Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

Why is there a tag on this article ...

that states "A significant amount of this article or section's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject."? Which part or parts of this article do we suspect are not about Anthony Watts (blogger), his career, and his accomplishments? --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just read through all of it and it all seems to belong, dunno why there is a tag there. I see a few things which need changing though mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of this article is about climate change or a website. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would expect an article about Albert Einstein to mention his accomplishments and views in the area of physics but that wouldn't make that article about physics. (And no I am not comparing Watts to Einstein, merely using Einstein as an example.) Rather than talking in generalities, perhaps you could point out some specifics from the article to illustrate which material you feel is unrelated to Watts? --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the tag seems unneeded. Propose to delete it. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When the concern has been addressed, I would support removal. Until it is fixed the tag should remain. Verbal chat 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Watts Educational Background?

I have been trying to figure out what to make of Anthony Watts and remain puzzled on a few things, one being his qualifications and educational background. It seems to be a fact that he was a TV weatherman, but does he have any formal credentials in meteorology or science? If he has a degree, then in what, and where did he get it? It would be relevant to this article. It would be unjust to dismiss him as "just a TV weatherman" if he actually has good credentials. MrG 168.103.80.11 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

He is apparently not forthcoming with this information (see [1], but be aware that this is not a reliable source), but acknowledges that he is "not a degreed climate scientist" (see [2]). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can give him credit for not doing the creationist thing and claiming he's got a doctorate from a diploma mill. MrG 168.103.80.11 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

MN keeps removing the coatrack tag, but as far as I can see makes no attempt to discuss on talk (a common problem with him). Others (includng me) retain the coatrack concerns William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already notified each Verbal and MN to use the talkpage. This should be discussed here as soon as there was opposition to Marks removal of the tag and preferably before even that. Polargeo (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The coatrack tag has been there for 7 months. There was one single comment and one reply at the time it was tagged, then it was dropped. There hasn't been any comment whatsoever on this talk for nearly 3 months. So if the coatrack tag must stay, let's discuss it and come to agreement. A good start would be for those who are adding it to detail their reasons. ATren (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why i removed it. The websites are his so an article about watts will of course have information about his sites. As there is no article about the surfacestations project then all that information belongs here, unless we split it off into a new article of course mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The tag should stay until the concerns are addressed. As soon as you were reverted you should have discussed it. Putting the material here is coatracking because the material is not notable enough to be split off, so has been incorrectly placed here. Verbal chat 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You (Verbal) should have discussed Mark's removal of the tag rather than reverting it, particularly as he was not going against a clear consensus for the tag to remain. Mark should have also tried for consensus for a potentially controversial edit. So we are even. Please now discuss the tag and preferably take steps so a long standing tag can be removed. Polargeo (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No I was acting perfectly within wikipedia norms to restore the tag. MN should have then moved to the discuss stage, as I asked, rather than reverting again. I'm not accepting any parity of action, and find these meta discussions tedious and unhelpful to improving the article, which should be the focus here. Verbal chat 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are spot on but you could have skillfully avoided any meta discussion by not reverting twice and actually having the discussion. Polargeo (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What concerns? Which material? ATren (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You think the surface stations project is not notable? Sydney Morning Herald San Antonio Express The Economist Fox News New Scientist Washington Times The Australian plenty more out there, still think it`s not notable? O and are these sources reliable to ues in this article? mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not unless they mention Watts. If you think it is notable why not propose splitting it off? I believe it was decided in the past it wasn't (going on memory) Verbal chat 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not look? But yes they all mention watts as well, naturally as it is his website. mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have now read the article and the references linked to (A quick disclaimer here I mean the refs in the article not Marknutley's refs above). Therefore I take my neutral hat off here and enter the discussion. This article does not appear to me to be a coatrack. For two reasons 1) Coverage is very balanced and does not reinforce Watt's opinions 2) It stays focussed on science comments and arguments directly associated with Watt without straying too far into general coverage of the subject with certain reliable sources actually citing Watt several times. This seems perfectly reasonable within the usual wikipedia allowences. Just to explain this further it is not a one sided, lengthy and WP:Undue recounting of opinions from his blog and therefore not "biased" see first sentence of WP:COATRACK. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So are we ok to remove the tags then? mark nutley (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The stuff on surfacestations.org seems excessive. I've removed a bit of historical stuff. I'd say what reminas still looks rather coatracky William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with WMC, there is need for further refinement before the tag can be removed. Verbal chat 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m afraid i don`t. The historical stuff is necessary to give readers an idea of what it`s about. And as Polargeo says, thee is nothing coatracky about the current content. And instead of being vague verbal why not actually point to something specific? mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, can you please list specifics? ATren (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically the disproportionate coverage of a website in an article about a person, not a website. If you want to rename this article to be about the website then we could discuss where to merge the biographical data and what should be trimmed. Verbal chat 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that does not make it a coatrack. It may not be needed here but it would need to be biased coverage to make it a coatrack so the tag is incorrect unless you can argue that this article is being used to give biased coverage, which you have not done. If there is too much information on his blog then that is a case for splitting it off to his blog article but the sources reference Watt and Watt's blog is then used for his own opinions so it does not seem vastly off topic to me. I haven't got time to look at WMC's trimming right now but I suspect it has tightened up the coverage. Polargeo (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am happy that WMC's edit has removed some excessive coverage. I think the coatrack tag over the article is excessive in this case. Polargeo (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is still coatracky, but all the interested people ahve been alerted now, and some disagree, so there is no real need for the tag to remain. Perhaps it could go onto the talk page. However it would be nice if people could avoid adding spam references William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And can people please not reinsert The Hockey Stick Illusion. It is not a great source, especially for a BLP, and as the statement is already referenced this is a drama that can be avoided. Verbal chat 12:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But have you noticed that the particular reference does not back up that particular sentence. I suggest temporary removal of that sentence on methodology. Polargeo (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why the book is a good source, as it goes into the surfacestations project in detail. Sorry but the only reason for this ref removal is pure POV pushing, and it is ridiculous that any usage of it is being reverted on sight mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I support full removal. This is not a RS. Verbal chat 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have doubled up the surface stations.org ref featured earlier in the paragraph as this covers it adequately. @Verbal The section sets out plainly Watt's experiment and position using his own sites/publications and then gives the NOAA response to his experiment. I see no problem with this as Watt is cited along with his publications and website by the NOAA pubs. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your saying this is not a reliable source on the surface stations project? Please leave you POV at the door, the book is certainly reliable to talk about this project mark nutley (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think Mark has a point. It is an adequate source to back up a simple statement on Watt's methodology but it is not needed as Watts own website is a far better source. Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS/N#The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion. The book doesn't say what Mark (and Cla68?) is claiming that it says. So, No. It is not an adequate reference. (and contrary to what Mark states above, the book doesn't go into detail about surfacestations.org, in fact it doesn't even mention surfacestations.org. I've quoted the entire text about Watts from the book on RS/N). I quite frankly find this disturbing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KDP. Just looks like what WMC said then and adding a spam reference. Anyway it is not needed so it should certainly be left out. I just trusted that Cla68 had read it and made sure it backed up the specific sentence he had added it to, but as it doesn't matter anyway I didn't follow it up, I will next time. Polargeo (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast meteorologist vs broadcast weather forecaster

