Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

WP:BLP violations removed.

I've removed the following the following WP:BLP violation here.[1] According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say?

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar Totals:

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

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

What makes you believe that "denier" is such a contentious term, and how does this support the enormous amount of content you've removed from the article that isn't the word 'denier'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Denier is not a contentious term, it is an accurate one. He denies the scientific consensus on climate change. That is a fact. I consider your attempts to not explicitly display that fact to be POV-pushing of one of the strongest types. You should not be allowed to be anywhere near this article with your clear partisanship on the subject. SilverserenC 03:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It is most certainly a contentious term, one redolent of holocaust denial, as has been often discussed both here and in the world at large. Please focus on content and not personalities. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The Holocaust is the Holocaust. If someone denies an event or a subject, they are a denier for that topic. That's what the word itself literally means. SilverserenC 04:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and it is also a contentious term when applied to an individual. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed, but as a tertiary source, we can't use primary sources to determine whether someone is a Holocaust denier, we have to rely on secondary sources; that's what an encyclopedia is. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a reverse reductio ad Hitlerum in a new form, based on a faulty argument and faked taking of offence. "Denial" is a normal English word that fills a useful function [2]. It's been in use long before the Holocaust, and long before Holocaust denial [3]. It's use in the phrase "Holocaust denier" barely registers compared to overall use of the word[4]. "Compare "You can't call me a vegetarian - don't you know they called Hitler a vegetarian?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Keep in mind, QFK, that it is your opinion that certain edits are to enforce WP:NPOV. I believe it could be reasonably read that what you're saying is that anybody who perceives certain edits you advocate being non-neutral is insane. Please tone down your rhetoric. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable for editors to have good-faith disagreements about a dispute. However, that's not what Silver seren said. Instead, they called it "POV-pushing of one of the strongest types". That accusation is not simply highly offensive and a violation of WP:AGF, it's factually wrong. Silver seren is normally pretty level headed and I'm surprised they would make such an accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's acceptable for editors to have good-faith disagreements. It's not acceptable to use specious accusations of BLP violations to remove well-sourced material from an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is it specious? Claiming that is it does not make it so. Can you please explain? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what "well-sourced material" was removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge removed unsourced material about Heartland (at least, I can't find backing in the cited source), and removed undue material about Mann from the lead, but not from the article -- it's still in the section about blogging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian article states,
  1. blogger Anthony Watts was paid $44,000 by the Heartland Institute for a project on temperature data (photo caption)
  2. The documents state (pdf) that in January his company ItWorks/IntelliWeather was paid $44,000 to "create a new website devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public". A total of $88,000 (pdf) is expected to be handed to Watts for the project by the end of 2012. Link to confidential "Proposed Budget" for 2012
  3. We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.(quoting from Heartland's "2012 Climate Strategy" document)
    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
We know what it says. Is any more proof needed that A Quest For Knowledge was correct to remove the unsourced statement that WUWT is a "commentary blog created in 2006 - and for which he has received funding from the Heartland Institute"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Ubikwit: Edits adding a quote in the lead for "climate change denial blog" have been opposed by (at least): A Quest For Knowledge, Capitalismojo, and me. Your claim about consensus is incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And how many editors support inclusion of the material?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Inclusion in the lead?
One can only guess, and apologies to anyone I might wrongly include based on what I see as an edit restoring the Mann quote in the lead: Ubikwit, Nomoskedasticity, Stephan Schulz, JzG, Joel B. Lewis, jps, Akhilleus. Is there a claim that seven to three is consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The silence is deafening

I've reverted the clear and obvious WP:BLP violation.[5] Despite repeated requests, no one has even bothered attempting to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. The reality is that this is rarely used by reliable sources. Seriously, enough is enough. If there is a legitimate argument for a minority/fringe viewpoint in the lede, why won't anyone provide one? The silence remains deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

An attributed opinion by an expert commentator in a book published by a major university press may be all kinds of thing, but neither is it a BLP violation not a fringe viewpoint. Can you decide on "minority" (which should be in the article) and fringe (which should be so rare that we cannot name well-known proponents)? I get the hopefully mistaken impression that you try to conflate the two concepts so that you can use policies about fringe viewpoints to suppress what you think is a minority viewpoint (it isn't, but that's a different discussion). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree it's a WP:BLP violation because I'm in the minority saying Mann is a poor source for labelling Watts and his blog. But in any case, since it's true that reliable sources prefer less pejorative terms, putting Mann's name-calling in the lead is (using a WP:BLP word) "disproportionate" as well as a WP:UNDUE violation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That seems to gloss over the fact that "climate change skepticism" means "climate change denialism" in common parlance; in other words, that comment glosses over the apparent attempt to conflate the usage of the term skepticism as meaning denialism with respect to climate change discourse with the usage of the term in the sense of scientific skepticism.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
But this has been stated in other ways already here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: That sounds like WP:OR. Can you cite some reliable sources which specifically state that "climate change skepticism" means "climate change denialism" in regards to Anthony Watts? I'm not aware of any such sources, but you can easily prove me wrong by providing such sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Workshop a sentence

We currently have a pretty weird sentence this article:


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

Thoughts?

