Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Contrasting skepticism and denialism

Peter Gulutzan, you said "Not in the source."[1] However it is in the source:

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

Opinion is not equal to fact. Liu's opinion is just that. He may think that some of the blog posts sound like denial, but that is simply his opinion. This is particularly important for things which are in the Eye of the beholder. Can't use WP voice of "fact" for which is opinion. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:ITA, "Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree." Independent mainstream sources converge on WUWT being climate change denialism (see previous threads). In scientific matters, Wikipedia aims to reflect the mainstream view. Manul ~ talk 01:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not a scholarly article nor is Watts a scientist. Regardless, consensus is not fact either. The history of science is littered with beliefs which were eventually proven to be incorrect. Not sure why this one deserves special treatment. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems like this response is a total WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me. Seems clear that Manul is correct that the source in question does include a straightforward explanation of skepticism and denialism. We either use the source or we don't. If we don't, we ought to have some good reasons other than hoping that this will be some instance of science being proven incorrect. jps (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I would take the opposite view, that you should wait for this science to be proven true. The models to this point have been lacking in this ability. Stephen Hawking even bet against his own proposition. Everyone should be happy though as it is becoming more and more clear that CO2 is less of a problem in terms of global temps Arzel (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
Science is never "proven true", and expecting that it might be shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method and enterprise. Demanding "proof" is a favourite tactic of people trying to stop some action, but it's not something science can or will ever produce. Science gives us increasingly better models of reality, but never absolute proof. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Your personal opinions about climate change have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion of whether the source is correctly used here. On that subject, Manul is obviously right. --JBL (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with those criticize Arzel's lack of research fortitude. We stick to sources, not what someone has extrapolated on the basis of a Stephen Hawking bet. jps (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
By proving true, I was clearly referring to the simulation models. If the models actually were able to predict correctly what they claim to predict, then you would at least have something. They have not, thus many are skeptical about the actual impact of CO2 in the future. However, considering that the Climate Change proponents have declared the science "settled" they have in effect already declared it true. Stephen I agree with you completely regarding the scientific method, I wish that same belief was followed through with the science behind climate change simulation modeling. JPS I have several published research papers and am in a far more experienced position than you to talk about simulation modeling. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Show us your published research papers, Arzel if you are you proposing we use them as sources. jps (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul: Indeed I said "Not in the source". And, as your quote shows, Liu does not say that WUWT blog posts "have a denialistic tone that misappropriates scientific skepticism". (The scientific-skepticism part is what this is about.) The words about scientific skepticism may be nearby, but nothing indicates that they're words about Watts's blog. By the way, do you know what Mr Liu's education is? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter has reverted the assertion that WUWT misappropriates scientific skepticism because, he says, Liu did not say that. I disagree. I think we all agree that Liu contrasted genuine skepticism (illustrating with Dr. Mueller) and fake skepticism that refuses to accept evidence contrary to one's preconception (illustrating with Watts). Yeah, one could argue that the words and punctuation between "misapprorpiates skepticism" and Watts name means Liu didn't say Watts is misappropriating skepticism. But that's a s.........t............r............e.............t............c............h, made possible only because there are additional words and punctuation between that phrase and the WUWT blog's name. Reading the parpagraph as a whole, we're clearly talking about real and fake skepticism, and WUWT is presented by Liu as the latter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul's edit didn't say that "Watts is misappropriating skepticism", but that the tone of some blog posts misappropriates scientific skepticism -- but tones don't misappropriate, people do, as Liu made clear: "Denialists often misappropriate scientific skepticism". Notice the word "often" which means that even if Liu claimed Watts was a denialist that wouldn't necessarily mean that Liu says Watts misappropriates. But Liu doesn't even claim it. Liu says Watts is a skeptic and Muller agrees that Watts is a skeptic not a denier -- the "words and phrases" that Manul replaced with "..." indicate that Liu was not thinking of Watts when he used the word "denialists". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading....."

Found this in less than 60 seconds at GoogleScholar...presumably there is more of the same but one would have to look. For now, and reserving the possibility that I will return to this later, I'll let others wrangle over whether/how to use this in the article. It's From page 172 which is (I think) part of Chapter 13: The changing ecology of news and news organizations: implications for environmental news, by Curtis Brainard, which in turn is part of The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication edited by Anders Hansen, Robert Cox; published by Routledge, Mar 5, 2015

"While blogs have allowed scientists and other legitimate experts, in fields from politics to economics, to communicate more easily and directly with the media and public, a vast cacophony of other voices make the Internet a bewildering place where the quality of information can be hard to judge. RealClimate.org, established by a group of nine prominent American and European climate scientists in 2004, is one of the most trusted sources. It aims to better inform "the interested public and journalists" by providing "a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary." At the other end of the spectrum are influential sites for "climate skeptics", such as Watts Up With That?", a blog run by meteorologist Anthony Watts, whom scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record." (bold added, by the way)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Good work! This looks like an excellent source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
TOC can be accessed here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Improving the lead

  • The lead of a BLP, particularly the first sentence, is about why the person is notable -- why there is a Wikipedia article about this person. All sources point to Watts being known for blogging (look at title of the article) about climate change denialism.
  • Wikipedia doesn't list credentials in the lead like that. For example we don't write "M.D." or "Ph.D." in the first sentence of a BLP, much less "AMS seal holder". See WP:CREDENTIAL.
  • Use of a primary source like nvsos.gov is verboten; for one thing, it gives his personal address. See WP:BLPPRIVACY.
  • Watts identifies himself as a former meteorologist on his website, and BBC News confirms it. Since this is not a self-serving or extraordinary claim, I added the primary source for good measure.

