Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RfC: How should this page be disambiguated?

How should this page be disambiguated? --GoRight (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion found here, here, here, and here. If you wish to comment please do so in the section provided below to keep the !Votes clean.

!Voting

Please weigh in with your opinion on the best option with your opinion on the following options for disambiguating this page by including your !vote below (capitalization will be adjusted to meet style norms, as appropriate):


1) (blogger)

2) (meteorologist)

3) (former television meteorologist)

4) (broadcast meteorologist)

5) (weatherman)

6) (weather presenter)

7) Other. Please specify your suggestion next to your name.

7.1) AMS Television Seal Holder

Since the term "meteorologist" is at least somewhat controversial applied to someone without a science degree, AMS Television Seal Holder, with a link to the appropriate AMS page, seems ideal. It's more accurate and precise. Gmb92 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But, as far as I can tell, he's not researching climate. Even assuming good faith about his work, he is researching the US weather station network, not climate. Also, I cannot remember any source calling him a climate researcher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
What I'm trying to do is approach the subject as if I were someone coming to Wikipedia in need of being "disambiguated." If I've heard of Watts, its not because he is a broadcaster--I've heard of him in relation to his being involved in the climate change debate. His sites are very specific to climate change and the research he's done (even if it's not your particular flavor of climate research) is specific to that end (as William Connolley has pointed out above, "The entire point of [Watts'] project, and why anyone cares about it, is the relation to GW."). He's certainly understood to be a meteorologist as well (what formal science training qualified him the AMS seal, I do not know, only that it appears to be required), but since there was some discomfort with that I thought this might be a way to avoid it. And that is the purpose of disambiguation, after all--it's to help those trying to track down the correct Anthony. I have no problem with "meteorologist". --John G. Miles (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Afaik, no training was required for the previous incarnation of the AMS seal - that is something that subsequent versions have corrected. But, that aside, your argument makes rather little sense, as Watts is known for climate change not for meteorology. Climate science != meteorology. The base trouble about meteorologist is that it implies formal training, something which Watts apparently doesn't have (or at least no documentation of such can be found). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You missed my point completely. I'm not equating meteorology with climate—I'm pointing out what those who are coming to Wikipedia would equate with Anthony Watts in trying to track down information (it is an encyclopedia and this is the disambiguation part). As for the AMS seal of approval, it states that "offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards" is what was required [2]. Whatever evidence he presented evidently satisfied the AMS. That was my only point. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No, i didn't miss your point. If you go by that btw. then blog is the most likely thing that people coming to WP would equate with Anthony Watts - certainly not meteorology though perhaps climate. The AMS seal before 2005 had no such requirement (education). That is the reason that it isn't being given out anymore, and that the "new" CBM certificate was launched (which requires education (degree in meteorology, written exam etc).[3] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim, you don't have to debate everything. It was just a suggestion in an effort to be constructive. You evidently don't like it. Do you want the last word? Feel free to take it; I don't specialize in minutia (or hostility). --John G. Miles (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

7.2) No disambiguation term (added by Q Science (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

This disagreement started because someone simply decided one day to change the page name without any discussion at all. The best approach would be to return to the old consensus - no disambiguation term.

RFC Comments

  • I hope it's clear that all these disambiguation terms should be in lower case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    Fixed. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is set up as a majority poll. If we do this to find consensus, it should use support !voting (i.e. !vote for all acceptable alternatives). This would also get rid of the "let's put in the one option I want and 45 other mostly equivalent ones to split the opposing vote" effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    If there is a style of voting that has a precedent on Wikipedia which you believe is more appropriate and not likely to dissolve into utter chaos I have no objections to your making the necessary adjustments as I am unfamiliar with it. --GoRight (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    Simply change "with your opinion on the best option" to "with your opinion on the following options". As for precedent: That's how we select Arbs (or really anybody). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    If there are other serious options that I have missed, please add them as you see fit. Beyond that let's simply sit back and let the community have its say. --GoRight (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a list of alternatives with space to vote? Calling voting "!voting" is missing the point of avoiding votes altogether. --TS 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious as to what the difference between a "vote" and "!vote" is. I don't get much time to spend here, so I'm hoping to shortcut having to research the difference. --John G. Miles (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Funny you bring this up. I was wondering the same and I am spending quite some time here. I was always suspecting it is the same thing? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's geek stuff. The "!" character serves as a negation operator in some computer languages. For example, a line of code may have something like "if (x != 3) then" meaning "if x is not equal to 3, then..." So !vote means "not a vote." It's sort of an in-joke, because most of the time it really is a vote, but we're supposed to keep up the pretense that discussions are closed on the merits of the points that are raised instead of straight up-or-down votes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Boris. I was fully aware of what '!=' means in programming languages. But it didn't make any sense to me in this context. Because, as you point out '!vote' eventually is a vote. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we let this thing run for a full month and then decide what it means. I'm not clear on how one decides a "winner" from this mess. You say this is how we select Arbiters and such? Without starting a huge deal over this right now, does anyone want to comment on the current standings and how we should be "scoring" things here? --GoRight (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