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

The sentence is true -- every one of the cited sources calls WUWT a skeptic blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The third source is misquoted, as it says "Watts' climate skeptical blog". I agree that it is a quote mine without adequate context; obviously, "climate" should be included, as that is what all of the articles are about.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The first time that I gathered somebody was objecting that a source said "skeptical" rather than "skeptic", I changed the text to ["skeptic" or "skeptical". That turned out to be a misunderstanding, but here's the objection again, so I've redone that change. The fact that most reliable sources call the blog "skeptic" or "skeptical" is relevant and important, as we have discussed before on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think these sources are trying to say that Watts is writing a blog that is promoting scientific skepticism? Because that's how the sentence reads to me. jps (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
So is there a way for us to rewrite the sentence to avoid this unintended meaning? jps (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It requires contortions to read it that way. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily, and "climate skepticism" is the overall import given the context, so other alternatives include "climate skeptic blog", "climate change skeptic blog", or "blog skeptical of climate change", etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Well, we need editors to stop advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article. We need to resolve that, otherwise it's difficult to move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather than complaining over semantic arguments, please just try to write some prose which actually communicate something to the reader. jps (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that this is simply a matter of semantics. But if you think it is, how about you backing off your insistence that Watts be described as a "denier" in the lede? I'm perfectly fine with it being in the body, but by putting it in the lede, we are portraying a minority/fringe POV as mainstream. If you're willing to back off from this, then we can move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You obviously haven't understood my position at all, and I'm not interested in changing subjects. We disagree on some fundamental editorial stances and your argumentative insistence on turning WP:FRINGE on its head is simply baiting. It's not very becoming. If you don't want to talk about this sentence, feel free to stop contributing to this section of the talkpage. jps (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
How about something like, "WUWT is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

That seems fine. Some wordsmithing might be in order, perhaps replacing "rejects" with "opposing" but otherwise seems fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too fond of "reject" either. "Opposing" is also problematic. Basically, it's a pick-and-choose operation over there and that's what a lot of the sources for the sentence are getting at. Certain conclusions they seem to agree to and then in other posts they reject those conclusions. The general editorial bent is to criticize, but not in a necessarily consistent way. How do you put that in a single word? jps (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
How about, "WUWT hosts content which is critical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming"? Would that work? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's getting there (certainly better than what we currently have) but it would be nice if it was a bit more descriptive than just "critical". HOW is it critical? The sources we use describe that a) SciAm says it tends to make declarations with which climate scientists disagree, b) WaPo simply labels it "conservative", c) Schneider says it uses outdated graphs. The final four sources are not particularly good ones (I think they probably should be removed from the article, but let's wait on that discussion until after we get the sentence right). jps (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That would not work. We currently have a true statement that is definitely supported by every one of the cited sources. We should not replace it with it with a speculation that might arguably be supported by some of the cited sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You have to be more specific. What exactly is speculative about AQFK's proposal? jps (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Another possible alternative: "...as a "skeptic blog" that hosts content challenging/questioning the scientific consensus on climate change".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's already stated in the preceding sentence that the blog "hosts material presented by Watts in support of his belief that the human role in global warming is insignificant", with a citation (i.e. there apparently is a source for that). It would be speculative to add material in this sentence based on what its cited sources probably mean, rather than just what the sources say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

@jps: Sorry, I've been offline the last couple days and lost track of the discussion. However, I agree with your suggestion that that article explain "HOW is it critical?" Can you think of a good example? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the first three sources do a pretty good job of illustrating the issues: that climate scientists disagree with the claims made in the blog, that the blog takes a conservative political perspective, and that the blog has presented outdated graphs as though they were correct. These are particular criticisms that these sources make of the blog which can elucidate exactly how WUWT is critical of scientific consensus. Can we write a sentence that will incorporate these points? I'd be happy if we could. jps (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
jps: I'm not as willing as you to dismiss truth or relevance, but let's just look at the cited sources for the sentence 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog': three academic-press publishers (transcript Verlag, Palgrave Macmillan, Elsevier), one magazine (Scientific American), and four mainstream media (Washington Post, Times Online, Orange County Register, Fox News). Every one fits the reliable-source criteria for cases like this, and every one is verifiable online, and every one does what the sentence says: characterizes WUWT as "skeptic". I'll have to listen to real explanations why people think they cannot be accepted, but there's no support for your claim they're not "reliable enough", and no support for your claims about my purpose for saying the sentence belongs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Peter, why does it feel to me like you haven't read this thread? The entire section is devoted to explaining why the sentence, in particular, is problematic. As for the sources, some are good and some are pretty weak. As you pointed out, the previous sentence basically says what we want to say, so I'm unclear why you think this sentence is so important except that maybe you think it's important to identify the blog as "skeptic" (even though it's not "skeptical" in the sense of scientific skepticism).jps (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
jps, This thread is devoted to your constant attempts to suppress the fact that the sentence expresses: 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog'. I will disregard your claim that I pointed out that the previous sentence says what we want to say, since that's false. What remains is your claim that some of the sources for the sentence should be regarded as poor. Do you have any evidence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

