Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

wildbot

Can anyone tell me what that disambiguation thing as about? mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of your wikilinks are resolving to disambiguation pages. You need to change the following (which I am not allowed to do for you due to my editing restrictions):

• Anthony Watts -> Anthony Watts
• Roy Spencer, phd -> Roy Spencer, phd
• The Telegraph -> The Telegraph

Note that the message itself provides a nice little tool to help illustrate the problem. Click on "Fix". Note also that you should remove the "phd" from Roy Spencer per WP:PEACOCK or at least I suspect that argument will be raised. --GoRight (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

I've added the obvious POV tag. Not a hint of crit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well go and find some mark nutley (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write this stuff (well you can tell that, I don't spell that badly). You don't get to write biased articles and then say to everyone else "so fix it". That is irresponsible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Don`t be uncivil, learn to mind your manners WMC. You added the pov tag, if you think there is crits of this site then add them in, thats how wikipedia works you know mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've hacked this around a bit more. It a bit more sane now, but still lacks any crit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I searched Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and did not find any articles that criticized the site. All of the ones I found praised or attributed the blog for discovering and revealing problemmatic issues with AGW science methodoligies and conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I readded The Times named it as one of the top 30 science blogs best science blog i can`t figure why you`d remove it mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And the judith curry part why remove that? mark nutley (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If any reliably sourced information gets removed, you can readd it, ensuring that it is phrased neutrally. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not the Times, it is the blog. But if you were in any doubt over whether there is a POV dispute, you aren't now. You should have followed Cla's advice William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chaps it's very early days for this page -- let's keep things calm and civil. Of course there will be criticial refs to be added -- just give it time. Jprw (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Watts Up With That?

Type of site	blog
Created by	Anthony Watts
URL	http://wattsupwiththat.com
Launched	November 17, 2006

Here's a cut at the infobox:

The Alexa entry is here. You can use the traffic stats tab to compare the site to other sites such as, for example, desmogblog.com. Interesting graphs. --GoRight (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I added it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexa is a really bad metric. It assumes that the distribution of people, who use IE vs. people who use other browsers, and the distribution of people who install the Alexa toolbar vs. those who do not, is the same as for the general population.

This is normally not the case for sites with a scientific aspect - although i suppose there is a good chance that WUWT is close. It wouldn't be the case for climateaudit or realclimate for instance.

Alexa is generally only useful when the content is directed towards a non-specialized audience. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

I moved this to "Watts Up With That" since that is what it is called. It should have a "?" at the end - we need one of those funny "this page should really be called" notices but I don't know how to do those William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude it is known as wattsupwiththat, do you know noting? move it back mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not a "dude". I assume that "do you know noting" is a badly spelled attempt at a PA; have another go, you might eventually get it right. Also, it is conventional to start sentences with capitals. As to the substance: have you considered looking at http://wattsupwiththat.com/, where the banner rather clearly says "Watts Up With That?". I know that WUWT is utterly unreliable about the science; but I think we can probably consider it reliable for its own name William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC about the title. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you too know noting :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All the sources call it wattsupwiththat thats what people search for and we all make typo`s WMC i seem to recall pointing that out to you before mark nutley (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't accept reality easily, do you? It calls itself the version I've used. One of your pet sources [1] calls it the version I've used. Somewhere off in your alternate reality it has your pet name, have you considered writing for conservapedia instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered being polite for a change? It is not my pet name, the majority on the ref`s used in the article call it Wattsupwiththat. I am getting really tired of your constant diggs, cut it out ok mark nutley (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• How about you make a start by cutting out the Dude nonsense? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, the GoogleFight is 90,100 to 1,190,000 in favor of "Watts up with that", which seems to be fairly convincing. Especially since the URL is written in the short form, of course, and hence will give any number of false positives. Also, there is quite a preference to use the name that a group uses to refer to itself - which again is the proper English version with 54 separate words. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• 90,100 to 1,190,000 in favour of "Watts up with that" is end of argument. Still, a comment like "Somewhere off in your alternate reality it has your pet name" is totally uncalled for. I feel the need to appeal for calm. Jprw (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well dude, here`s what`s going to happen, every time you make a snide remark towards me i will respond by using a variation of your christian name. If you refuse to keep a civil tongue in your head i feel no need to pander to your childish whims mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indepedently notable

What is missing here is something to indicate that WUWT is independently notable. Most references aren't about WUWT, and most in fact only mention WUWT in passing. That is a problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Throw in the notability tag, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability is established in the introduction: "The blog was reported by The Times in 2010 as receiving "more than two million readers each month". In 2010, The Times online blog named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs, and in 2008 it won best science blog on Weblog Awards". These people seem to fit the bill for independent notability. In addition, as I point out above, the article is very young and is waiting for references, so it seems premature to be putting these labels on it so soon. In any case it would be absurd if a blog as popular as this did not have its own Wikipedia page. Jprw (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is enough for notability. The first Times item (the 2+ mio) is once more a passing remark. The two top blogs things do add to notability - but without secondary reliable sources that directly address/describe WUWT, it is going to be problematic.