The thing is that decision-making on a wiki is best done by discussion which leads to decisions by consensus. Whenever a poll is held it almost always slows things down by forcing people to take sides (voting). So we say "don't vote." So some who people don't understand that voting is the problem vote anyway but call it "not voting" ("!voting") as if that made any difference.
That is very frustrating.
There are actually very few occasions when saying support or oppose is in any way constructive towards making a decision on Wikipedia. --TS 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the sections referenced at the top of the RFC. Further discussion was headed nowhere and was likely to simply result in increased division and animosity. Technically this is not a vote. It is a straw poll to assess community consensus (and from a wider audience than just those involved above) and is non-binding although I expect that on this issue it is likely to carry the day towards determining something that people will be willing to live with. Note also that people are not constrained to "support" and "oppose". They are offering commentary as well. This is merely a structured way to gather that commentary in a digestible format. --GoRight (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As I have said, Wikipedia has long recognised that polls only increase division, and cannot achieve consensus. If discussion is stalling, that last thing you should do is call a poll. Widening the circle of discussion by introducing new people is good, but this isn't the way to go about it.--TS 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
At least the !vote shows us something... That the "blogger" postfix (with "broadcast meteorologist" as a close second) is the least controversial of the choices available - but then that was the status quo, before the poll.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
True, but now we have some real evidence to back that up. Alternatively I would say that if we exclude outliars from each category that "broadcast meteorologist" is the preferred option. I could always go change my !vote on "blogger" to be "unacceptable" if that would help.  :) --GoRight (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see why we should disregard outliers, except if we want to preference one postfix over another. Blogger is according to the !vote barely acceptable to all - while broadcast meteorologist has at least one unacceptable. I don't think that we've come any further than we were before, blogger is still the least controversial choice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"I can't see why we should disregard outliers ..." - I can, to find the best option rather than the barely acceptable one. "broadcast meteorologist" by far exceeds blogger in terms of preference among those voting. A full 2/3 of those voting considered this to be either their first or second choice vs. 3/8 for "blogger" (and even that is a stretch because Stephan had 2 second choices). --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"best" is a subjective thing. I rather doubt if the one who stated "unacceptable" finds it the "best" (i rather think i finds it the opposite). You are now treating this as a "vote" instead of a !vote, the idea is to find consensus - not the optimum, and while i myself prefer the bm postfix, the bl postfix seems to be the consensus version (not optimal, but acceptable to all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing subjective about the expression of first and second choices in this !vote. As you are firmly aware, consensus does NOT require that all parties be in agreement. Indeed, this is rarely the case on global warming pages. If, however, you wish to establish an agreement on the global warming pages which states that all parties must minimally agree on some point before a consensus can be claimed I will be most happy to accommodate you. If not, then the elimination of outliers is perfectly within the prevailing definition of consensus, and in this case specifically there is a clear consensus (2/3 of those voting) that "broadcast meteorologist" is the first or second choice. --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course its subjective. You eliminate the outliers to have a preferred version. Now i'm not saying that it may not be the "correct" choice - but please do not try to cast it as objective. And sorry - i do not agree with your "clear consensus" statement. Final comment: Please try to refrain from your "precedence" statements, they are strawmen, since the issues aren't similar. I've said it before: Argue each case on its own merit - it is very very seldom that cases are alike enough to draw direct parallels. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. I have to say I find it difficult to see what anybody really thinks from this. A couple of years ago I thought we had this voting nonsense cracked, but now it seems to have given rise to "bride of son of daughter of the vote the time forgot", namely "!vote".
A more productive way to address this would have been to ask whether the current name "Anthony Watts (blogger)" is okay. If there were consensus for that then no problem. If not then some people might suggest alternatives, and if we all agreed on one alternative that would be great and we could use that name. What happened here was that a "vote" called for historical reasons a "!vote", took place, and as a result we've got a myriad of pointless alternatives that not many people are that interested in. Some people are even suggesting letting this stupid poll continue for another month, as if that would change anything! All possibility of agreeing to the current name or to an alternative has been sabotaged, unwittingly, by the act of creating this poll. --TS 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"A more productive way to address this would have been to ask whether the current name "Anthony Watts (blogger)" is okay." Read the discussion. Did that. That answer was no, it is not OK, for some set of editors. "If not then some people might suggest alternatives, and if we all agreed on one alternative that would be great and we could use that name." - Read the discussion. Did that. We could not agree on an alternative. We had reached an impasse, a point where there was no clear consensus on anything. So we put the alternatives identified in the discussion into a !vote and sought additional outside input on the matter.
We needed to bring in some additional outside views. An RfC is the obvious way to do that. We only structured it as a !vote to cut to the chase on what people thought of each option. We even left it open ended so that others add additional options if they wanted. The only difference between your "more discussion" option and this !vote is that all of the opinions end up neatly sorted for easy reference. If you want to see what your "more discussion" option would have looked like, simply take all of the opinions expressed above and intermingle them in a random order. I fail to see how that would have helped. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So we put the alternatives identified in the discussion into a !vote and sought additional outside input on the matter. Duh! Read this and try to understand: No matter how many exclamation marks you put in front of it, asking people to vote is not inviting them to a discussion.
This discussion may be stale and in need of new ideas. Again, whether you call it a "vote" or a "!vote" you only guarantee that anyone who comes to the page will be faced with a de facto multiple-choice questionnaire. Thus you constraint the discussion and make it far less likely that a meaningful discussion will occur than you would have if you had just said "What do we do about the apparent lack of local consensus for the name Anthony Watts (blogger)?"
Here's an idea: start again with the above question or (my favorite) "Is the name Anthony Watts (blogger) appropriate for this article?" Get rid of the poll. It's the one thing that's making a decision harder to reach. --TS 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree and decline your suggestion to scrap the poll. In my view this is the one thing that has taken what was becoming a heated argument and turned it into a matter of fact decision. --GoRight (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Might I suggest a compromise in which you keep the poll, but no one is explicitly or implicitly obligated either to participate or to pay any attention to its results? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Now Boris, I have never twisted your arm to participate or pay attention to the results. Please feel free to move on to other things. I can handle the poll and making the required updates to the article!  :) --GoRight (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the informal poll has served a very useful purpose and has made clear that there are two options that seem to be clearly preferred, with the first being "broadcast meteorologist." By summarizing concisely where consensus is pointing, the poll disrupts endless filibustering by those with an interest in maintaining the status quo through endless discussion--a process that has occurred regularly on "hot" topics where one side has a vested interest and point of view they want to enforce. Blanket revert and then talk it to death. In this case, however, complaining after the fact about the outcome of an informal poll is a bit like trying to erase the chalkboard only after one sees the writing on the wall.
I also find it disingenuous to try to limit the options to the only one that a specific individual or group of individuals prefers. Both a "yes" and "no" outcome serve only those who wish to preserve the status quo and works against real progress on the topic. And I don't think there would be any objection regarding the informal poll if those who now complain thought their preferred disambiguation (the status quo) was not clearly in disfavor as reflected there. At this point, any outside party can find a nice summary of where things stand. I understand that may bother some here. --John G. Miles (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