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

I left the section "Improving the lead" alone, but the change did the opposite of improving, and I have reverted it. There seems to be a belief that if Michael E. Mann disparages WUWT, that's enough of a fact that it should go in the article lead. But we already have three disparaging comments about WUWT, and zero complimenting comments, in the right section -- the section about WUWT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, you restored a link in direct violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. (I shouldn't need to quote a policy in order to convince someone not to give out a personal address on Wikipedia.) Please self-revert immediately.
The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Now the lead doesn't even mention what his blog is about, which is quite bizarre since it's what he is known for. It appears that you wish to attribute the Mann source as if it were a singular opinion. No, Mann reflects the view of independent sources -- per WP:ITA we don't mislead the reader by implying that only Mann holds this view. Manul ~ talk 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That happens to be the address of IntelliWeather (it's published on the front page of intelliweather.com), but I acknowledge that such government-related sites shouldn't be publicized by Wikipedia and have replaced with a reference to WUWT which merely says Watts runs IntelliWeather. I apologize for the delay in making this change. As you can see, I do not accept your claims that Mr Mann's denigrating of WUWT belongs, but a bland modifier like "climate-related" would probably do no harm. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
(The address of IntelliWeather is the same address reported by WHOIS for his other domains, and almost certainly his residence. Next time please don't blindly revert without looking at the explanation behind a change.)
You haven't really addressed the reasons I gave for the other changes to the lead. You say that Mann is denigrating Watts, as if this is some personal feud and not about scientific evidence and consensus. Please see WP:PSCI; it is Wikipedia policy that mainstream reception of a fringe view be prominently included. Since Watts is notable primarily for his fringe view, that view should be included in the lead, and therefore mainstream reception must be included in the lead also. Manul ~ talk 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking here about a peer-reviewed study by Mann of Watts or of WattsupWithThat, and in any case Mann is not recognized as an expert re Watts and his blog, and did not present "scientific evidence" about the blog -- he merely called it a name. And your claim that "all sources" agree with you is false. Earlier I referred to an administrative ruling, I'll repeat its contents on your talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
My edit was partly in response to your removal of information from the lead that describes what the blog is about, which makes no sense to me. He's known as a blogger -- "blogger" is in the article title -- but the lead doesn't say what he blogs about. This doesn't even concern "skeptic" versus "denier". My point is that there must be something there to describe WUWT. You removed the something.
Also, there's no such thing as an "administrative ruling" on content. Admins don't rule on content. You linked to an ANI, not an RfC. It was a mistake posting to ANI because there's nothing for an admin to do (unless you were claiming vandalism). Try WP:NPOVN or some other form of WP:DR for content disputes. Manul ~ talk 02:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Saying I "removed" is misleading, what I did was revert an edit which had added Mr Mann's name-calling. Saying your point is there must be "something" is disingenuous, I suggested that a bland modifier like "climate-related" would do no harm, and I suggest it again. As for the admin ruling: it's about the fact that refusal to follow the sources in this area is misconduct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

jps has also written to my talk page re going to WP:AE "in a few days" unless I "back down". I rejected the demand, I will welcome going to a forum where an administrator will look at jps's accusations. During the few days, I will not revert jps's most recent edit inserting "denialism" in the lead again and commenting "I'm done accommodating POV-pushers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as you don't edit war and let us have a conversation, then there is no reason to get admins involved. I understand that your position is that somehow the admin in question thinks that we shouldn't use the term "denialism" or its derivatives in the lede. I simply don't agree with that interpretation. I think that the admin is saying to use the best sources which I judge to be somewhat comfortable with using "denial" and their derivatives. jps (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
jps: I expected you to carry out your threat and make your accusations in front of an administrator. If you're now the one who's "backing off", I guess I will bear with your rudeness for a while longer. Now: your description of my position is incorrect -- I accept what the admin said about majority of sources. On that basis, I intend to remove your poorly sourced material from the lead of this BLP. I am allowing time first for the conversation you spoke of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The majority of sources use "denial" and its derivatives. That is, we are talking about the majority of the reliable sources on the subject. jps (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
What are those sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The book by Mann for one which is what we are currently using to source the statement. There are a few dozen more I can name, but the question is, how do you want to do this? I'll name a source and you name an equally reliable one that contradicts it? jps (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest, by adding something like "WUWT? is more often known as a denier blog." in the Watts Up With That? section of the article and following with 7 citations, you'd make checking and later lookup easy. I started the ball rolling by adding 6 saying skeptic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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