The tags should be seen as calls for help - not as inherently unsolvable problems. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So you think the most popular climate related website is not notable enough, get real guys mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "get real guys" your attempt at logical reasoning? Get real please William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was posted before it was ready. I have some more sources that I'll be adding over the next day or so. This site has been noted in the media in several instances for scoops on issues related to AGW science. There are more sources discussing this blog than there are for DeSmogBlog, and this site's Alexa ranking is higher. I don't think notability is an issue. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the fringe or minority nature of the science on the blog and their presentation of "scoops", I'm sure we can all agree on the need to explain the majority view in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and clearly identify and explain controversies regarding parts of the minority view. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that specifically discusses this blog in the manner you just stated? If not, it appears to have problems with WP:SYN. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Those wanting to show fringe or minority views should look out mainstream rs's to meet that requirement of policy. . . dave souza, talk 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Guardian ref

This reference should probably be used more/differently in the article, possibly as material for the criticism section. Jprw (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the article

The structure seems to be more or less random. I've thrown out some peacocky sentences from the lede since I found no place to put them. It looks more or less as if someone keyed the term into Google News and tried to create a narrative while maintaining the order of hits...

What about some proper sections, e.g. "Description", "Major topics", "Critical reception"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

climate change probation notice

This looks like it should be covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Good luck with the new article. Has anybody cross-linked it with Watts' biography yet? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Useful source

Joseph J. Romm is well qualified as a sps providing mainstream scientific views, and this article looks useful. . . dave souza, talk 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Warmest Oct?

I took out the warmest Oct [2]. Booker isn't a RS, of course, and I've no idea who made this claim William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Being ,mentioned in a book is highly notable WMC, i put that back. Also [3] Since when was doing an edit on an article a revert? There is no ref for what you have added, plus it is POV. Please remove it again, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is your unmarked revert [4]. You need to learn to distinguish "notable" from "RS". Booker isn't an RS. As to what I've added, read the article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No that`s an edit, not a revert. Booker is a reliable source according to wp:rs Also it is being attributed that he claimed this, not that it is fact so i fail to see a problem, what about the UHI stuff with no ref btw? mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's actually a revert of this and this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you`d given this up hipocrite :-) The verification failed tag is wrong, it does say that in the article. The syn tag seems pointless, it`s perfectly readable. Removing stuff with no actual ref is normal policy i believe, and it still has no ref. And putting with the incorrect headline is POV pushing. mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Booker is of course only a reliable source for his own fringe antiscience views, which should not be given undue weight. I've noted that he's a journalist, contrarian journalist would probably be more appropriate. A much more reliable source covers the issue here, but in the meantime I've added comments by a notable climatologist. It would add context to show that after correcting the error the October concerned was the fifth warmest October on record, so we could cite this source or an alternative to add that. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave deltoid is not a reliable source for this at all, he is a computer scientist and not very notable at all, he is writing outside his area of expertise and as he is not notable his views are undue in any article mark nutley (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have another serious problem with this - this all seems to describe surfacestations.org not WUWT. Could we get a short excerpt here, to show the context of Bookers comments (ie. is he talking about Watts, WUWT or surfacestations.org) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to cut that one also, if people can't give an answer. Either an editor here is confused or Booker is.... Which is it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold your horses kim :) what is it your after? Who made the claim about the hottest october on record or if booker actually attributed this to WUWT? mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In this article he mentions WUWT and Climate Audit with regards to the temp record [5]

And this one [6]

I'm talking about the first paragraph in that section ... the one who contains this "one of WUWT's functions as "systematically checking the reliability of the 1,221 weather stations recording surface temperatures across the US".[12]" - either that is a misread of Booker by an editor - or Booker got confused about WUWT and surfacestations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

i see now what you mean, well it is a tricky one really, the surfacestations project started off as booker says, on WUWT, now of course it is surfacestations.org which does that particular thing. So i`m unsure. I`ll look through the book over the weekend (I`ve had it since christmass and not had the chance to read it) And let you know for sure what he says mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cut out the following:

WUWT readers provided Watts with photographs of weather stations located near sources of heat, and these were published by the right-wing thinktank The Heartland Institute together with a claim by Watts that they showed that US temperature record was unreliable. These weather stations were investigated by National Climatic Data Center scientists, who published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that weather stations Watts thought would be influenced by heat sources actually showed a slight cooling bias, probably due to these stations being more likely to have newer measuring equipment. Watts said he would be analysing more of the stations.