In answer to your question, WP:RSN has generally found the Weekly Standard to be RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess you're objecting to the Orange County Register republishing from a lower-prestige source. Okay, I removed the Orange County Register reference when replacing the sentence in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue is quite simple: the Orwellian use of words by the right in US politics. It is not a skeptical blog (those are written by skeptics, people like Michael Shermer). Climate skeptic is the technically correct portmanteau term referenced in these sources, but climate skeptic is semantically equivalent to climate change denier. I don't have a problem with using the term climate skeptic as long as it's linked ot the article on climate change denial, or balanced by a reality-based commentary demonstrating that the blog is indeed denialist not skeptical in the scientific sense. What Wikipedia doesn't do, per WP:FRINGE, is pretend that wilful contrarianism is the same thing as legitimate scientific skepticism. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately for that argument, the RS support the term "skeptical". (Scientific American, Washington Post, etc...) The theory that it is not a "skeptical" blog is , I gather, an ideological position not supported in the refs above, nor is the use of denialist supported by WP:WTW. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. The topic of this thread is a particular sentence that cites several reliable sources saying "skeptic", and jps's claim that some of those sources are not "reliable enough". I addressed the specific matter that jps wanted to argue about. If there are other complaints that are on topic, I hope they too can be addressed here on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This article is not about climate change and the cite from Fox News is not describing climate change. This article is about Anthony Watts (blogger) and the cite from Fox News is describing the blog of Anthony Watts: "... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims, told FoxNews.com". That is used in support of the sentence: 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog.' The appropriate question, then, is: "is Fox a reliable source for the statement that sources, such as Fox, said that WUWT is a skeptic blog?" I hope that's obvious. The eight cites could have been expanded uncontroversially to "A says that WUWT is skeptic, B says that WUWT is skeptic, C says that WUWT is skeptic, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.". But that's too long. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What's to make us think that FoxNews is able to adequately evaluate whether WUWT is a "skeptic blog" or a "denialist blog" or a "pseudoscience blog", etc? Why is their choice of wording relevant to this biography when we know they are typically unreliable in their factchecking? jps (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Your claims about what "we" think are false, but I'll guess that this is a worry whether Fox News is RS, I checked WP:NEWSORG and yes, since it's in the category "well-established news outlets". Checking whether that's ever been overridden, I went to WP:RSN, looked for Fox News in the section heading, and found this, this, [6], this, this, this -- which showed it hasn't been. If you want to start yet another "Fox News Reliable?" thread, go to WP:RSN. Meanwhile there is inadequate excuse to destroy a sentence because you don't like one of its many sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is a simple one: Is FoxNews liable to promote climate change denialism? The answer is unequivocally, "yes". Therefore the source is impeached as reliable for a general description. It can only be used as a source for the editorial bent of FoxNews. jps (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what Fox's biases might be, but I also don't know whether one can "impeach" any source that has a bias. Surely that would apply to most of the sources on this article, including Michael Mann, Anthony Watts, John Cook, Wizbang, George Monbiot, KPAY-AM (a Fox affiliate) ... so almost everything would have to be erased if you were right. Luckily, though, there's no policy saying one must erase any statement that refers to a source that arguably is biased. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

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

Capitalismojo: I wasn't aware that WP:RSN had discussed The Weekly Standard -- it's clear now that there was no good reason to remove the cite, but I thought addressing jps's complaint would avoid further arguing (I was wrong). jps: it would be correct to say that I have stated that Watts's blog should be described as a skeptic blog because that is what the majority of sources say; however, this sentence doesn't describe Watts's blog as a skeptic blog. It merely says that sources call it a skeptic blog. Fox is one of them and Fox is an RS. As for "FoxNews will not objectively evaluate Watts' blog for the purposes we need" -- they probably are not objective, but who's "we"? Some elite group of objective but purposeful Wikipedia evaluators? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It conflates, by decontextualizing the attribution, the use of the term "climate change skepticism" with "scientific skepticism", which, as has been pointed out by numerous editors, is not a policy compliant statement. Accordingly, there is sound reasoning for removing the statement.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is in the sentence or the sourced quotes or Watts's statements or this article with that term "scientific skepticism". It's unsound reasoning to claim that an edit is justified on the basis of a phrase that's not there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You lack consensus for including this sentence. All you are doing now is POV-pushing. jps (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Since in effect WP:NOCONSENSUS has been invoked, in this edit I reverted a change in one half of a sentence: instead of "and hosts material presented by Watts in support of his belief that the human role in global warming is insignificant", the words have to be "in particular, Watts skepticism about the role of humans in global warming", which is the same as January 1 2015 before the recent flurry of edits which is the same as January 1 2014 which shows it was stable. This is not as good, and I would have preferred to react in kind to jps's accusations and insults, but maybe it finally ends this matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request for Page Protection

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

This worked so well the last time it was tried, so we're going to try again? --JBL (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Which version?