I prefer broadcast meteorologist because that's what they're called. I have no idea what a broadcast weather forecaster is. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. No need to rip this up again. There was an RfC on this (archive 2), which concluded that "blogger" and "broadcast meteorologist" were the terms least rejected by people. Blogger was decided as the postfix in the article title (by "no consensus" => stays). Broadcast meteorologist was the (very close) second runner, and thus, per compromise reached, should be used here. (phew long one :-) ) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why 2

I prefer TL's version William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the version you reinserted is sourced, so I agree that it should stay. I've re-added the NYT piece since this is also sourced. Nsaa (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Principle of least astonishment

The man's famously a global warming denialist. I inserted a single statement to that effect with three reliable sources identifying him as such. I'm surprised that this wasn't elucidated in the article more clearly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because he is not, he is a skeptic, everyone knows climate changes and Watts does not deny that mark nutley (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But the sources say he is a denialist in the sense of global warming denialism. Are you saying that the term only applies to those who deny global warming writ large? Or can it apply to AGW denialists as well? Also, why did you remove reliable sources? Is that de rigeur on these pages? I can understand re-writing the sentence, but removing three impeccible sources that discuss the author seems a might, um, contentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One of your doi`s does not work. And we have plenty of sources saying he is a sceptic, should we fill the lede up with then just to prove you wrong? mark nutley (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or... or... we could fill them up with both! Why not? One can be both a denialist and a sceptic, right? Are we really of the habit of removing any source where a doi malfunctions? Do you have policy or guidlines to cite for that kind of behavior being justified? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A policy for removing uncited contentious content? Gee let me think on it for a while, o ya, BLP. Why are you POV pushing? Try and retain a NPOV, he is a sceptic the term denier is pejorative and this is a BLP, we are meant to play it safe with them you know, not fast and loose mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean it needs to be excised completely. Many believe the term "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, but when we have reliable sources that describe something as a conspiracy theory or reliable sources that state someone is a conspiracy theorist, we are empowered to write about that in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From a BLP standpoint, I think this is very dodgy ground. Unless you can find him being quoted "denying", what you are adding a source which makes a perjorative allegation. Can you see the problem? Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

By reading his blog I would gather he has roughly the following opinions: CO2 is increasing, the increase in CO2 is partially (measurably) caused by man, increased CO2 retains heat, the increase in temperature (Global warming) due to this is small. In addition he is in my opinion very green. He for instance advocates for energy efficiency and solar power etc.91.153.115.15 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since that's only your opinion, we can't really use it as a guide. Instead, we should be going by the reliable sources, not our own evaluations. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, only that we can't use your personal evaluation to decide content. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

