers base their arguments. Which, given his creation of the surface stations project, is entirely accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire context of the section on WUWT in that chapter contradicts your assertion, which is basically a misrepresentation of the text.

In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStationsorg... By early June 2009, thanks to a grass roots network of volunteers, SurfaceStations.org had examined about 70%...enough to find out if there is anything to Watts's claim." --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not lose track of the central issue. "Deniar" is specifically cited as a word to watch, and states that it should only be used if widely used by reliable sources. Has anyone presented any evidence which demonstrates that this term is widely used by reliable sources? If so, let's hear it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not "the central issue", so stop trying to wikilawyer and game the system when consensus is clearly against you. WP:WTW is obviously flawed, and the guideline does not override policy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it's the central issue; in fact, it's the only issue. But I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted - if only partially -- that the edit you favor goes against Wikipedia guidelines. That's progress I suppose. But contrary to what you imply, there is no conflict between WP:WTW and WP:NPOV. They say essentially the same thing: what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? You have repeatedly argued against the majority viewpoint in favor of the minority/WP:FRINGE. That's where we stand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No amount of spin is going to change the consensus on this, because more than one editor has already broken down the semantics of "skeptic" in this context, and the dictionary definition of denialist has also been provided, derailing the misguided attempt to equate the use of denial in "climate change denial" with "Holocaust denial", etc. The recourse to "FRINGE" to support the forced interpretations of the definitions and use of these terms in RS is indicative of the fact that you don't understand that policy, either.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Why would spin even be required when the sources speak for themselves? Again, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't use the term 'denier'. Your argument is based on cherry-picking a handful of sources while ignoring the vast majority.

Now, let's try to stick the issue: Do you acknowledge that that vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't use this term? Yes or no? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing over using "terms" "skeptic" or "denier" is not going to get us anywhere. We need to be describing what Watts thinks, believes, and does rather than trying to find the right way to label him or his blog. Right now, the lede of the article does not describe what his perspective is at all; a reader coming to this article would not be informed as to what his notoriety is actually for. This needs to change. jps (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink to climate change denial.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Who keeps on removing the fact that he's a climate denier? Stupid removing it: he is one of the most prominent climate deniers out there. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any why have I not even heard of this person? He is a prominent climate denier - but only within the realm of the Great Battle against Pseudoscience. -A1candidate 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the lengthy discussions above. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Workshop a sentence

We currently have a pretty weird sentence this article:

“ WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog. Morello, Lauren (December 14, 2012). "Early Drafts of Next Climate Report Leaked Online". Scientific American. ... a popular skeptic blog, "Watts Up With That?" Samenow, Jason (May 12, 2011). "Say goodbye to the sunshine". Washington Post. The conservative/skeptic blog WattsUpWiththat ... Schneider, Birgit; Nocke, Thomas (2014). Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. ... on Anthony Watts' skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" ... Moran, Michael (February 3, 2010). "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs". Times Online. Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts: One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs ... Coady, David; Corry, Richard (2013). The Climate Change Debate: An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry. ... the well-known skeptic website wattsupwiththat.com Hayward, Steven (August 21, 2013). "Climategate II: Sequel as ugly as the original". Orange County Register. ... WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website Lott, Maxim (March 5, 2015). "Google works to rank sites based on 'truthfulness'". Fox News. ... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims ... ”