I find that this reversion changed the sentence to one that aligns with the global warming denial party-line and returns very problematic sources to the article for no good reason.

I recommend after page protection ends reverting this edit.

jps (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a global warming denial party? There is a party-line? One that people can align with? Wow. Could you share links for this revelatory information? This is exciting news. Perhaps we could add an EL about this. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Michael E. Mann is quoted: WUWT has "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog." A twofer!
Amusing (and typical) though this may be, it's *seriously* misplaced here, on Watt's BLP. Belongs (if anywhere) at the WUWT page. WP:BLP violation here, imo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a good source that Watt's blog promotes climate change denial, and the blog is about the only reason that Watts has any notability [taking Surface Stations etc as spin-offs from the blog]. So coverage of how the blog is received by scientists is needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete Tillman: you're right that this doesn't belong in the lead of this article, and at least three other editors (Capitalismojo, A Quest For Knowledge, and I) have reverted this recent addition, although more editors (seven by my last count) keep re-inserting it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP and minority viewpoints

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

NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for noticing the statement by former administrator TParis. I hope that if you want an authoritative opinion about TParis's statement you will ask on an administrator noticeboard or a policy noticeboard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE, I deleted that noticeboard query when I became aware of the thread at the FRINGE board. But I think I disagree with TParis on the basis of BLP policy for public figures as explained (for now at least) in my sandbox here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All: I have taken this to WP:ANI, subject heading = "Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis", [7]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Update:The request was archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"skeptical view"

Capitalismojo prefers:

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

I prefer:

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

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

Capitalismojo is right, scientific consensus is general agreement within the scientific community. Denialism is SBM advocates denying the validity of CAM therapies, contrary to scientific consensus. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and learn to compromise. -A1candidate 21:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh do grow up. Minchin's Law: alternative medicine, by definition, either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.
I think Wallace Sampson was right to call SCAM "sectarian medicine". Real medicine, and certainly science-based medicine, does not give a toss what the origin of a treatment might be. Most new drugs are synthetic analogues of natural compounds. The quackosphere would have you believe the natural version is "better" because natural (you know, like botulinus, anthrax, cholera and the rest, all natural so obviously beneficial). Meanwhile back in the real world assays of "natural" products find they are an unpredictable dose of an unquantified substance with unidentified adulterants. If they contain the pruported active ingredient at all, it's unclear how much of it, and with what other active ingredients.
Lots of people took aristolchia as a "natural" weight loss product sold by the usual band of SCAM charlatans. Turns out it is both toxic and carcinogenic. But at least their kidney disease and cancer was natural. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with JzG. The term "skeptical" in this context (climate change) should only be used with respect to the commonly accepted reference to denialism (the definition of which includes the statement added by A1candidate) so as to avoid conflation with "scientific skepticism, as numerous editors have indicated.
Accordingly, it is the group of Watts advocates that need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, not the other way around.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact the context is Anthony Watts (blogger), or at least it's supposed to be (the off-topic deviations sometimes get extreme on this page). Wikipedia can't just assume that the detractors of Anthony Watts (blogger) are correct, so Capitalismojo is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines for labeling people "deniers" WP:WTW. It is a controversial term. This is a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, Guy's preferred hidden link above is an easter egg. The article on skepticsm is global warming controversy not climate change denial, as we all know. Capitalismojo ::::: (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Global warming controversy is not the correct link, because his "skeptical view" is denialism, not an acknowledgement of the non-existent scientific controversy. This is well established by now. Scientists accept global warming pretty much unanimously, deniers reject it as they always have and probably always will, however robust the evidence. Incidentally, have you had the DS notice warning yet? Guy (Help!) 22:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should only call people deniers when we have robust sources for the claim, as we do here. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Guy: What sources? "Denier" is a word to watch and should only be used when widely used by reliable sources. Despite repeated calls, nobody has presented any evidence that this term is widely used by reliable sources. In fact, the only objective evidence presented so far demonstrated that "denier" is rarely used by reliable sources. Here's a sampling of reliable sources randomly selected by Google:
These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:
  1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
  2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
  3. Science - 1 Source
  4. Denier - 0 Sources
Here's a second random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:
Google Scholar Totals:
  1. Skeptic - 3 times.
  2. Meteorologist - 2 times
  3. Conservative - 2 times
  4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
  5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
  6. Science - 1 time
  7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
  8. Denier - 0 times
Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Original research conducted by the University of Google? Not the way I like to approach Wikipedia articles. I do invite you to consider this article by Michael Shermer. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of reproducibility, please (again) clearly specify how you arrived at the "selected by Google" results. Also, I tried to verify some of the sources, and found some inconsistencies. For one, presenting http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ among a list of supposedly reliable sources must be a joke, right? Secondly, the 5th source in your list actually describes WUWT as one of two named "anti-climate science, conservative sites that deny that climate change results from human activity" (emphasis mine). Next, the Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication uses "climate skeptic" (in quotes), not, as far as I could find, "science skeptic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
And for the last time, Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of your so-called "random samplings". --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to denialism per JzG (talk · contribs), I disagree with JzG on a number of things particular how we cover fringe, we should cover fringe with the proper tone, Guy believes we should not cover them. Here, however, he is correct per Fifth Assessment, White House Report, and EPA skepticism of climate change being non-human related is purely fringe quackery and hold no basis in the scientific community therefore, is denialism. Skepticism implies some form of scientific legitimacy, in this case there is none. We should be progressive here and change the tone to the scientifically accepted view throughout all of Wikipedia. This does not mean we cannot cover these clowns, but should with the proper tone. Valoem talk contrib 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Guy: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Which one of these sources are written by Google? As far I know, the answer is zero. Even if the answer wasn't zero, OR refers to original research by Wikipedia editors, not research conducted by reliable sources. Are you claiming that Scientific American, the New York Times, etc., aren't reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: Wikipedia operates on WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WTW. If you actually have a legitimate argument that proves that "denier" is used by the majority of reliable sources, then why won't you state it? This shouldn't be a guessing game. Just show us the evidence that this term is widely used by reliable sources. If you are so convinced that you are right, then this should be easy to do. But yet, you haven't done so.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noted that you intentionally inverted the assignation of FRINGEness here(i.e., in characterizing Mann's view as "FRINGE" per edit summaries, etc.), despite the numerous times FRINGE, pseudoscience, pseudoskeptic, confirmation bias, etc., have been raised by several editors above in characterizing Watts and his blog, and acknowledge that Mann is the RS scientist whose view reflects the mainstream view. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: You're conflated two completely different issues. It's completely possible for Mann's view on climate change to be the mainstream viewpoint while his opinion on Watts being a denier a minority viewpoint. You do understand the difference between these two issues, right?
