Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) →Principle of least astonishment: "denialist" per Climate change denial |
DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) →Principle of least astonishment: @Petri Krohn |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
I have reviewed the [http://www.alexlockwood.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/20080912-aje-alex-lockwood.pdf two] [http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/articles/05%20s43%20discussion.pdf sources] linked to above. Both of them clearly label Watts a "denialist" as described in the article currently located at [[Climate change denial]]. There is no need for [[WP:SYN]]thesis to reach this conclusion. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
I have reviewed the [http://www.alexlockwood.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/20080912-aje-alex-lockwood.pdf two] [http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/articles/05%20s43%20discussion.pdf sources] linked to above. Both of them clearly label Watts a "denialist" as described in the article currently located at [[Climate change denial]]. There is no need for [[WP:SYN]]thesis to reach this conclusion. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn|talk]]) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Then you are as wrong as SA, neither call Watts a denialist, and misrepresentation of sources is a serious issue, please don`t do it again. I will also point out that neither of those sources are good enough for a BLP given one is self published. [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 07:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Clarification Requested=== |
===Clarification Requested=== |
Revision as of 07:37, 24 August 2010
Template:Community article probation
Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | |||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Then I support full removal. This is not a RS. Verbal chat 12:48, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 [1]. 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 [2] mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- The link is two rounds up! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Link please. As my search for it shows 3 hits only [2] mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 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)
- 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)
- 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 [1]. 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)
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: [3]. 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 [4] 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)
- 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)
- 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 [4] 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)
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)
- 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)
"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. [5] This does not describe Watts as a denier. [6] 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)
- Yes, absolutely I disagree. For me to make that jump would require that I engage in massive 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)
- Courtney basically canonizes him as such, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- So exactly where does it describe him as a denier? GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly not how I see it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 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)
Assuming for the sake of argument that one non-peer reviewed journal describes him as such, what about the other two? There have to be multiple reliable sources to insert negative information into a BLP - believe me I know, having dealt with that in another article. You do not have the multiple sources required. The other two articles supported the article text as it was already written.
And no, I do not agree. Courtney mentions Watts in passing, and it is possible that the denier label only applied to Climate Audit and not Watts, if you parse the sentence. It does not use precise language. I have no trouble accepting that you acted in good faith as re Courtney, but there is no support in the other two sources for labeling Watts as a "denier." GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a bizarrely close reading, but what do I know? I do think, though, that some measure of description of the guy should go here. I mean, he's famous for not accepting most of the "party line", as it were, in the realm of climate science. That this is not in the lead is, as the section header suggests, astonishing. Shouldn't something be there? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Not Accepting A" is not the same as "Accepting Not A". It's basic logic. "Not accepting" is the definition of sceptic. "Accepting Not A" is denial. Clearly, you aren't accepting the BLP issues. Do you understand the consequences of painting him with this border-line libellous smear? (And yes, that's the way the self-professed sceptics will see it.) Your edit if accepted is likely to be edit-warred on wiki, is certainly not concensus approved, and will get negative coverage off-wiki. Watts corresponds with "respectable scientists" like the NSIDC and solar experts. Your comment will also affect them. Slowjoe17 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I really follow exactly what you are saying, because I've never seen this distinction made as such. Do you have a reliable soruce for "Accepting Not A" is denial and "Not Accepting A" is skepticism? I'd like to read one. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Slowjoe, but there is a difference between a skeptic/sceptic (see definition here) and a denier (see definition here). You basically changed the text from sceptic to denier and provided 3 references that you claimed stated that (and that all 3 were peer-reviewed). The sources do not state that Watts is a denier, and they are not all peer-reviewed. You are attempting to insert negative information into a BLP without having multiple sources to support your change and you misrepresented what the sources did say. It is not proper. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's basic logic. Very often we are taught logic with the situation where only "A" and "Not A" are possible. In this case, it's quite hard to see a difference between denial and scepticism. But if you look at more complicated logical situations, like criminal court cases where proposition A represents "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Then "not A" is the verdict "not guilty" which does not mean "proven innocent". It means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". This cover both "innocent" and "guilty but case not proven". I hope that you are with me so far.