jps (talk: You have said over and over (I didn't count) that the majority of sources support an edit saying WUWT? is a "denialism" website. I have asked you: what are those sources? You are not answering. I will try again. What are those sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I responded above. The majority of the most reliable sources do so identify the blog. Michael Mann's book, published by an academic press, is my first source. Yours is the Scientific American article? I think I'm happier with the book by Mann. jps (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have taken this to WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Mann and Watts have been in a personal feud for years. Mann shouldn't be used as a source for Watts or his blog, especially one that has been cited as diminishing the Holocaust or derived from from it. Sorry, nut this is a clear-cut BLP issue. There are enough sources with various descriptions that we none other that a "climate change blog." --DHeyward (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is incoherent; edit? --JBL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@ DHeyward, what evidence to you have of this alleged personal feud? Michael E. Mann is a distinguished professor, and in the hockey stick controversy#Controversy over MBH 1998 his work has been under attack from contrarians, fossil fuel thinktanks and deniers since 1998. Wattsupwiththat.com/category/michael-e-mann/ only seems to go back to 2011, there have clearly been earlier cases of Watts denigrating Mann's work but I've not found any cases of Mann personally responding: he covers Watts' blog briefly in his book, as cited. As for deniers, in 2008 Watts' blog featured guest posts by Roy Spencer, signatory to the Cornwall Alliance alliance declaration "We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." etc. . . dave souza, talk 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Denial is a disbelief that something is true. Is the climate changing, yeah. Is man having an impact, yeah. Is man having a significant impact on temperatures, maybe. Is CO2 directly linked to an increase in temperatures, well according to the predictions from the models that is unsure, so people are skeptical. It is pretty hard to be in denial of a future event which has not happened and which has not been proven. Perhaps if the climate models were not universally so far off it would be easier to make the connection. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Arzel, you seem to be in denial about some pretty basic physics here, disputing the 1896 science of Svante Arrhenius: and climate models seem to have done pretty well. That's an informative webpage rather than a reliable source, do you have any reliable source for your assertion that models were "universally so far off"? All of which shows the need at Wikipedia for accurately showing science rather than getting mixed up by attempts to deny there's any problem. . . dave souza, talk 19:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's simply is a "denial that something is true" than, Watts is not a denier as he readily admits that greenhouse gases will contribute to warming. Neither is Curry. There are many competing theories about why there is a hiatus so are all those voices "deniers" because they fail to agree? There are many competing claims about sea level rise and avg temperature in 2100. To use this language over other language such as "sceptic," which is at least equally as prevalent (and probably more so) in neutral sources, implies an agenda to make sceptics look the same as holocaust deniers. This is even mentioned in our article climate change denialism. It's pejorative and has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Wattsupwithtat hosts a lot of text that outright denies the facts that outline that most of the global warming that has occurred in the last decades is due to human contribution of carbon dioxide. This is plainly not a scientific skeptic position and we've got the academic sources to prove it. WP:PARITY demands that you show your academic sources which dispute this characterization. When someone denies a fact and is called out in the literature, it is not Wikipedia's job to right the wrongs as perceived by those who support the deniers. jps (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Your asking to prove the negative? How about all the papers that recognize a hiatus? Mann doesn't (well it depends on the phase of the moon whether he does or doesn't). By that logic, Mann is a "denier." "denier" is political rhetoric, not scientific. In that sense, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to choose sides. There are AGW adherents and AGW sceptics. WP is not the place to wage political fights and WP is not on any side. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
What does a supposed "hiatus" have to do with the blog wattsupwiththat? You are confusing topics here. jps (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It demonstrates that "denier" is not a scientific term just a political one. The temperature record is pretty clear. But we don't categorize people into political buckets over scientific differences in meaning. Nobody has taken exception to being a sceptic or contrarian voice. "Denier" is not. Mann is sceptical that there is a hiatus but he is not a "hiatus denier" no matter how many scientific papers disagree with him. There are many competing views from ozone and water vapor to deep-ocean heat to trade winds to arctic measurement anomalies. All have been postulated and all have had rebuttals with various amounts of adherence. No one though, is labeled with a political term like "denier" for daring to challenge the consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

That statement is false, but I believe the appropriate place for discussion is BLPN now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply writing "that statement is false" does not make it so. jps (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually one of your sources complains about the bloggers, not the blogs. Since you have already said it's about the blog and not the blogger so BLP doesn't apply, that sources should be tossed (hint: it's the book). Here's one of many sources that manage not to call him (or his webiste) a "denier" [3] --DHeyward (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Protip: the source in question complains about both the blogger and the blog. We're using it as a source for the blog. If you want to start a discussion about sources for the blogger, be my guest. If you can't find academic sources that show Anthony Watts' blog does not include climate change denial, then you have failed to make your case. jps (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Editors trying to dismiss or denigrate the Mann book need a policy-based reason to do so. @DHeyward: your assertion that "denier" "is not a scientific term just a political one" is significant how? Is the implication that Mann is not a scientist?
Wikipedia editor's opinions does not override reliably published statements, especially those of peer-reviewed academic publications. And even more so when those statements are attributed as opinion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing opinion columns for contentious claims as facts in Wikipedia's voice.

Yesterday, the article stated that "Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy" but cited an opinion column. We should not be stating opinions as facts. So, I attempted to fix the problem.[4] However, Joel B. Lewis reverting the change stating "("X has been criticized for Y" is not putting anything in Wikipedia's voice". This makes no sense in that "X has been criticized for Y" is the very definition of stating something in Wikipedia's voice. In any case, I've attempted a compromise.[5] Other editor's feedback is welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "has been criticized" is the lead sentence for a paragraph; it introduces the subject of the paragraph. The following sentences are the criticisms, whose existence was introduced by the first sentence, and it is these sentences that are (correctly) sourced as the opinions of the criticizers. The word "alleged" is both redundant and weasely. The phrase "putting things in Wikipedia's voice" would be a correct and relevant description of these sentences if the first sentence said "Watts's blog is full of inaccuracies," but the phrasing "has been criticized" already places the criticism not in Wikipedia's voice. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The sentence was "Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy". The sources cited in this paragraph don't mention inaccuracy. Whether or not this attempt to "compromise" succeeds, the sentence will be poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Inaccurate" is a partial synonym of "untrustworthy" and "[not] credible" and certainly covers their relevant meanings -- if anything, this wording is more favorable towards WUWT than the views being summarized. (This is not to say that it is the best possible summary sentence of the criticisms in that paragraph.) --JBL (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The other two remaining sources[6][7] also appear to be opinion articles. Why do we have an entire paragraph cited to opinion columns? At this point, I'm wondering why we should keep this paragraph at all. We should have higher standards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Even worse, neither of the two remaining sources[8][9] even support the claim that the blog is inaccurate. Given that there are no reliable sources cited for this paragraph, per WP:BLP, I am removing it immediately and without waiting for discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You are restating your previous comments without any obvious acknowledgement of the responses. I am not interested in restating my responses, which are above. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have a good thesaurus saying inaccurate is a synonym of untrustworthy, please cite it. It seems the paragraph was inserted in 2013 by user 96.248.80.142 without any discussion that I could see, and it's not just the "inaccuracy" claim that's a problem. According to the citation for Mr Suzuki's opinion piece, it was published in the Carman Valley Leader of March 8 2012. But that day's paper is available online, here, and it doesn't contain Mr Suzuki's opinion piece. The date is actually correct, but the original source is Mr Suzuki's blog, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, any reasonable reading of my comments indicates that I am open to alternative wordings -- why don't you suggest one? --JBL (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: All three sources appear to be opinion columns, two of which don't even support the content. The only source that comes close is an Monbiot's column. Without any secondary sources to establish the notability of Monbiot's opinion, this fails WP:WEIGHT. Look at it this way: if this was truly worth including, then secondary sources would have covered this. If secondary sources don't find this worth reporting, why should tertiary sources cover it? Our goal as encyclopedia authors is not to find the most damaging opinion columns and then thrust them into an encyclopedia article. This is shoddy scholarship. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources

  1. Scientists dispute climate sceptic's claim that US weather data is useless (not opinion)
  2. The Inquisition of Climate Science
  3. Climate science and acts of creation
  4. Heat rises in the search for temperature data truth--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone looked for better RSs with criticisms at GoogleScholar? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Okay, my suggestion for the alternative wording of the first sentence is "Watts's blog has been criticized." And please address the problem with the Suzuki quote if you think it should be kept. I have no opinion about the Monbiot and Hickman quotes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That reads like a fragment to me; also it's odd to say something has been criticized without saying anything about the nature or subject of the criticisms. On net I mildly prefer the current version. About Suzuki, his columns certainly are published by that paper; have you checked whether it appeared later? (I tried, but their website is extremely difficult to navigate on mobile.) If it really is only on the blog, I do not object to removing it. --JBL (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Re criticism: I thought that the rest of the paragraph was the criticism, but I seem to have been unconvincing, never mind. I googled for: site:carmanvalleyleader.com "weathermen like Anthony Watts". Nothing. I intend to remove the Suzuki quote but will wait a few days in case some other editor wants to give a try at repairing the citation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit: I explained the problem, see above. I gave lots of time for you or anyone else to step in. Then I removed the quote. Very shortly thereafter you reverted with no comprehensible explanation. You're welcome to join the discussion here, but reverting without joining the discussion is unwelcome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Citing opinion columns for contentious claims as facts in Wikipedia's voice.

Yesterday, the article stated that "Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy" but cited an opinion column. We should not be stating opinions as facts. So, I attempted to fix the problem.[10] However, Joel B. Lewis reverting the change stating "("X has been criticized for Y" is not putting anything in Wikipedia's voice". This makes no sense in that "X has been criticized for Y" is the very definition of stating something in Wikipedia's voice. In any case, I've attempted a compromise.[11] Other editor's feedback is welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "has been criticized" is the lead sentence for a paragraph; it introduces the subject of the paragraph. The following sentences are the criticisms, whose existence was introduced by the first sentence, and it is these sentences that are (correctly) sourced as the opinions of the criticizers. The word "alleged" is both redundant and weasely. The phrase "putting things in Wikipedia's voice" would be a correct and relevant description of these sentences if the first sentence said "Watts's blog is full of inaccuracies," but the phrasing "has been criticized" already places the criticism not in Wikipedia's voice. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The sentence was "Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy". The sources cited in this paragraph don't mention inaccuracy. Whether or not this attempt to "compromise" succeeds, the sentence will be poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"Inaccurate" is a partial synonym of "untrustworthy" and "[not] credible" and certainly covers their relevant meanings -- if anything, this wording is more favorable towards WUWT than the views being summarized. (This is not to say that it is the best possible summary sentence of the criticisms in that paragraph.) --JBL (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The other two remaining sources[12][13] also appear to be opinion articles. Why do we have an entire paragraph cited to opinion columns? At this point, I'm wondering why we should keep this paragraph at all. We should have higher standards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Even worse, neither of the two remaining sources[14][15] even support the claim that the blog is inaccurate. Given that there are no reliable sources cited for this paragraph, per WP:BLP, I am removing it immediately and without waiting for discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You are restating your previous comments without any obvious acknowledgement of the responses. I am not interested in restating my responses, which are above. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have a good thesaurus saying inaccurate is a synonym of untrustworthy, please cite it. It seems the paragraph was inserted in 2013 by user 96.248.80.142 without any discussion that I could see, and it's not just the "inaccuracy" claim that's a problem. According to the citation for Mr Suzuki's opinion piece, it was published in the Carman Valley Leader of March 8 2012. But that day's paper is available online, here, and it doesn't contain Mr Suzuki's opinion piece. The date is actually correct, but the original source is Mr Suzuki's blog, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, any reasonable reading of my comments indicates that I am open to alternative wordings -- why don't you suggest one? --JBL (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: All three sources appear to be opinion columns, two of which don't even support the content. The only source that comes close is an Monbiot's column. Without any secondary sources to establish the notability of Monbiot's opinion, this fails WP:WEIGHT. Look at it this way: if this was truly worth including, then secondary sources would have covered this. If secondary sources don't find this worth reporting, why should tertiary sources cover it? Our goal as encyclopedia authors is not to find the most damaging opinion columns and then thrust them into an encyclopedia article. This is shoddy scholarship. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources

  1. Scientists dispute climate sceptic's claim that US weather data is useless (not opinion)
  2. The Inquisition of Climate Science
  3. Climate science and acts of creation
  4. Heat rises in the search for temperature data truth--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone looked for better RSs with criticisms at GoogleScholar? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Okay, my suggestion for the alternative wording of the first sentence is "Watts's blog has been criticized." And please address the problem with the Suzuki quote if you think it should be kept. I have no opinion about the Monbiot and Hickman quotes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That reads like a fragment to me; also it's odd to say something has been criticized without saying anything about the nature or subject of the criticisms. On net I mildly prefer the current version. About Suzuki, his columns certainly are published by that paper; have you checked whether it appeared later? (I tried, but their website is extremely difficult to navigate on mobile.) If it really is only on the blog, I do not object to removing it. --JBL (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Re criticism: I thought that the rest of the paragraph was the criticism, but I seem to have been unconvincing, never mind. I googled for: site:carmanvalleyleader.com "weathermen like Anthony Watts". Nothing. I intend to remove the Suzuki quote but will wait a few days in case some other editor wants to give a try at repairing the citation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit: I explained the problem, see above. I gave lots of time for you or anyone else to step in. Then I removed the quote. Very shortly thereafter you reverted with no comprehensible explanation. You're welcome to join the discussion here, but reverting without joining the discussion is unwelcome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of NPOV

It is odd that the current dispute was not settled with the last compromise which includes all three terms: skepticism, contrarianism, denialism. The text is strongly backed by scholarly sources, which are especially important for a science-related topic such as this one. No source yet mentioned contradicts the ones we already have. One source had been proffered as rebuttal, but it turned out that it aligned with the other sources (explained here).

It is unequivocal that the view of WUWT being climate change denialism is prominent in high-quality sources. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that significant views be included. The wholesale removal of a significant view is a violation of the NPOV policy. Ergo, the removal of climate change denialism is a violation of NPOV.

  • The first removal had comment reverting contentious edits.[16] I guess this is referring to BLP, which says that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed. However the material in question very strongly sourced.
  • The second removal had comment This is not a neutral tone per WP:LABEL.[17] (1) WP:LABEL mentions "denialist", which is quite different; we are describing a blog according to reliable sources, not labeling a person. (2) even if we add non-personal "denialism" to LABEL, we still have that denialism is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". (3) WP:MOS is a guideline, which cannot override the WP:NPOV policy.

The reasons given for these edits are insufficient and can nowise justify violating NPOV. The recent barrage of discussion advocating the removal of this view from the article remains unconvincing, which seems to be the consensus at FTN. Manul ~ talk 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a barebones stripped-down naked list of possible sources, without commentary or argumentation or expecting me to parse and comb through large article edits. That is the most effective thing you could do to win me over to your point of view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision. (I don't understand the "parse" issue; the wiki software parses and formats it for you.) I try not to have a "point of view" apart upholding policies and guidelines. This isn't complicated, and I don't know what you think should be different. If you have a source and accompanying text that you believe should be included, just say what it is. Otherwise, it seems to me the current text and sourcing is fine. Manul ~ talk 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Your diffs are huge and complex with moving stuff around at the same time your editing/deleting. It took me a full hour to itemize the refs between your last revision and one by Arzel, to find that you chopped 6 refs and added 6 others. You would be more effective if you articulated this sort of thing here on the talk page, including a list of added and deleted refs..... instead of expecting other editors to make heads or tails out of massive diffs or combing through two different versions like I resorted to. Another approach is to do your MOVING in one diff, and your other changes in a second one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The change to the lead is really going against discussion. There is no consensus for this change and looks like edit warring. In addition the new lead has some serious logical issues.
  • The argument put forth is that "Denial" must be included for NPOV and that MOS doesn't matter, even though MOS says "Denial" is a NPOV word to avoid. I don't see how that can be justified. Also, it clearly fails MOS because it is not "widely" used.
  • The other argument is that skeptic = denier. This is simply not true. The two words have different meanings in a literal sense. Those that are strong proponents of climate change have stated effort to say that they are the same in order to label a skeptic as a denier.
  • This leads to the logical problem. If they are the same, then why is there such a concerted effort to use the word "denier"? I would like a response from Manul and Ubikwit as why "denier" must be in the lead for NPOV reasons if the word "skeptic" is = to "denier" It does not make sense other than to further promote the effort by climate change proponents to label skeptics as deniers even if that term is not widely used. I would call it OR if not for a couple of source which make the connection, but it is certainly not main stream as there are few that say they are the same.