I see that the RFC Bot closed the RFC a few days ago. So we need to decide what the results tell us. There has been some discussion, and disagreement, over how the results should be interpreted. KDP seems to favor "blogger" on the grounds that it has the widest acceptance overall. I favor "broadcast meteorologist" because of those voting there was a clear consensus that this choice was preferred (i.e. 2/3 of those voting indicated this was their 1st or 2nd choice). Are there any suggestions on how to resolve this new disagreement? --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation would be "no consensus to change and no single objection to the current title" -> let's save some work and keep it as it is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As stated above - i agree - there is no objections to the current title, whereas there are exceptions taken to all other titles. Thus no consensus to change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Unless others want to pursue this further I will agree per Stephan's save some work argument. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. We seem to have a late !voter above and his vote appears significant to the interpretation of the results. Given that "blogger" is now on equal footing with "broadcast meteorologist" in terms of over-all acceptability and that "broadcast meteorologist" appears to be the favored term between the two, should we switch to having that as the preferred disambiguation? What do you think, SS and KDP? Is there still an argument to NOT switch? --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Its already closed, so late !votes are irrelevant, and Tillman has had several chances earlier to chime in. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Nah, that's not really an argument. There is no statute of limitations on participation that I am aware off and I know you are aware of WP:CCC. If that's the best argument you can muster I think we should respect the !votes. Previously you were against ignoring !votes, have you changed that position? --GoRight (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course its an argument. You asked for an RfC for a month - and that time has run out, the notices have been removed on the various boards (by the RfC bot). That someone later chimes in. doesn't change the results of the RfC. (you yourself noted that it has been closed). That consensus can change is not the question - of course it can. You can if you want, later start another RfC if you believe that this to be the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The RfC notices have been removed by the BOT but I don't see anything on this page indicating that continued input is not allowed. Do you? Have you changed your position on ignoring !votes? It sounds like you have, and selectively so. Give me a real argument not some made up technicality, please. Why does WP:CCC not apply in this case? It's not like this RfC is ancient history. --GoRight (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I really had intended not to comment anymore on this.... But the relevant question is then: When will it stop? Do we adhere to a moving target then? And No. I am not ignoring CCC (see my comment), it is exactly because of CCC that a "rolling" !vote is worth less than nothing... A !vote RfC will only give you a reasonably useful information when it is limited in time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MonaApe's new lede

MonoApe just changed the lede back to his version; again... I have reverted it to the present, agree version. I invite MonoApe to cast his vote in the above poll. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MonoApe has inserted it a second time. The text MonoApe wants to insert is violation of WP:BLP and I must therefore revert it a second time.

Anthony Watts is a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio, described as a 'Chief Meteorologist' by the radio station but listed as a retired Television Seal Holder by the American Meteorological Society. He publishes the Watts Up With That blog, owns ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and is founder of the SurfaceStations.org project which attempts to document the quality of weather stations.

I am not going to repeat the above discussion; simply advise MonoApe to please respect the consensus above as I revert it a second time.
The agreed text (based on text originally proposed by the respected editor Atmoz) is as follows:

Anthony Watts is a broadcast meteorologist, editor of the science blog, Watts Up With That?, owner of ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, which is devoted to documenting the quality of weather stations around the world. He is currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio.

Kim, what's your opinion of this one? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I support the second version quoted here. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Both are factually correct. None of them break BLP as far as i can see. I'd suggest an amalgamam of both, to address whatever issues that you and MonoApe have. The first version goes over the top, and the second version is too toned down, to the extent of being inaccurate. "around the world" might be the claim, but the reality is that its the US historical network. the chief meteorologist thing is just a fancy title with no background - they could have called him head-honcho and it would have had just as little reality, which is why i think it either should be removed (its not really noteworthy) or addressed. Watts himself describes his state as "former television meteorologist" so i'd suggest that as the title instead of broadcast meteorologist (which is out-of-date as correctly pointed out in the first version). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed an amalgam in the text. The term 'broadcast meteorologist' is the correct generic term that embraces the fact that he has worked both on television and radio. It is thus the more correct wording, and more elegant writing, assuming we agree that fewest number of words to make a point is a fundamental to that. I agree on 'chief meteorologist'. It doesn't need to be in the lede as Watts himself has described his work there as a hobby. Obviously at least some people must see this as an inflation of his qualifications... can't see how myself. I also agree on USHCN rather than "around the world" and have thus changed the text. Is it okay now? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that we are bumping into a semantics issue here. The whole "broadcast meteorologist" vs. "former broadcast meteorologist" is directly analogous to the debate about someone being a "scientist" vs. a "former scientist". I argue that even after someone stops actively publishing they continue to be a "scientist" and that "former scientist" is therefore pejorative. The same can be said for "broadcast meteorologists", or any profession for that matter. I consider "former" to be pejorative, unless you actually mean "retired" in which case you should say "retired". And even in the case of being retired it simply means that you are no longer practicing your profession, NOT that you are no longer a member of that profession. You expertise in a give area does not simply "evaporate" upon retirement.
In the case of Watts, he is still a practicing broadcast meteorologist given that he is still employed as such at a radio station, correct? Or am I wrong about his employment status? Note that "broadcast" is not limited to TV, is it? I am using it to encompass both TV and Radio. --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Watts apparently doesn't agree with you on the first point, since he apparently called himself a former TV meteorologist. On the second point, I agree that since he apparently still works as a broadcast meteorologist, he's remains a broadcast meteorologist even if not for TV Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Not "called himself" but "calls himself" (see here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To revert discussion of NOAA's response to Heartland document, or to include discussion of Heartland document

We would all agree that this article must be formatted in accordance with WP:Criticism. It is implied therein that criticism (reception history) must follow in some way a summary (see WP:SUMMARY) of that which it is being criticised.

However, editors have inserted into the text a reception history for Watts A. 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? based on the the July 6 response to this report by NOAA.

Watts 2009 is, I believe, only a preliminary report of the findings of Watts' surfacestations.org project. Thus the NOAA response must be viewed equally as a preliminary response to a preliminary report.

At any rate, in order to keep this page compliant with Wikipedia policies, we need to either

  1. revert the NOAA response (a good option, since it could be better discussed in the temperature record page; or
  2. insert a summary of the Watts 2009 preliminary findings as well as balance the NOAA material (currently quotes from NOAA are cherry-picked to hide the fact that they have partially agreed with Watts's findings).

My feeling is that (1) is a better option as option and that (2) is going to inevitably inflate the notability of the subject, lead to revert wars and editor conflicts, but inevitably result in a page that both sides can live with. That resultant page will likely promote Watts's preliminary report. It doesn't need to be here.