- I'm not sure I really follow exactly what you are saying, because I've never seen this distinction made as such. Do you have a reliable soruce for "Accepting Not A" is denial and "Not Accepting A" is skepticism? I'd like to read one. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Not Accepting A" is not the same as "Accepting Not A". It's basic logic. "Not accepting" is the definition of sceptic. "Accepting Not A" is denial. Clearly, you aren't accepting the BLP issues. Do you understand the consequences of painting him with this border-line libellous smear? (And yes, that's the way the self-professed sceptics will see it.) Your edit if accepted is likely to be edit-warred on wiki, is certainly not concensus approved, and will get negative coverage off-wiki. Watts corresponds with "respectable scientists" like the NSIDC and solar experts. Your comment will also affect them. Slowjoe17 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- If we convert this to Man Made Global Warming, a toy description has that proposition A is "science has proven that man has caused the earth to warm". The proposition "Not A" is "science has not proven that man has caused the earth to warm". Again, this "Not A" covers several positions:
- The earth is not warming. (This is denialism)
- The is warming, but Man has not caused the earth to warm (This is also denialism)
- Man may have caused the earth to warm, but the science has not proven this to the observer's satisfaction
- Scepticism covers all positions, whereas denialism covers only the first two.Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think your basic logic is verifiable in this regard. Sources would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Check out Law of excluded middle. Check out Agnostic. Unfortunately, I can't find an RS which says "SA is mistaken, and here's why."Slowjoe17 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think your basic logic is verifiable in this regard. Sources would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- If we convert this to Man Made Global Warming, a toy description has that proposition A is "science has proven that man has caused the earth to warm". The proposition "Not A" is "science has not proven that man has caused the earth to warm". Again, this "Not A" covers several positions:
I didn't change any text, but I did add text. I would rather not rely on wikitionary, as I'm not sure it's really up to the task I'm asking for. While I take issue with much of the rest of your post, it also doesn't deal with the issue at hand: namely that the lead doesn't explain why Watts is most notable. I'd like a sentence in the lead to describe this. I think the three sources I provided show that he is particularly opposed to climate science and disbelieves much of the standard IPCC assessment points. I imagine linking to global warming denialism which is a redirect to another article with terminology perhaps more to your liking is fine. Piping or using alternative wordings is okay by me, as long as we can come to some agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The issue at hand is your misrepresenting three sources to change the lede from sceptic to denier, a pejorative. And also claiming they were all peer reviewed when that was not the case, the issue here is that you have yet to explain yourself mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TALK is clear that we should discuss ways to improve the article, which is what I'm continuing to do here. I've answered all the concerns you list here already. If you think otherwise, please look for a more appropriate forum in which to discuss it, it really shouldn't be done on this article talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:IAR you have not given a response as to why you misrepresented three sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP either do so or refrain from editing this article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I misrepresented none of the sources, I do not consider denialism if applied to a verified denialist to be a pejorative. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will continue to do so. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Answer this, were in any of those sources were the words Watts the denier or a variation thereof? I can tell you there are none, which means you did in fact misrepresent sources and your failure to acknowledge this leads me to suspect you need to be reported for it to ensure this does not happen again with a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The sources are adequate for this. Whether that's the consensus text to go in here is another matter. I did not "misrepresent" sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Answer this, were in any of those sources were the words Watts the denier or a variation thereof? I can tell you there are none, which means you did in fact misrepresent sources and your failure to acknowledge this leads me to suspect you need to be reported for it to ensure this does not happen again with a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I misrepresented none of the sources, I do not consider denialism if applied to a verified denialist to be a pejorative. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will continue to do so. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:IAR you have not given a response as to why you misrepresented three sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP either do so or refrain from editing this article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TALK is clear that we should discuss ways to improve the article, which is what I'm continuing to do here. I've answered all the concerns you list here already. If you think otherwise, please look for a more appropriate forum in which to discuss it, it really shouldn't be done on this article talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed the two sources linked to above. Both of them clearly label Watts a "denialist" as described in the article currently located at Climate change denial. There is no need for WP:SYNthesis to reach this conclusion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Then you are as wrong as SA, neither call Watts a denialist, and misrepresentation of sources is a serious issue, please don`t do it again. I will also point out that neither of those sources are good enough for a BLP given one is self published. mark nutley (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification Requested
SA, please clarify why you a) misrepresented three sources as peer-reviewed when they were not; and b) why you misrepresented the term skeptic/sceptic in the sources as denier/denialist. If you don't want to address this further, than I won't push it, but if you continue argue that it is appropriate without addressing the issue, or if you try and insert negative WP:BLP information into this article in violation of policy, I will seek sanctions. GregJackP Boomer! 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- a) I didn't, the sources are peer-reviewed. b) I didn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Fuel for Thought
The following are all I get with a Ctrl + F for "Watts" from Fuel for Thought:
- On the popular skeptic site “Watts Up With That,” Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a “waste of more taxpayer money” and charged that it is nothing more than a “fast track press release service.” He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of “floods that didn’t happen” in an earlier NOAA report.”