  • Also, this is not a science article, so the continued refrain of "peer reviewed" has no place. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Re the MOS-words-to-avoid argument, the operative text reads "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." Left open to hairsplitting is exactly what "widely used" means (e.g., is that phrase code for majority usage or something else?); and also the criteria used to determine in which cases is inline attribution more appropriate; and also unstated is an answer to more appropriate than what? At best the text implies that inline attribution is better than stating contentious labels in Wikipedia's voice. At any rate, the notion that our MOS simply precludes use of "denial" under any conceivable circumstances is nonsense, and since that's nonsense we have to engage in an analysis as to this context.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Re the skeptic <> denier argument, there are two truths here. Picking one and dissing the other is POV, whichever one you champion. NPOV means explaining the technical definitions and also fact that usage is conflated. See for partial list of sources Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#List of sources saying to some speakers 'skeptic' = 'denialst' = 'skeptic'. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
While this is not a science article, there are academic peer-reviewed articles relevant to the topic, and these still tend to be the best sources. "Climate change sceptic" and "climate change denier" have acquired largely overlapping meanings, with the term "sceptic" being preferred by the deniers/sceptics, and the term "deniers" being preferred by proper sceptics and many supporters of the mainstream position. This is another case where terms that are different in a strict sense have acquired similar and overlapping meanings. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place - do we follow popular or the exact usage? On the other hand, WP:NPOV is clear: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - and some of our best sources do indeed use the term "denier". So I agree that the term should be included. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
We really are not stuck. "Skeptic" and "Denier" are not synonyms and don't mean the same thing. That climate change proponents are trying to make them mean the same thing is not relevant. Why are climate change proponents so adamant about making them the same? What is a "proper sceptic"? I find that terminology quite demeaning to say the least. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to like RSs that verify the terms are conflated, but casting ad hominem aspersions isn't effective rebuttal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
What ad hom? Also, Bill Nye is not a scientist nor is he a linguist and hardly in any position to redefine the meaning of a word. Arzel (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If that ambiguous remark was not directed at other wikipedia eds, then I apologize. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question: A proper sceptic is someone who is sceptic. A pseudo-sceptic is someone who easily believes even quite implausible claims that conform to his existing worldview, but shows high levels of disbelief even in the face of evidence about claims that conflict with his existing worldview. Many deniers are not at all sceptic, but like to claim the label - i.e. they are conflating the two terms. But since you seem to be interested in clear terminology: Is a climate change proponent someone who is in favour of releasing more CO2 to make for a warmer and greener world? Or do you use that term to refer to people in agreement with mainstream climate science? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A proponent is someone who accepts the IPCC as truth. Since anyone that disagrees with the IPCC is called a denier, the proponent must be the opposite. The definition of a denier is someone who refuses to believe a known truth. So is is possible for someone that is skeptical of the IPCC to be a "proper skeptic" or are the all labeled a pseudo-skeptic (denier)? Arzel (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Given something like 3000 pages in AR5 I dare say there's plenty to disagree with without denying that the place is warming or that we're responsible for most of it or that there are good Reasons for concern. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy:@Arzel: We really need to stick to the sources here, and not skewed Wikipedia editor interpretations and contrivances.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Peer reviewed scientific papers are the best source for scientific results. The issue of whether Watts is a "sceptic" or "denier" is not a scientific result. So scientific papers are not the best source for this question. Indeed, given the scientific consensus different than Watts' view, such papers are likely to introduce a bias to the question which would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. The best sources for this question are media reports. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the logic of that assertion is clearly flawed, particularly the point about bias and NPOV.
Scientists (particularly climatologists) are probably the most qualified to assess the information being disseminated on Watt's blog, considering that they are experts on the subject matter of the blog; accordingly, they are obviously the best sources regarding the characterization of the blog and its content. The attempt to prioritize "media reports" over peer-reviewed secondary sources from the relevant technical field contravenes WP:RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Rlendog, I agree, an expert on climatology should not be considered an expert on Watts unless there's evidence that person has studied Watts, and has some qualification for judging Watts's mental state or Watts's motives for blogging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither set of sources are inherently better than the other for the exact type of fact we're debating (i.e., value judgments held by various sources).
We are dealing with value judgments. Rlendog correctly points out that whether Watts is a "denier" or "skeptic" is not a scientific fact, but rather is a value judgment. Unless some other policy/guideline stands in the way, here's how I think NPOV treats value judgments
Article text Voice Assessment
Watts is a skeptic (or denier) Wikivoice Value judgment masquerading as fact; Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200
Watts self-describes as skeptic In line attributed That's a fact, he does indeed self describe that way
An American Academy of Arts and Science report says WUWT denies 'that climate change results from human activity'.