What are our thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where NOAA partially agreed? I just read their ref given in the article and did not get the feeling that the quotes given here are cherry-picked at all Splette :) How's my driving? 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone briefly summarize the main arguments against including a discussion of Watts actual report here? It is a significant and notable paper and project, both of which are key aspects, although not the only aspects, of the subject's notability. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

=== Merging some content related to this discussion. ===

I have attempted to modify the text to leave the actual meat of the NOAA report in while also including Watts response (duly abbreviated). Please let me know if the result is satisfactory to all. I also incorporated some of the later additions from before I started my edit. Hopefully my merge is acceptable to the author.

On a separate topic, I note that some BOT has come along and reverted a change presumably because of the indicated URL http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ncdc_response-v2.pdf. If you can pardon the pun, Watts up with that? Is that URL on some watch list somewhere, and if so why? --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I was also wondering why the bot did that. No idea... Splette :) How's my driving? 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It's because the Nefarious Global Warming CabalTM has taken control of the Wikimedia servers and deleted all links to virtuous, right-thinking, "real American" websites... Actually, the bot checks for anonymous editors inserting links to certain frequently-abused sites. If an autoconfirmed user adds the same link it'll probably stick. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is sadly what I had suspected all along. I appreciate the honesty here.  :) "certain frequently-abused sites" - That much I understood. But is Watts' site explicitly on the list for some reason, or was this a false hit on some regular expression? I'm just curious. It looks like the bot is using some sort of pattern matching and I suspect it was just a false hit of some sort. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Mystery solved. The revert list for the bot includes wordpress.com, which kind of makes sense, so it seems to be a false hit that wasn't specifically on Watts' page. He was just collateral damage, I guess. --GoRight (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there is no cabal this time... Splette :) How's my driving? 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Splette, regarding your above comments, NOAA response states:

Q. Over the course of time have U.S. weather stations been exposed to local environmental conditions that could unduly influence temperature readings e.g., located close to growing trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.? A. Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. ... Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network (a network of over 1000 long-term weather and climate stations), though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest.

So to me, that suggests, yes, they admit, there is a bit of a problem here. I don't see any mention of this in the article at the moment.
GoRight has asked, does anyone know of a reason why Watts 2009 should not be summarised? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I am willing to summarise as best and neutrally as I can the Watts 2009 findings but I fear it's just going to start a revert war. If I do that the article can not avoid mentioning that 9 out of every 10 American weather station has been found to not meet siting specifications. Quoting Watts 2009 Executive Summary:

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

So do I have in principle support from neutral editors to insert a summary of Watts 2009 findings? The other, very good option, is still to revert the NOAA response, let scientists debate Watts' findings a bit, let history have its say, and then insert Watts 2009 + NOAA. Comments? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any objection to summarise Watts opinions, provided it is clear that they are his opinions. If he publishes them in some peer-reviewed journal then they take on greater weight William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube video...

I have reverted the following new section:

In July 2009 Watts issued a DMCA takedown notice for a Youtube video criticising his work. George Monbiot in The Guardian accused him of censorship. The video was reposted at DeSmogBlog.[1] [2][3]

Aside, Watts is not really doing himself any favours in getting offended by this sort of nonsense... Anyway, the little YouTube video (entitled "Climate Crock of the Week") apart from merely summarising the NOAA response document, adds a gratuitous guilt-by-association connection to Big Tobacco via Heartland (obviously the fact that his document was published by Heartland proves Watts is funded by Big Tobacco...) and also paints Watts as the retarded weatherman from the Will Ferrell film, Anchorman. Watts apparently complained about copyright violations. Now this is all titillating stuff and puerile; can we try to keep Wikipedia out of the gutter. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted twice so can't revert a third time. There is no consensus for inclusion of this negative material, and two editors have reverted. Can I remind Rd232 of WP:PROVEIT. I.e. onus is on the editor including negative material to justify its relevanace and weight. For instance, what is the relevance that it got reposted at a blog? Is that to help the reader find it? Where is the discussion here of Watts side of the story? Alex Harvey (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Relevance of the repost would be to show that the apparent attempt to censor criticism by abusing DMCA failed. Relevance of the material is entirely in the removal - I've not even seen the video. An entire Guardian story about this also seems to go a long way towards showing it merits inclusion. Rd232 talk 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more of an issue of weight and notability. The incident was clearly embarrassing for Watts but is it really notable enough to belong on his Wikipedia entry? In addition, I don't Alex's personal opinion on the video has much relevance either.Gmb92 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Gmb92 on the problems related to WP:WEIGHT. So far only Grandia and Monbiot seem to care. Where's the outrage in the impartial media? I'll also throw in WP:NOTNEWS for good measure. --GoRight (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Have to agree with GoRight here. Particularly given this is a BLP. It's not uncommon that some issue gets some minor attention in or two notable blogs but if these don't get more widespread attention, they don't tend to belong. Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Gmb92, Rd232, apologies by the way for the eruption of my personal opinion of the video into the text. Agreed it wasn't necessary. I'm trying... :) Alex Harvey (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That Watts has been involved with The Heartland Institute might well ring alarm bells; he has been listed as a speaker at two Heartland-organized conferences on climate change, in March and in June this year. That is legitimate comment. The view that Watts is out of his depth on this issue is also legitimate comment. As the Youtube escapade hasn't really attracted much attention, however, I don't consider this to be worth putting into the article yet. Watts probably isn't attracting enough public attention as a person, it's mostly blogs and Youtube. --TS 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Watts' rebuttal to NOAA

I've trimmed and reworded a paragraph on Watt's rebuttal--please check and revert if necessary. My main concern with the original is its undue emphasis on the "out-of-date" data--the author of NOAA's preliminary analysis of course used the data published in Watt's Heartland paper presented the previous month.