That is about surfacestations.org/Watt himself - not WUWT (the only mention of WUWT is that Watt also runs that one). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Other problems with that text is:

• No where is it stated that "WUWT readers provided" (WP:OR).
• I can't find "located near sources of heat" anywhere in the reference. (poorly located != located near heat sources [not even according to Watt])

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Tonys changes and my revert

[7] Tony gutted the article beyond belief. To make such massive changes without consensus is just not on so i reverted him. Tony please discuss why you made such massive changes thanks mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed some poorly sourced statements. The pertinent policy is known as Verifiability. --TS 21:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony you removed most of the article, all of which was referenced to reliable sources, the few whic hare suspect are being discussed here on talk mark nutley (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed anything reliably sourced. You may of course want to defend your sources. --TS 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just gone through each and every reference below I would have to disagree with TS's assessment on the reliability of the sources in question. He appears to be editing based on his personal opinion of the sources rather than their reliability as determined by the WP:RS policy. Perhaps he was making a WP:POINT? If he was this isn't a very collegial thing to do and it is against a behavioral guideline as well. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the most dubious reference in the list appears to be one related to RealClimate. There does not appear to be any editorial oversight there and the contributors are known partisans. The statement being attributed to that source is:

"Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described how the copying error had been removed within 24 hours while corrections were prepared, claims that there had been a GISS press release were false, and commentators on WUWT had made claims alleging scientific fraud and conspiracy."

which doesn't seem to have any direct connection to this article, thus making it WP:SYN and WP:OR. This article is about the blog, not the people that comment there. The above statement also misquotes Schmidt who actually says "A few examples from the comments at Watt’s blog will suffice ...". This means that the use of the word commentators is misleading because it gives the impression that Schmidt was referring to the individuals posting the articles on the site which he obviously wasn't, he was merely referring to those posting comments NOT the individuals running the site. Finally, if one examines the WP:WEIGHT of the Schmidt statement, there are 10 paragraphs in total in his article and only a single paragraph actually discusses material which is (tangentially at best) related to WUWT so this single comment is being given far too much weight, IMHO. We are singling out a comment from a piece that is first and foremost about the GISS Data and it's associated processes, NOT the WUWT blog. I believe the entire comment should be removed, but at a minimum it should be corrected to reflect what Schmidt actually stated. --GoRight (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight - could you please refactor - i might try to engage in dialogue once you've removed the sarcasm and the pretend naivity. As it is now its rather hard to take you seriously, and it is certainly impossible to collaborate with that attitude. [you can refactor this comment away, after you've done so]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. The only thing I changed was the way I referred to RealClimate which, as you correctly point out, was faux naivete and bad form on my part. I apologize. The analysis, however, was serious and honest. Feel free to remove both your comment above and mine once you have seen this and then reply as you see fit. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing unsourced stuff from lede, renaming "Criticism" section "Reception", moving stuff about blog's reception from lede to "Reception"

I've removed some unsourced stuff from the lede, renamed the "Criticism" section "Reception", and moved stuff about blog's reception from the lede to "Reception". Please source, restore, summarise, etc, as required. --TS 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I`ve reverted you tony, it is all sourced, ca nyou tell me please what is not sourced in the lede as it currently stands? mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

How many reverts have you made today on this article, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark. The only material I removed had been tagged as unsourced. The stuff I moved to the section on the blog's reception was about the blog's reception. Could we discuss your objection to the edit from the point of view of this rationale? --TS 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@ hippocrite dunno go take a look mate. @ Tony you are removing everything from the lede, none of the material is unsourced, the one tag is a verification needed one, and that verification can be found on the banner of the WUWT site. You can`t take everything from the lede and move it around the way your are, and i would ask you seek consensus for you wp:bold changes. thank you mark nutley (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark. You admit that the statement I removed from the lede has a "verification needed" tag. You claim that I can verify it by reading a banner on the site itself. Can you not see why the tag is marked "verification needed"? You claim I cannot move things around. Are you claiming I'm not permitted to edit your article? --TS 22:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC put the tag there, not i. I had removed it and was reverted. I a mnot saying you can`t move things around, but if you are going to gut the lede like you have been doing then you must get consensus for such drastic changes, that is what the probation is all about right? To prevent argument and get consensus for major changes? mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag gone, not a hard fix really, should i put a ref to the blog also do you think? mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidt ref