First of all, the sentence is false. The characterization is a lot more complicated than simply being a "skeptic" blog. A "skeptic" blog which would, if taken at face value, include a lot more than just commentary on climate change denial. Secondly, the laundry list of sources is not very inspiring. In fact, it looks a little bit like a quotemine without much context provided for many of the quotes. Some of the sources aren't particularly reliable either (I'm looking at you FoxNews). I think we can do better.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is true -- every one of the cited sources calls WUWT a skeptic blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The third source is misquoted, as it says "Watts' climate skeptical blog". I agree that it is a quote mine without adequate context; obviously, "climate" should be included, as that is what all of the articles are about.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The first time that I gathered somebody was objecting that a source said "skeptical" rather than "skeptic", I changed the text to ["skeptic" or "skeptical". That turned out to be a misunderstanding, but here's the objection again, so I've redone that change. The fact that most reliable sources call the blog "skeptic" or "skeptical" is relevant and important, as we have discussed before on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think these sources are trying to say that Watts is writing a blog that is promoting scientific skepticism? Because that's how the sentence reads to me. jps (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So is there a way for us to rewrite the sentence to avoid this unintended meaning? jps (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It requires contortions to read it that way. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, and "climate skepticism" is the overall import given the context, so other alternatives include "climate skeptic blog", "climate change skeptic blog", or "blog skeptical of climate change", etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence as it currently is written contains little content other than X says Y is Z (or W). Can we try to explain what the sources are actually describing here? jps (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we need editors to stop advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article. We need to resolve that, otherwise it's difficult to move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than complaining over semantic arguments, please just try to write some prose which actually communicate something to the reader. jps (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is simply a matter of semantics. But if you think it is, how about you backing off your insistence that Watts be described as a "denier" in the lede? I'm perfectly fine with it being in the body, but by putting it in the lede, we are portraying a minority/fringe POV as mainstream. If you're willing to back off from this, then we can move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You obviously haven't understood my position at all, and I'm not interested in changing subjects. We disagree on some fundamental editorial stances and your argumentative insistence on turning WP:FRINGE on its head is simply baiting. It's not very becoming. If you don't want to talk about this sentence, feel free to stop contributing to this section of the talkpage. jps (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How about something like, "WUWT is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a website be anthropomorphically skeptical? I think we need something more like "WUWT hosts content that rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming". I'd like to move away from the word "skeptic" if we can. jps (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems fine. Some wordsmithing might be in order, perhaps replacing "rejects" with "opposing" but otherwise seems fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too fond of "reject" either. "Opposing" is also problematic. Basically, it's a pick-and-choose operation over there and that's what a lot of the sources for the sentence are getting at. Certain conclusions they seem to agree to and then in other posts they reject those conclusions. The general editorial bent is to criticize, but not in a necessarily consistent way. How do you put that in a single word? jps (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How about, "WUWT hosts content which is critical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming"? Would that work? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's getting there (certainly better than what we currently have) but it would be nice if it was a bit more descriptive than just "critical". HOW is it critical? The sources we use describe that a) SciAm says it tends to make declarations with which climate scientists disagree, b) WaPo simply labels it "conservative", c) Schneider says it uses outdated graphs. The final four sources are not particularly good ones (I think they probably should be removed from the article, but let's wait on that discussion until after we get the sentence right). jps (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That would not work. We currently have a true statement that is definitely supported by every one of the cited sources. We should not replace it with it with a speculation that might arguably be supported by some of the cited sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. What exactly is speculative about AQFK's proposal? jps (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Another possible alternative: "...as a "skeptic blog" that hosts content challenging/questioning the scientific consensus on climate change".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's already stated in the preceding sentence that the blog "hosts material presented by Watts in support of his belief that the human role in global warming is insignificant", with a citation (i.e. there apparently is a source for that). It would be speculative to add material in this sentence based on what its cited sources probably mean, rather than just what the sources say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming a moving target, but the main point that the sentence is rather devoid of meaning stands. I'll remove it. jps (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I undid that. As explained, the sentence 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog.' is a true and relevant statement with multiple reliable sources. I added another. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"True and relevant" is not the standard of inclusion at Wikipedia. The sources you are trying to add are not reliable enough. They are, in many cases, pretty poor. I reverted as a naked example of POV-pushing. jps (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: Sorry, I've been offline the last couple days and lost track of the discussion. However, I agree with your suggestion that that article explain "HOW is it critical?" Can you think of a good example? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the first three sources do a pretty good job of illustrating the issues: that climate scientists disagree with the claims made in the blog, that the blog takes a conservative political perspective, and that the blog has presented outdated graphs as though they were correct. These are particular criticisms that these sources make of the blog which can elucidate exactly how WUWT is critical of scientific consensus. Can we write a sentence that will incorporate these points? I'd be happy if we could. jps (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