Curtis Brainard, writing in The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication
edited by Anders Hansen, describes Watts' blog as being on the least trusted end of a spectrum of trust, and says it has been "repeatedly criticized by scientists for misleading readers"		 In line attributed These are facts, those sources really do say those things about Watts/WUWT
That said, Rlendog seems to suggest that the AAAS report, being a scientific paper, will have inherent bias compared to corporate-owned profit-driven pop media like Fox News. Since we're dealing here with value judgments, tossing the science lit and keeping the pop media is, uhhhhh..... a dubious approach, which is just as suspect as keeping the science lit and tossing pop media.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: How is including WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the lede a "compromise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my grandmother, but in any case, see why this is not a FRINGE issue in the first place, posted at the fringe noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy, my question was directed at Manul, not you. In any case, WP:NPOV applies to all articles. WP:NPOV outlines three categories of viewpoints:
  1. Majority[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29][30] (All randomly selected)
  2. Significant minority
  3. Insignificant minority/fringe.[31] (Not randomly selected)
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. So, the issue here is how we should deal with the majority viewpoint versus the insignificant minority/fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can make VAGUEWAVES at some holy policy, but what precise sub-sub-sub section lists the criteria that distinguish a significant from an insignificant minority view? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The attempted dismissal of the book by Mann is becoming disruptive, in my opinion.
The revert warring without any attempt to produce compromise language does not show a semblance of collaboration.
The ignoring of discussions (and sources) demonstrating that peer-reviewed publications include denialism within the scope of skepticism, the discussion regarding "source counting", and the ignoring of other, already presented sources is also not helpful. For example, though not exhaustive, PG, I believe, introduced the first and I introduced the second source listed below, while I see that Grant's book has also been mentioned above. Fourth source, the AAAS report, was introduced by N&EG.
  1. Dunlap + McCright, The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society
  2. Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.
  3. Denying Science, John Grant (author)
  4. "Watts Up with That? den[ies] that climate change results from human activity. " Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholser, Science and the Media, Published by American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA 02138; 2010; ISBN#: 0-87724-087-6
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:07, 16:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping on FOC-ing, Ubikwit. I have not completed my off-wiki literature review, so I have not yet advocated for specific article text. I'll get there eventually. Meanwhile, A-Quest-for-Knowledge is attempting to frame the issue, but this is a NO VAGUEWAVE ZONE, so I have asked him to specifically identify the sub-sub-subsection text from policy on which he bases his "insignificant minority" argument. Keep on WP:FOC-ing! I will be done with googlescholar in a day or three, and will then turn to books. You have some interesting ones there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I missed the AAAS report when first posted. I just added that above, too.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I wish everyone would understand that this is about characterizing the blog, not the person. Any discussion involving "denier" is a red herring. I asked for sources that rebutted the last compromise, however none were given. There is not much sense in these abstract discussions without concrete sources. Manul ~ talk 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a reasonable approach, and is the focus of most RS. He describes himself as a "skeptic", however, so if we are going to include that, there appears to be no (policy-based) reason not to include Mann's characterization of him as a "denier", properly attributed, of course. We also need to wikilink to climate change denialism.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Uhhhhh.... does anyone else have trouble reconciling Manul's comment
  • "Any discussion involving "denier" is a red herring" (bold added)
with his article edit that added
  • "[WUWT] is characterized as promoting climate change denialism"? (bold added)
For gods sake please don't tell me one is an adjective describing a man, and the other is part of a predicate adjective describing that man's blog.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BLPGROUP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are few (perhaps zero) BLPs of pseudoscience proponents where it would be OK to write "pseudoscientist" in place of (or in addition to) "work is characterized as pseudoscience". The same principle applies with regard to climate change denialism. Manul ~ talk 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
In my view, without inline attribution slamming the person creates a BLP violation and slamming the person's work without it also creates a BLP violation.
I've started a theoretical abstract thread at BLPN to ask others thoughts. If anyone goes there, please don't do a WP:MULTI by importing the Watts discussion to that how-does-it-work-in-the-abstract thread. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
We include the mainstream reception of fringe content per WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI. Some might call that slamming, others might call it criticism. It is a common misconception that "pseudoscience" is just meant to be derogatory. No, it designates a real category (see the demarcation problem), and its use conveys information to the reader. Similarly for pseudohistory and climate change denialism. The answer to your question, I think, is that we uphold both NPOV and BLP. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting fringe works, BLP or not. The implication that WUWT promotes skepticism in the non-fringe sense is misleading in the extreme. Let's not write a misleading article.
The attribution of "scientists and scholars" (similar to the Menzies article) is fine with me. I was only worried about WP:WEASEL, as I mentioned when I removed it. I agree with the point made elsewhere in this thread that the article shouldn't imply that climate skepticism and climate denialism are actually synonyms, though sources dealing with WUWT treat them as such (explained here). With these changes I believe this last revision is on quite solid ground, and as before I await independent sources that contradict it. Manul ~ talk 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I wish editors would stop edit-warring WP:BLP violations into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're edit warring them back out again, and that is not compelling discussion in an effective way. First someone has to stop the edit warring, apparently via formal complaint or page protection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Our policy on edit-warring provides an exemption on removing WP:BLP violations. There is no exemption on restoring WP:BLP violations. In fact, the burden of proof lies with the editor restoring the contentious content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
I was hoping you'd have an idea for how to get you and Manul politely talking to each other but you appear to be invoking 3RR exemptions instead of dialog ideas. Do either of you guys ever make use of WP:DR ?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
MORE, A 3RR naming you will go something like
NAEG- A Quest for Knowledge was edit warring, diff diff diff
AQFK- I claim exemption for deleting BLP violations
NAEG- The asserted BLP argument is based on AQFK's belief that (A) various sources are insignificant minority viewpoints and (B) that our rules require telling the difference between significant vs insigificant minority viewpoints. He's made a VAGUEWAVE at NPOV/BLP, but I asked him to specify the exact sub-sub-subsection of text that he applied when he cast the sources he doesn't like into the "insignificant" category, and he did not reply.
So, Quest, I'm asking for a second time. On what precise guideline or policy text did you rely when you chose your method of analysis? I mean, to decide a source is an insignificant minority view, you can rely on your own POV, your own OR, or some text from policy/guidelines. So how did you decide your methodology was a good one? Please quote the paragraph(s) or provide sufficiently precise pointer that direct quotation is unneeded. (second explicit request) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge: I see that your edit today effectively restored the article's lead's mention of WUWT to a version before Manul's first edit that Manul said was a "compromise". Thank you. This is real compromise -- not pushing a side, not forcing in something new, retaining the old version in the absence of consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP claim