I've reworked it, and suggest that the negative stuff that I took out be shifted to the criticism section. Jprw (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian Criticism

I doubt that Leo Hickman's blog speaks for "The Guardian" which begs a comment and a question. Obviously, the criticism should be attributed to Hickman and not "The Gaurdian". Furthermore, is Hickman notable that his opinion should be noted? Arzel (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are any of the puffers considered notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Puffers? That is not an answer to my question, and I don't see much puffery in the article. I do see that you moved the criticism to the top, which tells me far more though. Arzel (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. Why is Journalist Christopher Booker, in the 2009 book The Real Global Warming Disaster, describes notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Because being mentioned in a highly publicised book is notable mark nutley (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd called it "puffed in the denialosphere". But even using your arguements, the reply is "being mentionned in a highly publicised newspaper" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, being mentioned in a highly publicised book, the book being mentioned in newspapers is what makes the book notable, not the website Hope that is clear enough for you now mark nutley (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

Since someone apparently removed the synthesis tag i'd put on this - i've removed it completely until the time that this can be resolved:

One of the articles posted on WUWT about how local weather stations were affected by their surroundings led to an article in The Telegraph with the incorrect headline "UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings". In fact trends in the surface temperature record from urban heat island effects are negligible.

Someone explain to me please, where the "led to" comes from (who makes that connection?) - and more specifically what the two articles have to do with each other? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The connection is tentative at best. However, this would be a nice ref for the Watts article. Jprw (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It`s right there in the telegraph article kim The report co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate sceptic, shows photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which could be distorting their readings.

Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious as to what effect those locations would have on temperature trends. Would they be expected to produce a warming trend? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the one in rome being hit by jet exhausts may, just may, be giving false readings? AC units bang out loads of heat which would skew the readings and waste treatment plants would also create a local warm effect to the area mark nutley (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to argue the merits of whether Watts and his associates are right are not, just report what the sources say. We don't care who is right and who is wrong, remember? In fact, why don't we declare that below.

• I don't care who is right about AGW, as far as WP is concerned, and commit to NPOV editing about AGW topics in Wikipedia:

1. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
2. I was just responding to a question there ya know :-) However i agree about the npov editing mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mark - but exactly where is the connection made. The quote "The report co-written by Anthony Watts....", first of all doesn't mention WUWT at all, please do try to separate Watts, surfacestations.org and WUWT... Secondly the quote has no bearing on showing that the "led to" isn't a synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Change the style of referencing.

I have come to appreciate the style of managing references which has been employed at DeSmogBlog, among other places. With that in mind here is a cut at a replacement for the references section which also introduces the use of the citation templates for those entries where they were missing:

Testing

References:

Since I am barred from editing the page itself perhaps someone would consider moving this into the references section and then updating the references throughout the page to match? It should be a mostly cut and paste job if you take my test references along for the ride and then clean them up before saving. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, if people prefer the in-line style it would still be helpful if someone could simply replace each of the references in the existing article with the corresponding citation templated version from above on a one for one basis. I think even that would improve the article and I've done the hard part in putting the citations into a consistent format. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested rewording for introduction

Watts Up With That (WUWT for short) is a blog set up in 2006 by former broadcast weather presenter Anthony Watts that is chiefly known for presenting information, data, and reports from the point of view of climate change skepticism. The blog was reported by the Sunday Times in 2010 as receiving "more than two million readers each month". The blog was reported by the Sunday Times in 2010 as receiving "more than two million readers each month". In 2010, The Times online blog named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs, and in 2008 it won best science blog on Weblog Awards. Matt Ridley, writing in The Spectator, described WUWT thus: "Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians". Leo Hickman, blogging for The Guardian, was less complimentary, describing the approach adopted by Watts on the site as risking "polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary". According to the tagline on the website itself, the blog claims to provide "commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news".

"chiefly known for presenting information, data, and reports from the point of view of climate change skepticism." is a good general description of the site, appropriate in the opening sentence, and more appropriate than the tagline which could be used instead to 'round off' the intro. Jprw (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Spectator item - see the above section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole a blogger?

[8]. This is a misleading description of his professional work. Delingpole is a professional journalist and writer, not a blogger in the pejorative sense it is apparently intended here. Just because the Telegraph labels a particular section of its content a "blog" does not make it a run of the mill blog that just anyone started up (or posts articles to). WP:RS recognizes that some legitimate news media have such sections and it indicates that these should be afforded the same weight as any other news article. To quote from [9]:

""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."