- Dr. Indur M. Goklany, who has worked with the IPCC as an author, U.S. delegate, and reviewer, former analyst with the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the author of a book and numerous scholarly papers on climate change, posted annotations to Jones’s BBC interview at WattsUpWithThat, as follows:
- The reports from Joseph D’Aleo and E. Michael Smith on John Coleman’s TV special were of great use in addressing the NOAA and NASA datasets. The January 29, 2010 study by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, Surface Temperature records: Policy Driven Deception?, was invaluable in arguing that, contrary to its claims, EPA has no scientifically verifiable dataset on which to base its Endangerment Finding. What type of scientific organizations would change part of its historic dataset 16 times in two and one half years as NASA did?
I am confused as to how that supports the claim that Watts is a denialist. Could you please explain, ScienceApologist? If I am mistaken and you didn't actually state that or mean to state that, could you please clarify as to what you meant to say? NW (Talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unlike others in this debate, I don't see global warming denialism and global warming skepticism as being different things. Neither does Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked and the skepticism article was redirected, by WMC, based on a consensus of 3 or 4 people in a 24 hour period. Not nearly enough time for consensus to form. I've reverted, based on the last comment in the discussion, and will start working on the article. The two are different. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. If it is the same thing, why did you need to change it back to denialist from skeptic? GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was the name of the Wikipedia article, wasn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. If it is the same thing, why did you need to change it back to denialist from skeptic? GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was the name of the article it linked to. I don't think there is anything different between the two. I reverted because I thought the person who changed the wording erroneously believed there was a distinction when there wasn't one and our article goes by the title "denialism". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for Amendment of ArbCom Case
I have filed a request for sanctions here, for anyone that is interested in commenting. GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate
I think the lead should describe this person for what he's most notable for. Can other editors help workshop content to that effect with me? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It already does mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't explain what his position or that of his blog is:
- Anthony Watts is an American broadcast meteorologist (AMS seal holder, retired),[1] editor of the blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT),[2] owner of the weather graphics company ItWorks, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project that documents the siting of weather stations across the United States.
- I think we should be clear that he has a particular ideological bent. He doesn't seem to be shy about it letting it be known, why should we be shy about it? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It says quite clearly in the section about his blog that is has a focus on climate change from a sceptical perspective. What more do you want? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would like the WP:LEAD to summarize the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- It says quite clearly in the section about his blog that is has a focus on climate change from a sceptical perspective. What more do you want? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should be clear that he has a particular ideological bent. He doesn't seem to be shy about it letting it be known, why should we be shy about it? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Using my reliable sources search engine, I got the following number of hits for these search terms:
"Anthony Watts" meteorologist 59
"Anthony Watts" skeptic OR sceptic 54
"Anthony Watts" weatherman 48
"Anthony Watts" denier 46
"Anthony Watts" denialist 42
"Anthony Watts" denier OR denialist 40
"Anthony Watts" blogger 38 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is an entire section for his scepticism, any more would be overkill mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- According to WP:LEAD, we should summarize the article in the lead. If there's an entire section, couldn't we have at least one sentence in the lead? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist: Sure, I think a mention of this in the lead is warranted, but the most commonly used term by reliable sources appears to be "skeptic", not "denier". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- ScienceApologist: Sure, I think a mention of this in the lead is warranted, but the most commonly used term by reliable sources appears to be "skeptic", not "denier". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- According to WP:LEAD, we should summarize the article in the lead. If there's an entire section, couldn't we have at least one sentence in the lead? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Removed content
Please discuss at Talk:Watts_Up_With_That?#Virginia_Heffernan. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)