BTW, please don't cast aspirations or assume bad faith. As I said, I came into this discussion with no preconceived notions. If I've erred in some way, you are free to point it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, the silence is deafening. Despite repeated calls, there is still no attempt to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Still no attempt to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources per WP:WTW, not to mention WP:UNDUE. Therefore, I have removed the WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I am repeating here the notice I gave yesterday in a different section of this talk page: "All: I have taken this to WP:ANI, subject heading = "Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis", [8]". The statement affects an argument frequently made on this talk page: whether it matters that the majority of sources (known so far) call Watts and/or Watts's blog "skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Certain editors keep invoking WP:WTW. This is part of the style manual, and it "should not be applied rigidly". In my view, the "denial" link, applied not to Watts but to his blog, is entirely appropriate. We're not calling him a "denier". It's not a BLP violation: it is well sourced and properly attributed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:WTW is remarkably consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This isn't rocket science. If 9 sources say X, and 1 source says Y, we don't cite the oddball source; we cite the majority. By WP:CHERRYPICKING outlier sources which express minority/fringe POVs, we are misrepresenting the mainstream viewpoint. Further, WP:BLP applies to all biographical content. It is absolutely a WP:BLP violation to cherry-pick isolated sources which contradict the mainstream viewpoint and thrust them into the lede as if they are mainstream. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • You still keep conflating "minority" and "fringe". Can you please clearly state if you believe that Mann's view is fringe or if it is the minority? Different arguments and different policies apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
AQFK has been quite clear on this matter, see above. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have, and I have not found anything that answers my question. If you think he has been clear, give me a better hint than "above", e.g. the time stamp of the signature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Based on two different objective analyses, it appears to be an insignificant minority viewpoint. Now, if you want to argue that it's a significant minority viewpoint, that's fine, but so far no one has done so. Instead, some editors seem to be clinging to the absurd fiction that it's a mainstream viewpoint despite the obvious lack of evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • More sources
  1. "Anthony Watts was originally a semi-skeptic about the reliability of our temperature records, but as he has continued questioning them even as more data on their reliability came in, he's moved into the denialism camp." Skeptics, deniers, and contrarians: The climate science label game, Ars Technica
  2. Climate Change: An Encyclopedia of Science and History
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The first (which is labelled "staff blog" here) says he denies reliability of "our" (i.e. USA?) temperature records, the second says "confirmation of their denial of the warming in data on air temperatures from weather stations and satellites" (whatever that means it's something about reliability of some temperature records again). Neither says Watts denies climate change / global warming. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The first item is indeed labelled "Staff/From the Minds of Ars" above the title of the piece ("Skeptics, deniers, and contrarians..."). Underneath the title is a byline, telling us that the article is written by John Timmer, one of the staff writers of Ars Technica--in fact, their senior science editor, and the holder of a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology. So, not a climate scientist, but someone who's very well informed about many areas of science and how science is perceived by the broader public. Peter Gulutzan's last post badly misunderstands what Timmer is saying about Watts: he says that Watts started out as a semi-skeptic, but should now be described as a denialist because he is ignoring new data about the reliability of our temperature records. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Which is fine, it is his opinion of course, not a straight news story. Although given Ars' pride in "blending" opinion and news that might be difficult to always determine. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
From their "about us": Ars fused opinion, analysis, and straight-laced reporting into an editorial product long before commercial "blogs" arrived on the scene and claimed to reinvent journalism by doing the same. Thats what I mean by "blending", above. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite Akhilleus's comment, the Timmer posting is labelled "staff blog" (look at the link I gave, look for the article title, look at the words STAFF BLOG above the title). Despite Akhilleus's comment, Timmer says explicitly that he's discussing Watts's opinion "about the reliability of our temperature records", which is not the same as climate change in general. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I know it's fashionable in debates like this to take isolated sentences from articles and read them as if there weren't sentences before and after them, and as if they weren't part of a longer argument. In this case, the article is only 14 paragraphs long, so it shouldn't be that hard to read the whole thing and see how the quoted sentence fits in. But if you can only read and understand in sentence-sized chunks, try this: "'Denialist' is one of the most common labels that gets attached to people who don't accept the evidence for climate change." Perhaps that can help us understand what Timmer is saying about Watt's refusal to accept the reliability of the temperature records. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: That's nice and all, except that WP:NPOV requires that we present viewpoints in accordance to their proportion to their representation in reliable sources. Yes, there's an extremely small minority of sources which use the term "denial", but the vast, overwhelming majority of sources don't. What I am saying is that the article should reflect the mainstream viewpoint. You are arguing in favor of WP:FRINGE viewpoints. This is where we stand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem pretty confused about what a fringe viewpoint is. A view that appears in several current academic sources is not fringe; WP:FRINGE in fact tells us that "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view." That would be Mann, the contributors to Climate Change: An Encyclopedia of Science and History, and so on. Certainly not Watts. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there an Arbcom process of some sort that would guide us in situations where editors are trying to present science as "fringe"? This is getting old, and it's obvious that people are going to start reverting again when protection expires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you are the one who is conflating two completely different issues:
  1. The scientific consensus on climate change
  2. Whether Watts should be labeled a "denier"
For issue #1, there is clear scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet.
For issue #2, the vast, overwhelming number of reliable sources use the term skeptic.
Can you please answer a simple question: Do you understand that these are two completely different issues, yes or no? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they're not *completely* different issues, they're interrelated.
Nomoskedasticity, there's not much process that would help here. If anyone is violating the discretionary sanctions, then you can post at WP:AE, but that is unlikely to help in the present situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, maybe "completely" is an overstatement (and I've crossed it out above), but you do see how these are two different issues, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you please indicate an edit where someone is trying to label Watts a "denier"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Issue #1, the position of Watts is a tiny minority or fringe view in clear opposition to the consensus. His refusal to accept science as in the BEST outcome is a clear indication of pseudoscience, and WP:PSCI requires that an "explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." . dave souza, talk 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Issue #2, WP:SOURCES policy requires us to look for the best sources in the context, and academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. The views of scientists are best sourced from the academic press, news outlets such as Fox News or the WSJ can be reliable in some contexts but are poor sources for scientific opinion. . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Multiple academic sources say "skeptic" rather than "denier", and some of the sources that put-denialism-in folks have put forward are far from academic-plus-reliable (Timmer and McKibben were blogging, Cook and Russell had bachelor degrees at time of writing, etc.). But journalists are as qualified as scientists who give non-scientific opinions about a person who's not their field of expertise. Deciding then what RSs are "better" is necessarily subjective, and the logjam-breaker is to determine the majority, which is how this matter has been resolved in the past. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