The section in which his articles appear is called "News Blog", not "Blog", and Delingpole is a paid contributor of the firm which presumably DOESN'T let him print just anything he likes (i.e. there is no doubt some level of editorial oversight on the part of the paper). The article should make this distinction clear or it should be avoided altogether. I suggest the following change:

Conservative<ref>[http://jamesdelingpole.com/about/ James Delingpole]</ref> commentator [[James Delingpole]], writing for the ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' ...

--GoRight (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed blogger to writer, i also so no need to point out delingpoles politics, what does that have to do with this article? mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast please. The quote from WP:RS makes the point that some blogs can be considered reliable sources. It certainly does not say that we shouldn't call them blogs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither does it say we should, he writes for the telegraph that is the NPOV is it not? mark nutley (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if you want to get the word blog in there, but if you do put it in you need to make it clear that this is a professionally run blog by a professional journalist. I just chose to avoid the need to explain it. This is why I said "The article should make this distinction clear or it should be avoided altogether." --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The attribution to the Daily Telegraph makes it clear that the blog is part of a major newspaper, not just Bob's Random Blog. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As a sanity check here, I expect that we should treat Delingpole comparably to how we treat Andrew Revkin and George Monbiot. As an example, consider [10] wherein we don't refer to Monbiot as a "blogger" even though his articles are part of something refered to as a blog. I have not checked but I expect Revkin is treated similarly. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Err? No. Monbiot is a payed employee and column writer with editorial control (unless that has changed recently). As for Revkin, the same was the case until very recently. (he is now freelancer and writes a blog that gets carried by various newpapers).

For RS purposes though - it is the editorial control that will be the springing item. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, there is no doubt that the paper exerts editorial control over Delingpole because it is absurd to assume that he can print anything he wants, unless you have something to back that assumption up. --GoRight (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The phrase is "full editorial control". Lots of things are printed in news-papers without it: Letters, opinions etc. Why do you think there is a distinction n WP:RS? If all content was under full editorial control - there would be no reason for that exception. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Making a yea/nay decision on whether to print his column, or not, seems like full editorial control to me. I'm not sure what would be more full than that, actually. I am quite certain that the paper retains veto power over printing his columns. He is paid to be published on an on-going basis which clearly distinguishes him from the occasional letter to the editor or opinion piece. The latter tend to be one time deals which I doubt is how Delingpole's regular columns are handled. If, on the other hand, he actually IS competing for an open slot on the blog on an article for article basis I would say he has a pretty good track record of having his material selected which just argues in favor of his credibility. I think this is reaching the point of becoming circular and I was warned to avoid such discussions so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. --GoRight (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is there any evidence that Delingpole is more than a blogger, in this case? He isn't a staff columnist as far as i can tell, who's column has been redubbed as "blog". (as has happened with many columns). As for the rest, the RS context here is that the blog should be under "full editorial control" - i doubt if this is the case with Delingpole - but you can show me wrong. (in fact if i'm not mistaken - Delingpole is a free-lancer who writes a blog that is carried by (amongst others) the Telegraph. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not personally see anything wrong with referring to George Monbiot's Blog as George Monbiot's blog. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither do I but I do see something wrong with treating them differently. So as long as we are consistent I don't care which way it goes. KDP's point about free lance is a red herring. Either way he is paid for his work, which make him a professional journalist, and it is obvious that the paper won't print just anything he writes and so there is editorial control. --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of how Andrew Revkin has been treated. I would expect resistance to going to that article and referring to his as a "blogger", yet he is best known for the "Dot Earth Blog" (Note the URL). --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are a number of sources referring to it as the "Dot Earth Blog". --GoRight (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing your point. Aren't we discussing WUWT, not Revkin? Doubtless one can cite many other more or less relevant things in other articles but it would be helpful to stay on target here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that policy expects that similar cases will be handled in similar ways. That's an example of the proper way to make cross-article comparisons that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually argues in favor of, so I think your reference actually backs up my position here. It actually argues against using itself in a knee jerk fashion as you are in this case. As such, we ARE on target. --GoRight (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do we care? I've deleted who he is' he has a wikilink. But it matters that he was writing for the Torygraph *blog* not the paper edition, so I added that William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to be correct it should actually be "James Delingpole, writing in the news blogs section of the Daily Telegraph, ..." which properly reflects how the paper refers to that section. Please make the necessary adjustment since I am currently barred from doing so. --GoRight (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Curry