jps: I'm not as willing as you to dismiss truth or relevance, but let's just look at the cited sources for the sentence 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog': three academic-press publishers (transcript Verlag, Palgrave Macmillan, Elsevier), one magazine (Scientific American), and four mainstream media (Washington Post, Times Online, Orange County Register, Fox News). Every one fits the reliable-source criteria for cases like this, and every one is verifiable online, and every one does what the sentence says: characterizes WUWT as "skeptic". I'll have to listen to real explanations why people think they cannot be accepted, but there's no support for your claim they're not "reliable enough", and no support for your claims about my purpose for saying the sentence belongs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, why does it feel to me like you haven't read this thread? The entire section is devoted to explaining why the sentence, in particular, is problematic. As for the sources, some are good and some are pretty weak. As you pointed out, the previous sentence basically says what we want to say, so I'm unclear why you think this sentence is so important except that maybe you think it's important to identify the blog as "skeptic" (even though it's not "skeptical" in the sense of scientific skepticism).jps (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

jps, This thread is devoted to your constant attempts to suppress the fact that the sentence expresses: 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog'. I will disregard your claim that I pointed out that the previous sentence says what we want to say, since that's false. What remains is your claim that some of the sources for the sentence should be regarded as poor. Do you have any evidence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding your intransigence very tiresome, but okay, do you think the Weekly Standard is a reliable source? jps (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question, WP:RSN has generally found the Weekly Standard to be RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess you're objecting to the Orange County Register republishing from a lower-prestige source. Okay, I removed the Orange County Register reference when replacing the sentence in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is quite simple: the Orwellian use of words by the right in US politics. It is not a skeptical blog (those are written by skeptics, people like Michael Shermer). Climate skeptic is the technically correct portmanteau term referenced in these sources, but climate skeptic is semantically equivalent to climate change denier. I don't have a problem with using the term climate skeptic as long as it's linked ot the article on climate change denial, or balanced by a reality-based commentary demonstrating that the blog is indeed denialist not skeptical in the scientific sense. What Wikipedia doesn't do, per WP:FRINGE, is pretend that wilful contrarianism is the same thing as legitimate scientific skepticism. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that argument, the RS support the term "skeptical". (Scientific American, Washington Post, etc...) The theory that it is not a "skeptical" blog is , I gather, an ideological position not supported in the refs above, nor is the use of denialist supported by WP:WTW. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. The topic of this thread is a particular sentence that cites several reliable sources saying "skeptic", and jps's claim that some of those sources are not "reliable enough". I addressed the specific matter that jps wanted to argue about. If there are other complaints that are on topic, I hope they too can be addressed here on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, want to explain how FoxNews commentary is a reliable source for describing anything on climate change? jps (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about climate change and the cite from Fox News is not describing climate change. This article is about Anthony Watts (blogger) and the cite from Fox News is describing the blog of Anthony Watts: "... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims, told FoxNews.com". That is used in support of the sentence: 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog.' The appropriate question, then, is: "is Fox a reliable source for the statement that sources, such as Fox, said that WUWT is a skeptic blog?" I hope that's obvious. The eight cites could have been expanded uncontroversially to "A says that WUWT is skeptic, B says that WUWT is skeptic, C says that WUWT is skeptic, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.". But that's too long. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What's to make us think that FoxNews is able to adequately evaluate whether WUWT is a "skeptic blog" or a "denialist blog" or a "pseudoscience blog", etc? Why is their choice of wording relevant to this biography when we know they are typically unreliable in their factchecking? jps (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your claims about what "we" think are false, but I'll guess that this is a worry whether Fox News is RS, I checked WP:NEWSORG and yes, since it's in the category "well-established news outlets". Checking whether that's ever been overridden, I went to WP:RSN, looked for Fox News in the section heading, and found this, this, [11], this, this, this -- which showed it hasn't been. If you want to start yet another "Fox News Reliable?" thread, go to WP:RSN. Meanwhile there is inadequate excuse to destroy a sentence because you don't like one of its many sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is a simple one: Is FoxNews liable to promote climate change denialism? The answer is unequivocally, "yes". Therefore the source is impeached as reliable for a general description. It can only be used as a source for the editorial bent of FoxNews. jps (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what Fox's biases might be, but I also don't know whether one can "impeach" any source that has a bias. Surely that would apply to most of the sources on this article, including Michael Mann, Anthony Watts, John Cook, Wizbang, George Monbiot, KPAY-AM (a Fox affiliate) ... so almost everything would have to be erased if you were right. Luckily, though, there's no policy saying one must erase any statement that refers to a source that arguably is biased. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