So, Peter, are you really arguing that because SOURCES policy is "subjective", we should "break the logjam" (in your opinion) by counting Fox News as equal to Columbia University Press? . . . dave souza, talk 06:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Dave: I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. What I am saying is that we should follow the mainstream viewpoint for both issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr Souza: I didn't say that wp:sources is subjective, but that editors who decide source-X-beats-source-Y face subjective criteria. What wp:sources says is that editors should use "third-party" sources which includes journalists but would exclude involved parties like Mann, and it says editors may also use "respected mainstream publications" which would include the RSs that have been quoted saying "skeptic". It's not just my opinion that the logjam should be broken by considering the majority of RSs, it is an administrator's statement. And when I "count" mainstream publications I count not Fox alone but Scientific American + Washington Post + (London) Times + Financial Times + Fox + Weekly Standard (not WSJ). Have you decided to ignore the fact that multiple academic sources say "skeptic" and the fact that some touted sources for "denial" are inferior according to your own criteria? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
When considering sources, note that science, not financial affairs, is the topic in question: your suggestions are news sources, not academic publications about science. . . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong, the topic in question is Anthony Watts (blogger). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
And as soon as you discuss that, his blogging is about science. Do you propose changing the article to leave out the topic of what he blogs about? He promotes fringe views, which must be shown as such to meet NPOV policy. . . dave souza, talk 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Anthony Watts (blogger) is not a branch of climate science who has been subjected to scientific study. His views about scientific topics are subject to criticisms and the article has them, but pinning a "denier" label on Watts the person is not about science, it's about Watts. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's not neglect these sources, all by scientists or about what scientists say about pseudoscientist "deniers" in the "denialist camp", etc.
Incidentally, the Ars Technica blog by scientist Timmer is not a personal blog...
  1. The Inquisition of Climate Science, p. 136 (peer-reviewed, academic press)
  2. The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
  3. Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Also from the first source, discussion of misuse of the term skepticism for deniers: James Lawrence Powell (13 August 2013). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-231-52784-2. . . . dave souza, talk 06:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can Google for sources which say Watts is a denier just as easily as anyone can Google for sources which say Watts is a skeptic. Neither is a valid methodology. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
So why are you applying this ridiculous methodology to defend the "skeptic" label? We should seek the best sources, and show what they say, not censor words you don't like. . . dave souza, talk 12:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't have to label Watts, and therefore don't need to use "denier". We do need to describe what he is known for, which is climate change denial. So, let's simply say he "advocates for climate change denial", or "is an advocate of...", or whatever. Does that address the problem for everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does work. The problem is, AQFK and others are falsely claiming that "denier" is what's at issue here, when in fact the edit in question is about describing his blog using climate change denial. The false claim has now been repeated so often that it's hard to avoid considering it as a deliberate lie, intended to disrupt discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This discussion looks like it's been going on for a while, and I haven't been a part of it (at least here), but from past interactions, I have a good deal of respect for AQFK. I have trouble believing he's deliberately lying or causing intentional disruption. My understanding is also that climate change denial is very often referred to by that name in the academic literature (hence our article title), so I'm not sure what the problem would be with using it in this article. Perhaps others can comment and bring me up to speed. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You'll have to read the discussion, including that related to the use of "skeptic" in relation to "scientific skepticism and environmental skepticism, for example.
The link provided immediately above[James Lawrence Powell (13 August 2013). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-231-52784-2.] is instructive.
Personally, I disagree with the conflation of the use of denier as in "Holocaust denier" with "climate change denier", but I don't think it is necessary to "label" Watts. On the other hand, the 'pro-skeptic' camp insists on extending the above-described association of "denier" to the use of "climate change denial". There is also an AN/I thread (BLP/N, FRINGE/N as well) in which these points are addressed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jess: The problem is that "denier" is a word to avoid and should only be used unless widely used by reliable sources. When I researched it,[9] I discovered that "denier" is not widely used; in fact, it's rarely used. Most reliable sources (including scholarly sources) use the term "skeptic". This is what the debate is about: should we use the term "denier" or "skeptic"? What I am saying is that we should follow the majority of reliable sources. Yes, a small minority of sources use the term "denier", but the majority don't. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE, exactly the type of problem that WP:WTW is meant to avoid. For some strange reason I cannot fathom, this makes me guilty of lying and causing intention disruption, LOL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess is clearly not interested in using the word 'denier' - their entire post is about not having to use it. Please take greater care, AQFK. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: I think you misread my post. I was just giving Jess a quick summary of my concern. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, showing that Watts' views are fringe in science is the central issue, best done without the baggage of labels but as WP:WTW explicitly states, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such", and the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. As for the label "skeptic", the WP:WTW WP:WEASEL section applies: it clearly comes under "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated", and disguises a biased view while any use as an unattributed label will "deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint". So, either explain Watts' views without using either label, or show both with attribution and explain that "climate skeptics" don't apply scientific skepticism. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not using 'labels' is a red herring here -- what matters is that we have good reason to link to our article on climate change denial. A label is just a short-hand description, and I'd hate to see an objection to labels get in the way of linking to an entirely relevant article. This is one of the things Wikipedia is supposed to be good at -- enabling people to easily find further reading on a relevant topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, looking at the top of that article, how about stating that Watts campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change? The wording can be refined. Equally, we shouldn't label Watts as "skeptical" when he's promoting psedockepticism. . . dave souza, talk 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@AQFK Thanks, that makes sense. On reflection, I think I'm opposed to "climate change denier". I prefer a dispassionate approach, and "denier" doesn't get significantly more coverage in many sources. However, I think there's a very good case laid out in reliable sources that we should not use the term "skeptic". I think Nomoskedasticity makes a good point that we need to link to the topic, and I think using its common name is the best approach.