copied from my talk-page, so that recent questions can be addressed, and to get it in as a permanent record here This originated from before the article was copied to mainspace --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious why you did this? The first one about judith curry is spot on Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere [11] It`s right there in the article? I think the third one is now fixed, and the second one is ok as that matt ridley thing is in ref no8. Would you look over the catlin arctic one again and tell me what you think know please? mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark the connection is more than weak. She makes the statement "Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere" - Its not possible (especially considering that the rest of the article doesn't mention Watts) to make the connection. Maybe she included Watts in the "Climate Auditors" or maybe in the "Blogosphere" - that cannot be verified. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to sure i follow you Kim, here is the entire paragraph Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month It`s in there with Climateaudit, looks open and shut to me? mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that she calls McIntyre and the audience at climateaudit "Climate Auditors" - but the connection to WUWT is not called it - speculate on why she says "and" instead of "in the". As said: It is a guess whether she means that WUWT is a CA - but we cannot guess. You simply want it to read that way, try critical reading instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I`m not the only one who read it that way :-) [12] I added this ref along with the other one mark nutley (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"According to Leo Hickman at the Guardian[ref guardian], Judith Curry attaches the label "Climate auditors", to WUWT[ref curry]" is an acceptable use of that source. Opinion sources cannot assert facts--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool thanks mate :~) mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to relate to an edit I made in an attempt to make it less clumsy. I can see why you reverted it now -- having re-read what she said, she doesn't claim that Watts is a "climate auditor". But in that case it should be removed completely. The claim that she did say it is verifiable, and it fails verification. I don't see the point in keeping it. There's also the question of who Judith Curry is, since she doesn't have an article of her own and this article doesn't elaborate. StuartH (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Curry (imo) is notable per WP:ACADEMIC though[13], although no one seems to have created an article yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair call. I was more worried about the relevance of that section than the general issue of Curry's notability, but perhaps a brief one or two word description might help (e.g. journalist Christopher Booker). When Romm disputes Curry's comments on Watts, it's this he's referring to:

"And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. climateprogress.org versus wattsupwiththat.com and realclimate.org versus climateaudit.org) can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed."

Maybe this quote could be included instead? StuartH (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Question...

Are we really going to cite the Spectator for this single paragraph (the only thing about WUWT in it):

Contrast it with wattsupwiththat.com, a site founded in November 2006 by a former Californian television weather forecaster named Anthony Watts. Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians.

I'm asking this nicely - because i'm trying to understand people's views. The sentence "Dedicated at first..." should be known to everyone who has followed this, to be wrong. Yep - its verifiable - but its definitely incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this being ignored? I think it is a rather pertinent question whether we should include information about WUWT from articles which we know are wrong? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think WUWT *was* dedicated at first to photo-ing weather stations. And I think it *was* deliberately looking for badly sited ones, rather than a fair review. However I think the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians. would be better as the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online gathering place for nutters William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"And I think it *was* deliberately looking for badly sited ones, rather than a fair review." - Are you basing this on something or is this just your personal POV? How do you think this should affect the article, specfically? --GoRight (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is your typical confused journalist -- they're getting WUWT mixed up with surfacestations.org, which is the pictures site. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. And the very interesting question is..... Do we go with the wrong information which is verifiable - but plain wrong. Or do we actually try to get the article right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since this whole discussion is WP:OR, I would say that we go with the WP:V version until a better source can be found. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Erh? No. This discussion is not WP:OR. Its a discussion on how we are going to handle specific editoral problems that are arising. Do please remember that while all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, the reverse, that all verifiable information must be in Wikipedia, is not correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? It did start up like that and then surfacestations.org sprung up from it. @ WMC congratulations on the largest blp violation i`ve seen thus far on wikipedia. You just insulted 3 million people in one hit would you care to redact that please mark nutley (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually WMC is wrong, and so are you Mark. Try going back in the WUWT archives. WUWT was Watt's original personal blog, which had no focus whatsoever on climate scepticism or weather stations.... The blog started in Nov 17, 2006[14] and it wasn't until May 2007 (after >100 postings), with this rather famous posting, that Watts started to muse about bad locations of weather stations. Of course this is WP:OR and the other wrong information is verifiable - but it does rather pose the interesting question: Do we really want an article that contains wrong information, even if it is verifiable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In an absolute black and white world, KDP is of course correct and the WUWT archives are there to tell the story. That Watts was at least partially interested in covering weather stations in general from the very beginning is evidenced by this post from two days after the blog started. In the beginning Watts was blogging about a wide variety of topics as is the norm for personal blogs. But I am sort of left with a big "so what?" running through my head over this whole question.