You miss my point. You are arguing that we must describe Watts' blog as a "skeptic blog" on the basis of certain citations. My argument is that this kind of description is a talking point of people who agree with Anthony Watts and that FoxNews is an example of a source that agrees with Anthony Watts. Instead, I argue that we don't simply use the phrase which is problematic but instead try to describe what Watts' blog actually advocates. To that end, I think that FoxNews will not objectively evaluate Watts' blog for the purposes we need. jps (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: I wasn't aware that WP:RSN had discussed The Weekly Standard -- it's clear now that there was no good reason to remove the cite, but I thought addressing jps's complaint would avoid further arguing (I was wrong). jps: it would be correct to say that I have stated that Watts's blog should be described as a skeptic blog because that is what the majority of sources say; however, this sentence doesn't describe Watts's blog as a skeptic blog. It merely says that sources call it a skeptic blog. Fox is one of them and Fox is an RS. As for "FoxNews will not objectively evaluate Watts' blog for the purposes we need" -- they probably are not objective, but who's "we"? Some elite group of objective but purposeful Wikipedia evaluators? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It conflates, by decontextualizing the attribution, the use of the term "climate change skepticism" with "scientific skepticism", which, as has been pointed out by numerous editors, is not a policy compliant statement. Accordingly, there is sound reasoning for removing the statement.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is in the sentence or the sourced quotes or Watts's statements or this article with that term "scientific skepticism". It's unsound reasoning to claim that an edit is justified on the basis of a phrase that's not there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You lack consensus for including this sentence. All you are doing now is POV-pushing. jps (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since in effect WP:NOCONSENSUS has been invoked, in this edit I reverted a change in one half of a sentence: instead of "and hosts material presented by Watts in support of his belief that the human role in global warming is insignificant", the words have to be "in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming", which is the same as January 1 2015 before the recent flurry of edits which is the same as January 1 2014 which shows it was stable. This is not as good, and I would have preferred to react in kind to jps's accusations and insults, but maybe it finally ends this matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to end it with the change to a sourced version. Watts clearly doesn't think that the human contribution to global warming is significant, in defiance of the scientific facts of the matter. ~

I see that you decided to reject what WP:NOCONSENSUS says despite the fact that you're the editor who invoked it, and then destroyed a few more citations that fail to call Watts a denier. So I guess going back to the original text did not finally end this matter after all. I've restored it though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann's opinion of the blog (in lede)

Mann's opinion of the blog is perhaps notable, but it is clear from the (near) edit warring that there is no consensus whatsoever that it be in the lede. If it is to be included, I suggest that it should be in the section on Watt's blog. The lede summarizes the important parts of a biography subject's life that occur in the body of the article. The opinion of one of Watt's intellectual opponents about his blog is not a seminal part of Watt's life, nor does it summarize the material below. It just doesn't. It is interesting enough to include in the paragraph on the blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It does, in fact, summarize the entire debate also encompassing "climate change skeptic", as per the link to the climate change denial article in the sentence.