In this edit relatively new but sophisticated editor ScrapIronIV has asserted that certain text is a BLP violation.

The text he took out stated that Watts' blog

"includes material that is supportive of Watts's disbelief that the human role in global warming is as large as it has been measured to be by the scientific community."

I can't fathom why this would be a BLP problem, because the article also has a verbatim quote Watts' gave to PBS NewsHour

"Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors."

ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs), you can make a WP:VAGUEWAVE at BLP/NPOV but you need to walk us through how you apply the text of those to arrive at your conclusion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See the NPOV Noticeboard here[32]. I am just maintaining consensus as specified. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The thread you cite is just one of a WP:MULTI thread debate that has not yet reached a conclusion, but I'm going to tend to real life for awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will hold off myself for a while while I review the discretionary sanctions on this topic and BLP - I am apparently wading into a minefield, and I'm not experienced enough (or savvy enough) to wend my way through it blindly. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by NewsAndEventsGuy

NewsAndEventsGuy made many changes overnight. Some are "bold", so I've reverted where I noticed problems. Here is discussion. This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming." With the edit summary "Neither source mentions CO2", NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sources. But the mention of CO2 is sourced in the following sentence, and the sources that NewsAndEventsGuy removed were in support of the words skeptical, anthropogenic, etc. Reverted. This edit affected the sentence fragment "In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways" ..." With the edit summary "View of climate change: off topic" NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sentence. It is correct that greenness is not a view of climate change, but the greenness of Anthony Watts is relevant in an article about Anthony Watts. Reverted. This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming." With the edit summary " Source only said watts criticized some analysis,stopped short of text in article" NewsAndEventsGuy removed a citation. But the citation called Anthony Watts a skeptic, and a skeptic has a skeptical view, and it's relevant. Reverted. This edit affected a sentence which indirectly quoted Watts. With the edit summary "View of climate change: wordsmith" NewsAndEventsGuy changed to direct quotes -- but Watts didn't use the exact words inside the quotes. Reverted. This edit affected a sentence fragment "but in 2008 said that he had later changed his thinking after he "learned more about the science and found it to be lacking." With the edit summary "View of climate change: add a step of evolution" NewsAndEventsGuy removed that and added a new statement about what Watts signed in 1997. But the original was directly about Watts's thinking, the changed version was about a group's thinking. Reverted. This edit affected a sentence about what bothers Watts re "policy" and "the actual solution to making a change to our society". With the edit summary "View of climate change: not strictly on point)" NewsAndEventGuy removed that. But, again, this is a view of Anthony Watts that is relevant since his notability has to do with blogging about opposition to climate change mitigation policy. Reverted. This edit adds a new bit. With the edit summary "View of climate change: add the statement about the science" NewsAndEventsGuy quotes the Manhattan Declaration about CO2 and catastrophic climate change. But we already have references to a better source, Watts himself, so this is redundant. Reverted. This edit adds a new bit. With the edit summary "View of climate change: Provide the mainstream context to comply with WP:FRINGE" NewsAndEventsGuy adds sentences and quotes about the IPCC view etc. But NewsAndEventsGuy is surely aware that another editor insists WP:FRINGE goes the other way, in this article which is about Anthony Watts (blogger). Reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Peter Point 1 - deletion of two references Peter wrote
"This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming." With the edit summary "Neither source mentions CO2", NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sources. But the mention of CO2 is sourced in the following sentence, and the sources that NewsAndEventsGuy removed were in support of the words skeptical, anthropogenic, etc. Reverted."
Reply - Classic WP:SYNTH
Re Peter Point 2 - Watts solar panels
"This edit affected the sentence fragment "In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways" ..." With the edit summary "View of climate change: off topic" NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sentence. It is correct that greenness is not a view of climate change, but the greenness of Anthony Watts is relevant in an article about Anthony Watts. Reverted."
Reply - Peter admits he is defending broken WP:MOS formatting instead of following WP:SOFIXIT; A collaborating article-improving editor would instead move the text they know is in the wrong place to an appropriate section, instead of justifying a sweeping revert that restores busted MOS. Reindeer, I understand, eat that stuff but we should not. Peter, where do you think it would fit better?
Re Peter Point 3 - ______
"This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming." With the edit summary " Source only said watts criticized some analysis,stopped short of text in article" NewsAndEventsGuy removed a citation. But the citation called Anthony Watts a skeptic, and a skeptic has a skeptical view, and it's relevant. Reverted."
Reply - Yes the source you restored contains the string of letters s-k-e-p-t-i-c. However, our article text requiring WP:VERIFICATION asserts that he is skeptical "of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming. The source doesn't even mention that. The source only talks about how some data is handled and Peter apparently supplied personal knowledge about the exact subject of which Watts is skeptical. Well, I agree Watts is skeptical of that. But my agreement is based on me applying my knowledge of other sources to this article, because this article does not mention skepticism about global warming overall, much less anthropogenic global warming. Peter's reason 3 is classic WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
Re Peter Point 4 - screwed up quotes
I grant you that one. I put the journalists phrase into Watts' voice. Simply oversight, easily solved. DONTREVERT-FIXIT

placeholder, I don't have time to review the rest now, but I'll add more later)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Re (1): I believe you're objecting solely to the fact that CO2 is mentioned in the first sentence in the paragraph, but the citation saying CO2 is after the second sentence. In that case, would it be okay to put the two sentences together -- "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming; he believes it plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change." -- and having the citations follow both clauses? Re (2): I believe you're objecting to the fact that the section topic is "View of climate change" and greenness is only peripheral to that. In that case, would it be okay to change the section heading to "View of climate change and environmental issues" so that greenness becomes relevant to the section as well as to the article? Re (3): I believe you're objecting to the fact the cited text says "climate change skeptic" and it is WP:SYNTH to suggest he's skeptical of "anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming". In that case, would it be okay to change the sentence to "Watts has expressed skeptical views related to climate change, particularly anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming.", or are all mentions of skeptic / contrarian / denier / denialism / etc. illegitimate unless it's stated in the source in the same sentence that anthropogenic global warming is meant? Re (4): I believe you're objecting to the wording (since your edit summary said "wordsmith") of the sentence beginning "He further avers that what most bothers him about people who say there's lots of global warming is that ...". In that case, would it be okay to change ". He further avers" to ", and"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Watts' solar panels

Let's do the easy one first. If you have an RS that supports contention that he has solar panels because of his views on climate change then show the source. Otherwise, lacking any sources that specifically connect the panels to his views on climate change, then WP:MOS sectioning and layout rules require export of this text to another section. I propose a new one called [[Watts' use of renewable energy]]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing about solar panels in the article. We're talking about the sentence "In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways",[36] mainly to get the United States "disengaged from Middle East Oil."[37]" Right? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right. I knew I'd seen it somewhere, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE edit

Hi folks, in response to comments made at the NPOV board about this article, I announced and then instigated a review and copy edit of this article. 95% of my effort was to move and re-organize existing content. I did add some content to the Infobox and cited it, as well as, I removed one reference and associated piece of content regarding a review of Watts website.

The ref and content was the block quote attributed to Curtis Brainard here[33]. Layout-wise it stuck out like a sore thumb and came across as a bit WP:UNDUE. Plus it doesn't help any that Brainard does have have his own WP article, so he's non-notable as far as the Project is concerned. Plenty of sources seem to bash Watts website, so I didn't think it would be missed.

Otherwise, I primarily worked with what was there. Hopefully there isn't anything drastically appalling with my edits. I have no stake in this and did not know of Watts until the Noticeboard request. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
And now the fun begins... Oy vey... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)/Archive_6&oldid=1235529895"