His opinion is correct, as is yours, lets use what the sources use mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance that Google search has to our discussion. Can you clarify? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see what "Anthony Watts sceptic" means? 1,080 hits for that means noting to you? Perhaps it means the majority of sources refer to him as a sceptic? mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it shows no such thing. The vast majority of those hits are to mirrors of a single commentator's unique sentence: "Anthony Watts, sceptic and scourge of climate change science, has used copyright laws to censor an opponent." See [3]. If we use the American spelling we get a googlewack which is 1/5 the hits for Antony Watts denialist. Anyway, this is all really silly, and I'm a bit surprised that you think a google search has any bearing on reliable sourcing considering your earlier insistence about wp:rs. WP:GOOGLE. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How sad, i am not saying this is a reliable source, i am saying a quick google shows him as a sceptic, try "anthony watts denier" for a comparison. It is obvious he is known as a sceptic is the point mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How happy. I'm saying that a quick google shows him to be five times more denialist than skeptic. It's obvious he is known as a denialist at this point. Okay, now that we've got that out of our systems, try giving me some reliable sources. Peer reviewed journal articles, such as the ones I offered, would be a great start! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Link please. As my search for it shows 3 hits only [4] mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The link is two rounds up! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But as you ask skeptical bloggers such as meteorologist Anthony Watts Climate change skeptic Anthony Watts mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, been looking at your peer reviewed sources, this is not a peer reviewed source, it is a joke this is a self published source and actually says The most successful, WattsUpWiththat.com, the US‐based blog of sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts the third one i can`t check as it is behind a paywall, but given your misrepresentation of these two sources i really can`t AGF with the third. You sir should be ashamed mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence & Wishart are well-respected publishers within their fields. They've been accused by conservatives as being biased, but that doesn't make them any less respected than any number of other social science journals which have had similar issues. The Alex Lockwood was a paper presented at five different conferences. This is not the same as journal publication, but it is a form of peer review. It's not simply self-published. The third paper is published by this group: [5]. You can read about their editorial policy and see what you think. In short, your casual dismissal of these sources is not very damning and your continued reliance on personal attacks is peculiar.

I appreciate your first link. It is a good SciAm article that illustrates what you are saying. The second one is a little less than equal to the other sources we're discussing. Doy you have any other sources I can go for? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I know who published the third source, i meant i can`t take your word for it that it describes Anthony Watts as a denier. This is due to your misrepresenting of sources. The media and climate change This is not peer reviewed as you say and does not describe Watts as a denier, it says his site is. The second source by Alex Lockwood [6] is self published, is not peer reviewed (talking at a conference is not peer review) and does not say he is a denier, it describes him as a sceptic. I see no need to provide you with further refs to prove the obvious, he is known as a sceptic mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Side note: In some fields, conference publications are indeed peer-reviewed. In computer science, they are the primary venue for publishing peer-reviewed science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also true in the social sciences which is, indeed, the context of this particular paper. We should, however, not link to the Alex Lockwood's personal site but rather the conference website since authors sometimes modify their papers after they present them (and thus, the modifications are not subject to peer review). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Fair enough. You can request the paper yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I'd send you the paper myself, but it seems you don't trust me and I'd like it to be as independent as possible for you to confirm one way or the other. I think it is fair that maybe these sources are dealing more with Watts' site rather than his opinions personally. Maybe we should use them for Watts Up With That? instead. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can send me the other paper to check then that would be great. However the same criteria will apply to the blog article, there are far more sources calling it a sceptic site than a denier site. But if you wish to present these sources with a suggested content addition on the article talk page id be happy to look it over. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone sent it to you before I could get around to it. Sorry it took me a day to get back to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i just read the text and i have a question for you. How did you get Denier from those three sources? Not a one of them call Watts a denier. The one actual peer reviewed on says On the popular skeptic site 'Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts Do you always misrepresent sources? I ask as all three which you presented and reverted back into this BLP did not call him a denier. Playing fast and lose with sources in a BLP is problematic, i hope it does not happen again or i`ll take it further than this rebuke mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Denier" or "Denialist"? Are they different or the same? All three use the term "denialist". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. [7] This does not describe Watts as a denier. [8] This does not describe Watts as a denier. Nor did the one peer reviewed source you presented. Not one of those sources support the content you inserted into a BLP. Continue on this course and there will be trouble mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I flatly disagree with you. I think all three do a great job of showing that Andrew Watts is in the denialist crowd. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Energy & Environment article cited does not state that Watts is a denier nor a denialist. A search of the article cited using "deni" as the search term shows two hits. The first hit states: "The story came a day after the climate change secretary Ed Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans." The second states, in regards to Les Hatton, "He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.”" There is absolutely no reference to Watts as either a denier nor a denialist in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it seems to plainly lump Anthony Watts in the denialist camp. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For me to make that jump would require that I engage in WP:SYN and it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what I can show in the sources. It is not in the cited source. This is a BLP. To insert potentially negative information into a BLP requires multiple reliable sources that verify the information. None of the articles call him a denier or a denialist. As a matter of fact, it does not technically identify Watts as a sceptic, only identifying his blog in that manner. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So you decided to misrepresent a source and engage in wp:or in a blp. mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not how I see it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So exactly where does it describe him as a denier? GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed content

Please discuss at Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Virginia_Heffernan. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)