Mann is not an "intellectual opponent" of Watts, because Watts is not in the same league as Mann. Mann is a highly regarded academic climate scientist published by a high-regarded academic press, whereas Watts hosts FRINGE theory on a blog with significant backing from corporate interests opposed to government regulation of carbon emissions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no POV in that. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a POV. It's called the neutral POV. Climate denialism is driven by vested interest, the scientific consensus is driven by the data. Global warming is the inevitable conclusion from the observed facts, which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts it as fact and almost the entire relevant professional community accepts that it's primarily driven by human activity. It's as scientifically controversial as gravity, thermodynamics or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Mann's statement is appropriate and properly attributed to a leading credentialled expert in the field. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, get off the WP:SOAPBOX. Secondly, it's not Wikipedia's job to trash people who's views go against either the mainstream consensus, or your personal views, hence the WP:NPOV policy. So please stop trying to label the subject of the article with a pejorative political term ("climate change denier") in Wikipedia's voice, and forcing WP:UNDUE credence to the subject's critics. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's job to document the world as it is, and not as people blinded by dogma would wish it to be. That's why we reflect evolution, anthropogenic climate change and the laws of thermodynamics as fact. Pointing out that denialism is not skepticism, is not trashing anybody. Watts is a climate denialist, that's a simple statement of fact. He's not a skeptic: he credulously accepts discredited and conflicted material and refuses to change his view in response to evidence that he is wrong. He's not merely a contrarian, because he actively sets out to produce data to support the commercially-driven agenda of his friends at the Heartland Institute. He is an active denialist. So that's what we say. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "fact", it is your opinion. "Climate denialist" is a political label. He disagrees with you. He is effective at getting his message across to a suspicious public. Tough. Wikipedia is not a place to right WP:GREATWRONGS or for exposing "The Truth" and Watts is as entitled as any man to have his work and views explained fairly and impartially without WP:UNDUE weight being given to his critics. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I really do not understand the assertion that "Climate denial" is a political label. If instead he was described as denying man-made climate change, would that be better? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a political label because it's clearly a term invented by advocates of political action on climate change to smear political opponents. The term "denier" implies willful malevolence on his part, which is not Wikipedia's place to comment on given the politics involved. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the word deny has any such connotations of willful malevolence. I honestly am puzzled that you appear to place such strong emotional weight on this term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The beauty of working on an encyclopedia is we don't have to believe, we can check! From Denialism: In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Sounds pretty negative to me - what do you think does "PeterTheNorth chooses to deny reality" sound WP:NPOV to you? 104.156.240.168 (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, "Denialism" is different from "denial", which is "the action of declaring something to be untrue". And, of course, compound words and phrases do take on new meanings over time, so looking at the components can lead us to the etymological fallacy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

We could get into an etymological debate but that sounds like a lot of WP:OR to me. Best to just go with what we say about it: Journalists and newspapers ... have described climate change denial as a form of denialism. Seems pretty clear cut. To Capitalismojo's point, seems like we're rehashing a debate that's already been settled re "deniers"... 104.156.240.157 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but this article is about a pundit that is described by scientists as hosting pseudoscience FRINGE material on a commercial blog in order to deny that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is correct. That is why only a small minority of activist editors see a BLP violation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether you, Peter, believe it (malevolence of the term) or not Wikipedia has guidelines for labeling people "deniers" WP:WTW. It is a controversial term and an attack. This is a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are words to watch, not words to quarantine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a magic talisman to ward off reality-based criticism of cranks and charlatans. I know this: I wrote the standard OTRS guidance to biography subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that BLP policy is not a "magic talisman". I find it solid and understandable. There are no refs calling the subject of this biography a crank or a charlatan. That statement is, in fact, a BLP violation. I suggest you remove it. Given your understanding of BLP issues, you will recall that talk pages are subject to BLP policy as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As regards using controversial terms to denigrate people in BLPs , there is a policy against that. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is "denial" a problem in the lead, but not in the body?

I'm a bit confused. Some editors here claim that including Mann's characterization of "Watts Up with That?" as "the leading climate change denial blog" as a BLP violation. Yet these same editors appear to have no problem including this characterization in the body of the article, based on recent reversions like [12]. This seems inconsistent to me: why would something be a BLP violation in the lead, but not elsewhere?

In case it's not clear, I think Mann's characterization (or something similar) should be in the lead, because the article needs to clearly communicate that Watt's blog rejects the scientific consensus on global warming and that this rejection is not based on scientific grounds. I think the idea that including Mann's opinion is a BLP violation is patent nonsense. I don't see a genuine argument to the contrary; simply asserting that "denier" is a "word to watch" and therefore this is a BLP violation is basically saying Mann's opinion isn't nice so we shouldn't include it. That's ridiculous. I'd love to see a real justification instead of this fake one. And I'd really like to know why the lead is being treated differently than the body... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus. From the perspective of an independent & uninvolved editor, with no particular view on the subject of the article, there are a number of reasons why information might be acceptable in the body of an article but not the lede. Per, WP:LEAD, the lede should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies & significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The material as introduced doesn't really summarise anything from the body of the article.

For WP:BLP, I agree that we have sourced the information, so are likely compliant with WP:BLPSOURCES, but likely still have issues with (at least) WP:BLPSTYLE - Criticism and praise should be included ... so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. One person's viewpoint in the lede seems disproportionate.