I'm not a fan of plain old google results for deciding these matters, but they've been used above, so I checked them out. GHITS can give us a general idea:

FYI, the question of "denier" vs "skeptic" is significantly closer:

That's anywhere between 4:1 and 14:1 references to "climate change denial" on the overall topic. @AQFK, would "advocates for climate change denial" (or something similar) be an ok step forward, or is there something I've overlooked? I like Dave's proposal too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Are you assuming that all skeptics are deniers by definition? Otherwise I can't see why it would matter whether denier is a more common term. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Clarification needed: skeptic is a WP:WEASEL word, and there are scientists who self-identify as skeptics who clearly are not deniers. They distinguish themselves from the pseudo-skeptics who deny the realities of climate change, but who are commonly mis-labelled as skeptics...... dave souza, talk 15:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Skeptic is not a weasel word and not a mis-labelling; it has (using WP:NPOV terminology) "prevalence in reliable sources". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Succinctly: we should link to climate change denial because it's a significant part of subject's notability, and when linking to it, we should use its common name. Does that make more sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not to me. If a denier label can't be justified, a link can't be justified either. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jess: I'm sorry but I think that there are lots of problems with using Google search results like this:
  1. The number of hits Google reports is not accurate. See this.[10].
  2. Google returns a lot of websites that are not reliable sources. Google Scholar is better but it still returns non-reliable sources.
  3. You have to read what the source says to know what it actually saying. If is a source said, "Watts is not a climate change denier", it would count as a 'hit' for climate change denier when in fact the source is saying the exact opposite.
There are a several other problems in how it's used in this particular instance:
  1. The spelling of the word "skeptic"/"sceptic" depends on your culture. Some spell it with a "k", others with a "c". We would need to account for both spellings.
  2. "Denier" versus "skeptic"/"sceptic" is a false dichotomy. Reliable sources, especially scholarly sources seem to use other terms besides these two. For example, what if "meteorologist" is the most commonly used term?
  3. The search results are about the topic in general, but not about Watts in specific.
In any case, I also like Dave's proposal. Perhaps Dave's proposal is a good way forward to resolving this dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree google search results are not a good metric for labels (which is why I linked to WP:GHITS. I only used it in reference to the "random samplings" from google results above. I think the best approach is to find the most reliable sources we can and summarize their views as accurately as we can. However, in determining the common name for a topic, google hits can be useful, and for me, the common name for the subject weighs heavily on my opinion. Anyway, there seems to be some support for Dave's suggestion, so how about we try going with that for now?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with using our own formulation here (a very wordy one, by the way) is that we'd need to have a good source supporting it. Now, maybe there is a source for "campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change" -- but I'd be surprised, especially in connection with the word "opinion". We already have a good source for "climate change denial" -- Mann's characterization of his blog. And so I think we should use the common name for that article here, using that source and proper attribution. Since AQFK is still pretending that "denier" is what needs discussing here, I find it hard to worry about their objection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The belief that Mann's opinion is a solid addition to this BLP is, I think, odd. It took about three seconds to find that Mann has been publicly feuding with Watts for years...and not in a good way. [11] In this link Mann says that Watts is a paid shill ("the best front man money can buy") for the evil Koch brothers, a "Court Jester", a "Denier for Hire". This despite the fact that Watts states emphatically that he has never taken and money from, nor met any, Koch brother. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest it. Mann seems, frankly, more than a little kooky where Watts is concerned. So, no, I think this addition of a controversial term to this biography is contrary to policy. 14:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What Mann has tweeted in the twittersphere about the Heartland Institute indirectly-funded denialist is not as relevant as the RS published by an academic press. Watts is still a merely a blogger attacking the scientific consensus and is indirectly-funded by industries interested skewing public opinions against public policy for regulating carbon emissions. Mann represents the scientific consensus on both climate change and Watts.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, individual editor's conspiracy theories (and apparently Mann's) that Watts is funded by oil interests has no place even on the talk page of a biography. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mann represents "a scientific consensus on Watts". That is, in a word, bullshit. But if it were true, then it would be both easy and desirable to use a different scientist to describe this supposed "scientific consensus on Watts" in the lede, and not someone with a multiyear running battle of personal insults. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann represents that consensus by default, because there is no controversy about the scientific consensus on climate change, whereas it is that with respect to which Watts is in denial, on the one hand, and that of which Mann is representative, on the other. Ergo, the scientific consensus on Watts is that he is a climate change denialist.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your argument is:
  • 1. There is "no controversy about the scientific consensus on climate change".
  • 2. Mann represents the consensus on climate change.
Therefore:
  • 3. Everything he says regarding his personal opponents is in fact "non-controversial" "scientific consensus" about that person.
I find that argument completely absurd. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't answer the point. In fact it completely avoids it. Does anyone believe we should include the opinions of someone with a very public history of personal attacks on the subject in the lede of the biography? The answer must be no. If this is important neutral information, others will have said it, others not given to personal attacks and ongoing battles. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a rhetorical tactic to attempt to reduce this to a personal dispute between Mann and Watts.
There is a scientific consensus about climate change that Watts denies, whereas Mann is one of the most active climatologists active in the field at present.
There is no dispute to speak of; there is a one-sided FRINGE assault on the scientific consensus by Watts.
Any climate scientist characterizing Watts as a "climate change denialist/denier" represents the consensus of the scientific community.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on WUWT talk page

User Guy has started an RfC about "Denialism" for the lead of the WUWT article, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)/Archive_8&oldid=1136292276"