Of secondary concern was an unquestioning presentation of the substance of Watts' rebuttal. Watts seems to be picking fault with the very act of attempting to homogenize the data. If that's what he's doing we can report that but it's unclear to me what weight, if any, should be applied to the rebuttal. Presenting it as fact doesn't seem acceptable. --TS 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Watts is a global warming denier

I've reverted a series of four consecutive edits that seem to recast Watts as skeptical only of the mainstream global warming theory ("CO2 as the primary driver of climate change"). This is a false view. Watts has launched a full-on attack on the fact of global warming by alleging or implying that the warming trend is an illusion caused by poorly organized instrumentation. --TS 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some comments (I have returned the edits to their appropriate place):
  • One edit was to distinguish between Climate change and Global warming, very different subject areas (I could cite NASA if you wish, but Wikipedia itself is clear enough). You, in fact, confirm the very purpose of my edit in both your edit comment about "Watts' full-on attack on the evidential basis for global warming" and your section title immediately above. The edits merely make your point for you (not that they need to).
  • The edits are fully consistent with Watts statement, sourced in the article, that he does not reject global warming itself, but states clearly that his surfacestations.org project will "demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2." I added no new information to the article for the specific purpose of maintaining consistency with what is already written there. The edits were for clarity only. Stating you have a particular point of view is not sufficient reason to revert good-faith edits.
I also made several different edits for several different reasons. Wholesale reverting of every edit because of strongly held views might come to be viewed as disruptive editing or tendentious editing, and I strongly suggest you revert each edit on its own merits according to the very different reasons given in the edit summaries for each of those edits.
I would also ask that you adhere to WP:AGF and not revert edits based on motives (which don't exist) that you want to impugn to another editor.
Finally, your revert comment demonstrates a specific POV and an effort to enforce that (even though your reasoning is completely unrelated to the edits at hand) and directly contravenes Wiki's NPOV mandate.
  • My final comment: I was very careful and minimal in editing for accuracy and clarity. If you want to object to those very standard edits, you need to get consensus here before reverting them again. --John G. Miles (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere specifically ignored a request to resolve problem reverts in talk and engaged in another wholesale revert of several separate and very minor edits for reasons unrelated to the original edits--this isn't about being "encyclopedic," it's about accuracy (also, see above discussion). Wholesale reversion of multiple separate edits for separate reasons starts to appear disruptive and tendentious. It also appears that a problem with tag-teaming is beginning to develop for an edit that was carefuly crafted, specifically neutral, and added nothing new to the article but did correct the internal inaccuracies. I will try to engage him on his personal talk page so that the non-issue issue can be resolved here if the problem continues. Is it okay for me to be somewhat dumbfounded as to why this is controversial in the least!? --John G. Miles (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The included links to other Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming also improve the information provided by the article. They also make clear the difference between the two and as to why the edits were necessary for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Miles (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

John, I don't follow all of the above, but can you accept at least that Watts has specifically suggested that, on the American temperature record at least, the record of warming is false and that much of the rise in recorded temperature can be attributed to poor instrumentation? --TS 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully accept that point of view and I was careful to make sure my edits did not dispute or change that fact. To say that Watt thinks "the record [i.e., instrumentation data] of warming" is false isn't to say that he rejects all the warming itself.
The one I think you're discussing here (you can point to which edit, specifically, if I'm wrong) simply changes "climate change" to "global warming" (they are two different things, which the Wikipedia article links make clear). I also agree that Watts objects to CO2 being the primary mover of the warming. My reading of Anthony Watts suggests he supports several theories other than CO2 as contributing to that warming such as galactic cosmic rays and ocean circulation (I believe he's posted on both), which is why I edited the article to reflect that; but, as the quote within the article itself demonstrates, he doesn't reject all warming as being unrelated to CO2--just any significant human contribution (hence the "significant human-induced" edit). The quoted reference specifically states "some" of the warming is due to instrumental bias. I'm just trying to limit claims to what the sources support. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - but Watts is not sceptical of "CO2 as the primary driver", that is in fact not what his blog is about. The major focus is on the instrumental temperature record, and that it (according to Watts) is showing too much warming. He is from a read of his blogs sceptical of all major climate change theories - including CO2/Methane/LULUCF/... Galactic cosmic rays is outside mainstream - and so is any Ocean Circulation "theory" (i place that in scare quotes - since i'm not aware of any science published that states this), he has also supported the Iris hypothesis (also outside mainstream) - in fact the conclusion is: He doesn't support/believe in any major climate change theory. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

John, re your comments about me above, feel free to be as dumbfounded as you like, but don't forget what you wrote in your edit summary, which was (the article) "Isn't abt "encyclopedic" but accuracy". Absolutely not so. Encyclopedic content is always accurate (as opposed to claiming content of an encyclopedia is always accurate). If content is not accurate, it is not encyclopedic. We might quote someone who spouts garbage, but as long as the quote is accurate and verified, then our content is encyclopedic whether or not informed readers disagree with it. So what happened here. I didn't see "a request" so I certainly didn't ignore any. My watchlist popped up an edit to the article, which I checked. It was your edit where you changed "He established a blog Watts Up With That? which mostly presents skeptical climate change news and opinion" to "He established a blog Watts Up With That? which primarily presents news and opinion skeptical of significant human-induced global warming." I noted the very important, fundamental difference.

  1. (the blog) "presents skeptical climate change news and opinion" -- totally neutral
  1. (the blog) "presents news and opinion skeptical of significant human-induced global warming" -- non neutral

Your edit introduced "significant human-induced global warming", and by doing so indicates that it exists. Your edit is not reporting that the subject of the aticle says it exists (or denies it), or quotes him saying so. Instead, with unattributed POV, your edit infers it is Wikipedia's opinion that it exists. Not someone else's, but Wikipedia's. You replaced an accurate NPOV passage with blatant POV so I am going to restore the NPOV version. If you don't agree, then take it to RfC. Re "tag-teaming", is it possible you are a little bit too involved in this article? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Too late, I see it has already been reverted by someone else. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to change the title of this section, which is "Watts is a global warming denier". I specifically intend to distinguish Watts' position from that of reasonable skepticism. --TS 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by User:A Kut Above You

I've removed the following statement from the end of the section on SurfaceStations.org.

Watts would do this by setting "out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly."

The main effect of this introduction seems to be to introduce a personal attack on NASA climate modeller James Hansen.