This highlights that there are also WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) issues with the text as it currently is. We neither explain who Mann is, nor why his opinion is important, far less if it is indicative of a more general opinion on Watts. If Mann's opinion is a mainstream view of Watts, we should be able to find other examples, include them in the body, and summarise in the lede. If fringe, then...

Finally from a stylistic perspective, it sticks out like dog's proverbials; a third of the lede is taken up with one person's opinion of Watt's blog.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the sprawling discussion regarding the material at issue, because the above comment is missing the context.

It's easy enough to cite Mann's qualifications for criticizing a pundit blog hosting FRINGE pseudoscience like Watts' WUWT.

The fact that Mann's single statement summarizes the mainstream view is also readily apparent, particularly given the Wikilink to climate change denial.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72: thanks for some sensible input. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"skeptical view"

Capitalismojo prefers:

• Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic {{CO2}}-driven global warming

I prefer:

• Watts has expressed a [[climate change denial|skeptical view]] of anthropogenic {{CO2}}-driven global warming

I think that there is little dissent from the view that climate change "skepticism" is actually denialism, not scientific skepticism, since the scientific consensus view from which he dissents embodies, by its nature, an appropriately skeptical analysis of the facts. I know that a lot of people don't understand the difference between dogma and science, and can't accept that a scientific consensus emerges only when the theory properly explains all observed facts. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo is right, scientific consensus is general agreement within the scientific community. Denialism is SBM advocates denying the validity of CAM therapies, contrary to scientific consensus. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and learn to compromise. -A1candidate 21:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh do grow up. Minchin's Law: alternative medicine, by definition, either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.

I think Wallace Sampson was right to call SCAM "sectarian medicine". Real medicine, and certainly science-based medicine, does not give a toss what the origin of a treatment might be. Most new drugs are synthetic analogues of natural compounds. The quackosphere would have you believe the natural version is "better" because natural (you know, like botulinus, anthrax, cholera and the rest, all natural so obviously beneficial). Meanwhile back in the real world assays of "natural" products find they are an unpredictable dose of an unquantified substance with unidentified adulterants. If they contain the pruported active ingredient at all, it's unclear how much of it, and with what other active ingredients.

Lots of people took aristolchia as a "natural" weight loss product sold by the usual band of SCAM charlatans. Turns out it is both toxic and carcinogenic. But at least their kidney disease and cancer was natural. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with JzG. The term "skeptical" in this context (climate change) should only be used with respect to the commonly accepted reference to denialism (the definition of which includes the statement added by A1candidate) so as to avoid conflation with "scientific skepticism, as numerous editors have indicated.

Accordingly, it is the group of Watts advocates that need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, not the other way around.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact the context is Anthony Watts (blogger), or at least it's supposed to be (the off-topic deviations sometimes get extreme on this page). Wikipedia can't just assume that the detractors of Anthony Watts (blogger) are correct, so Capitalismojo is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for labeling people "deniers" WP:WTW. It is a controversial term. This is a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, Guy's preferred hidden link above is an easter egg. The article on skepticsm is global warming controversy not climate change denial, as we all know. Capitalismojo ::::: (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Global warming controversy is not the correct link, because his "skeptical view" is denialism, not an acknowledgement of the non-existent scientific controversy. This is well established by now. Scientists accept global warming pretty much unanimously, deniers reject it as they always have and probably always will, however robust the evidence. Incidentally, have you had the DS notice warning yet? Guy (Help!) 22:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should only call people deniers when we have robust sources for the claim, as we do here. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Guy: What sources? "Denier" is a word to watch and should only be used when widely used by reliable sources. Despite repeated calls, nobody has presented any evidence that this term is widely used by reliable sources. In fact, the only objective evidence presented so far demonstrated that "denier" is rarely used by reliable sources. Here's a sampling of reliable sources randomly selected by Google:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