What Watts' project actually does is attempt to compare the siting and usage of weather stations in the Global Historical Climate Network series against published standards in NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook. We can say that without referencing Watts' own materials--the NOAA's preliminary report describes the process. --TS 06:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

AKAU is a Scibaby sock. RBI. -Atmoz (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Having seen his other edits I wouldn't be at all surprised. He certainly is a persistent soul. --TS 06:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely no question that this is Scibaby. Personally I will no longer revert or report Scibaby socks; doing so has become increasingly controversial, and I don't need the aggro. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a page specifically dealing with the scibaby socks or should I just plod through the sock puppet investigation process for each one? --TS 06:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past they have been handled informally but lately a firestorm of criticism has erupted over that approach. The best course is to file a SPI report on each one. You're less likely to get into trouble that way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is this "firestorm of criticism" erupting? Is there a specific venue? --TS 06:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I suspect Boris is talking about the current AN discussion. I've started blocking and rollbacking Scibaby's on sight and then submitting them directly to a checkuser for verification. I've been previously told to apply WP:DUCK at SPI, and I follow that advice. Applying a process that wastes more admin time than sock time leads to madness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all. This at least looks like a cut-and-dried case, though I did try to give the editor the benefit of the doubt by trying to persuade him to defend his edits. --TS 08:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Watts' involvement with the Heartland Institute

I understand that Watts has attended two of the "climate conferences" held by Heartland Institute this year to organize opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. His report on the surface station project was published under the imprint of the Institute. We should probably cover this association with a right wing political think tank. --TS 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seems relevant. Let's search for some RS SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This document (already in the article as reference "NOAAResponse", refers to Watts' report published by the Heartland Institute:
NOAA (6 July 2009). "Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?" (PDF). Retrieved 8 July 2009.
On the Heartland Institute website itself, the book is offered for free download:
http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html
This conference program for 2008 shows that Watts was a scheduled speaker at the Heartland's First International Conference on Climate Change in 2008:
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceProgram.pdf
This account of Proceedings at the Second Conference on Climate Change in March, 2009, shows that Watts was again a scheduled speaker:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
Heartland held a third conference in June the same year, and again Watts was scheduled to speak:
http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/proceedings.html
--TS 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The book download is relevant but the talks may not be. Lots of people give talks at lots of places. This is only relevant if Watts explicitly endorsed Heartland's views during his talk. I'd give a presentation to the Heartland folks myself if they asked me to (though I won't hold my breath waiting). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think what is missing here is details of Watts' financial connections, if any, to Heartland. Whether speakers receive remuneration is pivotal. Unless we have a reliable source for that I agree that making a lot of the conference appearances isn't on, though it certainly should be mentioned that he spoke at all three conferences. Heartland's connections with oil interests make the conference rather controversial. But I want to wait to see if we have reliable sources on that because this encyclopedia isn't for original research. --TS 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This posting on the well respected RealClimate blog reports that the Heartland Institute were "offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk" at the 2008 conference. --TS 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The honorarium is no big deal. The more important point in the RC post is that Heartland stated their conclusion in advance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favor of leaving this matter out of the article for now. I'm not convinced that we have reliable sources making much of the connection per se. I regard it as highly significant but that's obviously a minority opinion. --TS 17:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

The statement that After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment" is false. It states in the preceding sentence: Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. That's clearly not making any predictions and to state it the way it does now is taking the quote out of context. Soxwon (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When that opinion piece was written, Watts had surveyed taken pictures of 40 out of 1221 stations. Seems to be a small percentage. The rest is a quote. I don't see what could possible be false about it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Another editor has added a tag disputing Watt's WP:notability. I'm surprised this would be disputed: Watt's pioneering of the review of weather-station quality (at http://www.surfacestations.org/) would seem to establish his notability, in my view. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's Watts who is notable, or surfacestations.org. In general I'm opposed to having biographical articles on people of marginal notability -- too much potential for mischief. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that i'm not surprised. Watts may be notable in the very narrow circle of sceptical blogging on climate change, but his impact beyond that is extremely limited. The "pioneering" work doesn't seem to have had much of an impact either, and truth to tell, its nothing but foot-work, not something that you get notability from, unless its widely covered. Personally i'd say its a marginal notability, and limited to the US and climate change alone. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There is an peculiar lack of third-party, reliable sources about Watts, surfacestations.org, and WUWT. I seem to keep having these conversations. Someone should update the notability guidelines to bring policy in line with practice. Notability is established if at least one editor claims the subject is notable. No evidence need be provided. -Atmoz (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Watts in the news media:

  • Daily Telegraph: "Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That blog (see the blog posting on September 4) created an animated graphic showing the DMI's temperature changes over the past 50 years. Far from confirming the hypothetical upward spurt claimed by the Hockey Team's computer, the most remarkable feature of the actual record is that it shows no significant change whatever."
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station."
  • Reno News-Review: "Watts, me worry? Chico meteorologist Anthony Watts has been hailed a hero by Republicans and dubbed a climate-change ‘denier’ by environmentalists." (profile of Watts)
  • Washington Examiner: "Weather stations give flawed temperature data, meteorologist claims" -- commentary re Watts & surfacestations.org

WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Looks like Watts satisfies that requirement.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please ponder upon the word "significant". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I would argue the first isn't reliable, but it doesn't matter because it's not about Watts—it only briefly mentions him. The second is not about Watts either; it briefly mentions him. The third is free, alternative weekly tabloid, and is non-notable, and thus not a reliable source. And the fourth is an opinion piece and clearly not reliable. -Atmoz (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I would counter-argue that the UK Telegraph, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Washington Examiner articles all represent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:N. Reliable third-party news coverage does not appear to exclude opinion pieces published in WP:reliable sources. Please post references to the contrary, if available. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RS#News organizations. -Atmoz (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest then, if people genuinely think the article fails notability requirements, then just nominate it for deletion. Why waste our lives arguing about this? Meanwhile, the "may fail notability" flag on the article is a BLP concern. It is an insult to Mr. Watts. I agree with Boris, I don't like having articles on marginally notable people, and I think Watts falls into this category. Do we seriously think we'll get this article deleted? I doubt it. I am removing the flag again. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
How on earth is the notability flag a BLP concern? Are you serious? If this is the case, then why does the {{bio-notability}} template even exist? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
insert Actually, I didn't notice that the template was specifically reserved for biographies. Well, I guess I think the template shouldn't exist then. Anyhow, I've moved on. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have asked the question at Notability/Noticeboard. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in my opinion Wikipedia shouldn't have entries on marginally notable living people until flagged revisions are implemented. Anyway, in my experience inclusionists currently dominate en.Wikipedia deletion debates. So, if this article were to be nominated for deletion right away, it is likely that the result would be "keep." If, however, the notability noticeboard discussion deems the subject as not-notable, then that might help sway the deletion board regulars. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What about moving this to Surfacestations.org or other suitable title? Most of the content would be kept but there would be fewer WP:BLP implications. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering that "noticeboard" had a grand total of 20 posts before today in its 9 month existence, I don't think a lot of people are watching it, much less know about it. -Atmoz (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(To SBHB) One thing that helps establish the notability of a topic is if it is linked to in other Wikipedia articles. Is Surfacestations.org mentioned in at least one other en.Wikipedia article? If so, then I think that might work. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
One mention, one reference.[4] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies at all pages, not only explicit biography pages. A "merge", which would really just be a "rename" I think, would in fact have the opposite effect, i.e. it would encourage POV pushers & the Watts hate crowd who don't understand BLP as applying in all pages, to add more seriously bad, damaging, libelous material into the Watts biography. Meanwhile, Watts was a 25 year TV meteorologist. His blog is probably the most notable thing. I think this is silly, and I think we're just creating more controversy & more work for ourselves here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Refactor that please. And a question for you. If BLP applies to all pages, why doesn't it apply to your comments about fellow Wikipedia editors? -Atmoz (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)This page is sufficiently watched such that BLP issues should be removed quickely, no matter what the title. I don't think moving it would cause any problems, and could draw attention away from Watts, and onto his work. This article is largely written by people of very opposing opinions, and getting a neutral article under any name will be difficult.Martin451 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Refactor what? It does/should apply to comments about fellow editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
"it would encourage POV pushers & the Watts hate crowd who don't understand BLP as applying in all pages, to add more seriously bad, damaging, libelous material into the Watts biography" is directed at someone. Whom? And why is it appropriate to label someone as part of the "Watts hate crowd"? -Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Martin451, the problem with that proposal is that 'Watts Up With That' is a very popular blog. Far more people would know about Watts from his blog & from his TV career than they would & perhaps ever will from SurfaceStations.org. This proposal doesn't make any sense to me, but as I've said, if people want to delete or merge or rename the page, why can't we just put the proposal out there & see who supports it? (Note, I don't know what the process is for proposing a merge/rename). Alex Harvey (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You cannot just assert that something is notable. You have to show it with reliable third-party sources. You have failed to do so. What does "very popular" mean? Do you have sources that call it very popular? What about sources that say that more people know Watts from his blog and TV career? Without sources to back up your statements, it's just original research. -Atmoz (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Atmoz, I didn't say that you were part of a "Watts hate crowd"; please read it again. I didn't mean that at all. What I meant was, as a watcher of this page, and watcher of the internet climate change debate, it's quite plain that a lot of people hate Watts. Yes, I mean hate. A lot of people hate him. You said a few months back that you agreed that Watts is notable, that you didn't the page should be deleted, and that if you did think the page should be deleted, then you would have nominated it accordingly. So what has changed? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More evidence for Anthony Watts WP:notability

  • 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Science Blog: Anthony Watts, Watts Up with That
  • A Google search for "Anthony Watts" "surface temperature record" [5] gives 150,000 hits
  • A Google search for "Anthony Watts" meteorologist [6] gives 62,000 hits.

C'mon fellows -- Watts is clearly both well-known and WP:notable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1/ Not about Watts. 2/ Blog. 3/ Not about Watts. 4-5/ Please find the sources in your Google searches that establish Watts' notability. -Atmoz (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Watts Up With That. See Blog award: "Among the major blog awards are The Weblog Award"...
2) Blog by a well-known university climatologist, writing in his area of expertise. See WP:SPS: "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Pielke clearly meets these qualifications.
3) NCDC is responding to Watts paper. Watts is cited in references.
I believe all three of these refs are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:N --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Blog awards may give notability to a blog, but not to the author. 2 and 3 are self-published, and not appropriate for a BLP. From WP:SPS, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." -Atmoz (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you added a quote from WP:SPS after I added my previous comment. I also see that either you are a very good selective reader, or your reading comprehension skills are at the kindergarten level. -Atmoz (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Atmoz, we're not adding material to the article -- we're attempting to determine the article's notability. So WP:N governs, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And please remember WP:civility. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


From above:

(EC w/ B) If I thought the page should be deleted, I would have nominated it already. In my opinion, it's the combination of several things that make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest something like the following: Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio, a former television weather presenter, owner of a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, a website devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations. -Atmoz (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyhow I'll be back as soon as someone actually nominates the page for deletion or merge. I think we're wasting time here. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Boris has raised this at BLP/N. I am removing the tag again per WP:BLP and it needs to stay out until there is consensus on the BLP point. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a notability tag is a BLP violation. It just means that there is some dispute as to whether the topic meets Wikipedia's internal guidelines for inclusion. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There is clear consensus that it is not a BLP issue. You're the only one that thinks it is. -Atmoz (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I boldly removed the proposed deletion tag and instead listed it in Articles for Deletion (here). My rationale is that prod is for straightforward, noncontroversial deletions, and in my mind, this one is not. Also, more editors will be aware of it there and perhaps find better sourcing. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other, at least at this time, but thought this was the best way to proceed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for WP:Notability

Arguments claiming "no reliable sources" are hard to understand. I have managed to find around 300 reliable sources since 1980 establishing Watts notability. See here. I'll come back shortly and pick out the best ones... Alex Harvey (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm.... I've picked through the first 3 pages of those, and i have to say that my conclusion is the opposite. (ie. it surprises me how little evidence there is for his notability in those). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I agree with Alex. (Cue someone to agree with KDP.) --GoRight (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You agree that the article should be deleted? You agree that he'll be back "shortly" with some decent sources? Or what? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I held back from !voting until reviewing these, as I said at the AfD, and I didn't find anything that encouraged me to !vote keep. I agree with Kim. (Did I miss my cue? I think I commented on the AfD before Kim posted here :))Verbal chat 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The AfD for this article is a breath of fresh air. I think the article is heading for deletion. I would suggest keeping track of the sources and use them to start an article on Watts' blog or climate tracking project. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I added the second notability tag by accident. I clicked cancel and assumed it worked - should have checked. Thanks. Verbal chat 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Shouldn't the first one go now that AfD resulted in no consensus? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the notability problem is still there - otherwise it wouldn't have been a no-consensus but a keep. The reason for the no-consensus seems to have been all the material added to the AfD... But not to the article - so that would be where to start. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Surfacestations

It is not appropriate to describe what Surfacestations is "NOT", without a good reason (e.g. if it claimed falsely that it was) AND a reliable source indicating such. Surfacestations is "not" many things, should we list them all? No. This is turning into an edit war, please discuss here before continuing. ATren (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. This particular inclusion, like many on related articles has only one purpose: to reduce the perceived credibility of the subject and do so with poorly sourced (and in this case unsourced) innuendo and well poisoning. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a good source for this, and it's not a BLP issue. Verbal chat 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What source describes Surfacestations purposes in the following: "to document and photograph, not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature"? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is an entirely correct description of the project. You may not like that - but it is. Photographing and checking the various stations for their compliance with recommendations is foot-work, not research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources please .... oh thats right you cant find any. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a fact: "Surface stations is not a ball of yarn." That is an entirely true and uncontroversial statement, and yet we don't include it because SS doesn't ever claim to be anything related to yarn, one way or another. I've not seen any evidence that SS claims to publish, nor that it denies publishing, and no reliable source has made these points either. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to include what they don't do. ATren (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
But this fact is also relevant. I suggest people avoid analogies as they're not very good at them. Please stop the silly editwarring. I've just reported BluefieldWV for his part (5 reverts today). Verbal chat 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If its so relevant, you shouldn’t have any problem finding a source for it. No hop to it, go find your source! BluefieldWV (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been reverted probably half a dozen times today, mostly by different editors. I suggest we try RFC to get an outside view. ATren (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it as original research violating NPOV. The material in the article is in no way an accurate summary of what is actually in the source. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it should be removed, not tagged. There is no way this statement is ever going to be properly sourced, because it is almost certainly an untrue statement. This is Jimmy Wales view of the matter:

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Alex Harvey (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I tagged it rather to identify the problem within the article while there is an ongoing dispute.
If the discussions continue without a policy-backed reason for including the material, or a very good and compelling argument to WP:IAR, then the material should be removed.
I suspect this information has been used as an attack on Watts by his critics. If so, then it should be remove immediately per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I stopped in after seeing this on the BLP noticeboard. The addition may not be a BLP issue, but it is almost certainly not neutral. I've had to battle tendentious editors on this kind of thing before, and it just shouldn't be put into an article unless a source is found that specifically says what is claimed. As it stands now, stating his specific goals is OK, but extrapolating what his goals aren't based on omissions is not. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. For future reference, I'm copying the material below. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of SurfaceStations.org is to document and photograph, not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature.

Move to surfacestations

As the notability of this BLP hasn't been established, the recent AfD was no consensus, and the sources mostly deal with his websites, why not rename and refocus this article to be about those instead, which have many more WP:RS (see the AfD). This would address quite a few of the current issues. Verbal chat 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I like keeping it as a BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It would still be covered by BLP policy, but it would address the notability issues and coatracking of his website. Make it about his website, and these issues disappear. Left as a non-notable biography, unless he does something notable in the meantime, it'll probably be deleted at the next AfD. Verbal chat 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
when you put it that way .... I would have to hear some more input. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Given the current state of the article and the AfD, I think this is a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

the deleted references to Watts' blog and Surfacestations home page

It seems that I have been overruled to restore links in this article to Anthony Watts' blog and to the Surfacestations.org home page.

Here are the BLPs of other bloggers in the climate change debate.

I leave it as a challenge for others to find me even one single climate change blogger whose blog and pages are not linked in the Wikipedia articles. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The links to the blog and surface stations were already included in the article, so they don't need to be in external links. However there is more than one way to skin a cat. Martin451 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you referring to references or external links? In regard to their inclusion as external links:
I'd rather just follow WP:EL closely. Is there any discussion about the validity of the links in those articles?
This article is about the person. External links to pages about the person are appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an RfC to do with this at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#RfC_on_official_links. These two sites are connected with Watts and are coverered by
The original two-part definition was this: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
So the links should be included either in the external links section, or in the info box. Martin451 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for these references to the policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Also see WP:ELOFFICIAL. Clearcut policy. Why on earth did this become controversial here? --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It became controversial because Alex added links inline when they were already in the external links section.[7] Note that this is not in line with WP:ELOFFICIAL, but I don't have strong opinions on whether they are linked inline or in a EL section. So I thought I was being nice by removing the links in the EL section.[8] There is no need to link to them twice in the same article. As it turns out, I probably should have not been nice and just reverted Alex's edits. -Atmoz (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The links should (obviously) be in the external links section - because that is where people would expect to find them, and that is where they are for the other people listed above. The box on this page serves no purpose at all and should be deleted. Poujeaux (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Poujeaux. Not enough info (at present) to justify this very sparse infobox, which just looks silly. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing reference

I tracked down the missing reference, Atmoz deleted it September 27, 2009 and added a tag saying that a reference was necessary. Q Science (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Words to avoid

Stephan Schulz, you have reverted my effort to reword the following sentence: "Watts issued a rebuttal in which he argued that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which he claims accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[12][13]"

Your edit summary asked me to read WP:CLAIM again, which I did. I then arrived at the same conclusion, viz. that "claim" here is being used improperly here to cast doubt on Watts' assertion. It should therefore be reworded neutrally per WP:AVOID. What is your concern here, i.e. why do you feel the text needs to present this as a "claim"? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about your change from "argues" to "states". Watts is a retired weather man, not a RS on facts on climate change. NOAA, on the other hand, is. There is no symmetry here, and we should not pretend that there is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Kevin Grandia, Huffington Post, 27 July 2009, Video Debunking Climate Change Denier Removed by YouTube
  2. ^ George Monbiot, the Guardian, 1 August 2009, Climate change deniers claim they're censored. What hypocrites
  3. ^ Kevin Grandia, DeSmogBlog, 28 July 2009, Climate Crock of the Week: What's Up with Anthony Watts [take 2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)/Archive_2&oldid=1136523567"