Here's a second random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Original research conducted by the University of Google? Not the way I like to approach Wikipedia articles. I do invite you to consider this article by Michael Shermer. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of reproducibility, please (again) clearly specify how you arrived at the "selected by Google" results. Also, I tried to verify some of the sources, and found some inconsistencies. For one, presenting http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ among a list of supposedly reliable sources must be a joke, right? Secondly, the 5th source in your list actually describes WUWT as one of two named "anti-climate science, conservative sites that deny that climate change results from human activity" (emphasis mine). Next, the Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication uses "climate skeptic" (in quotes), not, as far as I could find, "science skeptic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And for the last time, Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of your so-called "random samplings". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to denialism per JzG (talk · contribs), I disagree with JzG on a number of things particular how we cover fringe, we should cover fringe with the proper tone, Guy believes we should not cover them. Here, however, he is correct per Fifth Assessment, White House Report, and EPA skepticism of climate change being non-human related is purely fringe quackery and hold no basis in the scientific community therefore, is denialism. Skepticism implies some form of scientific legitimacy, in this case there is none. We should be progressive here and change the tone to the scientifically accepted view throughout all of Wikipedia. This does not mean we cannot cover these clowns, but should with the proper tone. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Which one of these sources are written by Google? As far I know, the answer is zero. Even if the answer wasn't zero, OR refers to original research by Wikipedia editors, not research conducted by reliable sources. Are you claiming that Scientific American, the New York Times, etc., aren't reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Wikipedia operates on WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WTW. If you actually have a legitimate argument that proves that "denier" is used by the majority of reliable sources, then why won't you state it? This shouldn't be a guessing game. Just show us the evidence that this term is widely used by reliable sources. If you are so convinced that you are right, then this should be easy to do. But yet, you haven't done so.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noted that you intentionally inverted the assignation of FRINGEness here(i.e., in characterizing Mann's view as "FRINGE" per edit summaries, etc.), despite the numerous times FRINGE, pseudoscience, pseudoskeptic, confirmation bias, etc., have been raised by several editors above in characterizing Watts and his blog, and acknowledge that Mann is the RS scientist whose view reflects the mainstream view. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: You're conflated two completely different issues. It's completely possible for Mann's view on climate change to be the mainstream viewpoint while his opinion on Watts being a denier a minority viewpoint. You do understand the difference between these two issues, right?

BTW, please don't cast aspirations or assume bad faith. As I said, I came into this discussion with no preconceived notions. If I've erred in some way, you are free to point it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the silence is deafening. Despite repeated calls, there is still no attempt to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Still no attempt to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources per WP:WTW, not to mention WP:UNDUE. Therefore, I have removed the WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The reality, of course, is that most of us have no emotional investment in proving a point: for the reality-based community climate science is a settled matter of science, and denialists are ridiculous, whereas for those wedded to climate denial, it has near-religious importance. He is a denier, not a skeptic. It doesn't matter if people use the word skeptic, climate skepticism is pseudosckepticism and that is the same thing as denialism in this context. Legitimately skeptical views appear in the peer-reviewed journals and form part of the scientific consensus. Watts' views are not legitimate skepticism. They are the product of motivated reasoning - and in some cases the motivation clearly has dollar signs on it. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just link to global warming skeptic and call it a day?Scott Illini (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am repeating here the notice I gave yesterday in a different section of this talk page: "All: I have taken this to WP:ANI, subject heading = "Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis", [13]". The statement affects an argument frequently made on this talk page: whether it matters that the majority of sources (known so far) call Watts and/or Watts's blog "skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Certain editors keep invoking WP:WTW. This is part of the style manual, and it "should not be applied rigidly". In my view, the "denial" link, applied not to Watts but to his blog, is entirely appropriate. We're not calling him a "denier". It's not a BLP violation: it is well sourced and properly attributed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:WTW is remarkably consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This isn't rocket science. If 9 sources say X, and 1 source says Y, we don't cite the oddball source; we cite the majority. By WP:CHERRYPICKING outlier sources which express minority/fringe POVs, we are misrepresenting the mainstream viewpoint. Further, WP:BLP applies to all biographical content. It is absolutely a WP:BLP violation to cherry-pick isolated sources which contradict the mainstream viewpoint and thrust them into the lede as if they are mainstream. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You still keep conflating "minority" and "fringe". Can you please clearly state if you believe that Mann's view is fringe or if it is the minority? Different arguments and different policies apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

AQFK has been quite clear on this matter, see above. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection

Just FYI to editors here, I've requested that this article be temporarily fully-protected to give some time for a consensus to emerge (or for editors editing against that consensus to be sanctioned). PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)