The key point being made is that the site started out from humble beginnings and has transformed itself into a quite influential site. Arguing over whether the term "dedicated" is strictly accurate seems to completely miss the point. KDP's keen observation only highlights the fact that the site itself started out with even less of a focus than the journalist claims and, so, the transformation (which isn't in question here) is even more dramatic. --GoRight (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, I doubt if it was at any point in time "dedicated" to it... Watts made a flurry of postings in mid 2007 about it while he was organizing/getting the information for the surfacestations.org site. Iirc there was some coordination in the commentaries on Pielke Sr.'s old site (climatesci.org) as well as some postings/crosspostings that eventually resulted in the surfacestation site. After that initial flurry of postings the blog kinda got its indentity in climate sceptic postings - but not particularly focused on stations. Strangely enough i had Watts on my reading list before all this :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Boris / Kim are correct: I'd mixed WUWT with surfacestations.org William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that, I've removed the text KDP compalined of - it is plainly wrong, so not much use William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WUWT was originally at http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/. -Atmoz (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Tags

As all the crits of WHUT have now been dug up and added can we now lose the POV tag? As notability is not actually an issue i`m going to remove that one now mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? mark nutley (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Booker's book

I've raised the issue of this book at the reliable sources noticeobard. Cla68 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We did this one to death last month. Booker is not a reliable source. --TS 12:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely you don't mind asking for opinions from uninvolved editors at the RS noticeboard? Hopefully, someone will respond and comment. Cla68 (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

TS, this time things are different. On the IPCC page, I was persisting with a general reference that could have been construed as being WP:BOOKSPAM. At the same time, I always repudiated the clear bias/POV re: Booker on that page (that everything he said was unreliable, and not giving credit when credit was due when he issued a retraction in his column about a mistake he had made). Editors do not have the right to zero in on his mistakes and to use these as a justification for precluding any reference to Booker. In the present case, he is reporting specific, easily verifiable facts which can be used to support the referencing in the article. Jprw (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I took Booker out. He isn't an RS for science. With that, the section collapses - GS's reply, by itself, isn't very interesting, and doesn't even mention WUWT William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The text made it clear that it was Booker's opinion. So, no problem here. According to two editors at the WP:RSN, Booker's book is a reliable source for Booker's opinion. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The obvious followup question is, why does Booker's opinion per se merit notice? Is he an influential figure in public policy or the sociology of science? (I have no idea what his background is.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And the answer is: No. We can determine that from the very little notice that Bookers book seems to have received (and that was weighted towards negative). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla - i'm going to ask again: Are you really of the opinion that accuracy is irrelevant, and should be thrown out the window, because we can verify an incorrect information to Booker? Once more: It has never/ever been one of WUWT's "functions" to "systematically checking the reliability of the....". Read the site, check the history (the archives) - the site that has this as a function is another one: surfacestations.org. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

His opinion is certainly as valid as the opinions being used for criticism, and is certainly as much of an RS for his opinion. Unless a better arguement can be made I see no reason to either leave it out or remove the criticism for balance. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Booker's opinion per se important? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Booker is a notable journalist and commentator on various crises that are or have demanded great public attention the last couple of decades, including the global warming theory. As soon as I find the time, I'm going to improve this article to how it should be, as I promised earlier, since hardly anyone else apparently is able or willing to do so. Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and my improvement may include a criticism section if the RS support that. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Erh? notable journalist - possible. notable commentatior on "various crises" rather more dubious. "including the global warming theory" extremely dubious. Booker's opinions on the "various crisies" lies in the tiny minority (that btw. includes his Euroscepticism - which is the area he is most notable for) to fringe views (science areas). Quotable for opinion certainly - but for factual information dubious, and certainly not without presentation in proportion to prevalence of view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that Euroscepticism in the UK is not a minority view. Jprw (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends first of all on what spectrum you regard as "euroscepticism" - in the broad sense you'd be correct, in the narrow sense you'd be incorrect. The kind euroscepticism that Booker is a front-runner for, is certainly a minority vewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Feelings and emotions over Booker's opinions on things appear to still be running fairly high in relation to the AGW articles. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence for that assertion. Even if it were true, focusing on other editors' "feelings and emotions" rather than the factual issues at hand is generally considered unhelpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the discussion about the book on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? I would say, judging from that discussion, that personal opinions on Booker's opinions on things run the gamut from strong to stronger. I hope these opinions don't get in the way of the GA initiative that I just proposed on your talk page and the talk page of other editors with a keen interest in this subject. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Leo Hickman

Leo Hickman, in a blog for The Guardian, was less complimentary, describing Watt's approach as risking "polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary

In this guardian article Hickman does not mention WHUT, he mentions watts but not the website. Should we remove it? His name in the article is linked to WHUT but there is no direct mention of the actual site mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is WHUT another bizarre proposal for an article rename? Let me guess, *all* the sources say it is called that William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, but then again we All Make Mistakes Don`t we? How about you focus on what i wrote, and not a typo? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, mark has a legitimate question. If Hickman is criticizing Watts, but not speifically his blog, then why do you feel that it belongs in this article? Could you answer the question? Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to make a clear distinction when making references in this article between a) Watts the man b) WUWT as writtten by Watts and c) surfacestations.org. Jprw (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC is likely in his sleep cycle now since it is early in the morning in the UK, but he should be here soon to answer our question. Cla68 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He was awake for long enough to tag the article again, if he has not bothered to reply by tonight i`ll remove the leo hickman junk mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GA initiative

In conjunction with an improvement effort over at a related article, DeSmogBlog, I've asked WMC if he and a few other editors would be able and willing to improve this article to GA-level quality. Judging from the article history and this talk page, WMC appears to have a very strong interest in the topic. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a great initiative and I would be fascinated to know how this process works -- what it takes, etc. In fact, whether or not it is actually possible to take a AGW article like this and take it to GA quality. Maybe for AGW related articles its problematic? Jprw (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that WMC and Mr. Schultz are back to work on this article. That's good to see. I expect that they'll have this article expanded and improved and ready for GA consideration in a week or so if they maintain their current level of involvement. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That didn't last long

I re-added the NPOV tag, since the whitewashing [15] has begun. As the Other Article That We Dare Not Link To says The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident came to light in November 2009 when it was discovered that thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As there exist circumstantial evidence and reports suggesting that the documents may have been leaked, and we are interested in achieving neutrality, I suggest that we stick with "released". It seems like a good neutral term, midway between "hacked" and "leaked" (kind of). By describing this as "whitewashing", you are showing your own POV, which is ironic. Jprw (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Err no. Released is even more anodyne than Leaked. The main article describing this matter uses the text I've quoted above; so should this one. By describing released as "a good neutral term", you are showing your own POV, which is ironic. William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Watts has come after you personally, WMC[16] in the relatively recent past do you really want to be the guy raining on that website in Wikipedia? TMLutas (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the terms.

a) Leaked: an inside job, documents released illegally from within.

b) Hacked: an outside job, documents accessed illegally from without.

Both terms are undesirable as there exists confusion as to what in fact took place. Since we as editors are trying to achieve neutrality, I am therefore (for the time being, there may be a better word available) suggesting "released". Just because the other article falls into the trap of using b) above, it doesn’t mean that the same mistake should be repeated here. And note that "leaked" is not an anodyne term. Jprw (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And the worst of all - c) Released: Distributed legally from within. That's a dreadful alternative. I don't think leak implies an inside job, and the term is widely used despite most sources suggesting that they were hacked as well. On the other hand, the incident is titled Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, and for consistency, hack may be better. I'm undecided between hack and leak, but "release" completely misrepresents the situation. StuartH (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough -- "released" doesn't work. So we need a better, fourth alternative that is as neutral and as accurate as possible. But re: "leaked" it has negative implications, though may not be strictly illegal (as is hacking). Jprw (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of them being hacked or leaked it was done illegally so why not have that? Released Illegally mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But as StuartH says "released" still suggests from inside and it may have been from outside. Jprw (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"illegally accessed and distributed" maybe. Jprw (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well to ensure a truly WP:NPOV we should not make assume either a leak or hack so a NPOv term would be Illegally released mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I put illegally released, what do you think? mark nutley (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Since I added the tag, I'll remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, a version occured to me on the way home from work on the bus:

"Compromised documents originating from the CRU were distributed on the Internet...".

Any takers? Jprw (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah man, too long and i have yet to see it described like that anywere :-), are you not happy with what i put? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Released" is still unsatisfactory, as it may (we don't know for sure, and we have to strive to be neutral) have been a breach from the outside. Jprw (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha, even if it was a hack then "Illegally released" still works (even though a donkey would know it was no hack) mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

al gore

I added a bit to the climategate section about as gore, also found this in the same article Al Gore, the non-scientist politician who has relentlessly hyped global warming for decades, recently made the outstandingly ignorant statement that Earth’s interior temperature is millions of degrees Watts Up With That? caught the moronic blunder. NCTimes What do you think?

I've reverted this. I'm not even completely clear what you want to say, or who says what, but it's a clear case of WP:COATRACK. As far as I can tell the structure is roughly "non-notable blog (NCTimes) reports about non-notable blogger (Bolt) writing about something written non-RS blog (WUWT) and Al Gore". Not only are both weight and reliability at best sad jokes, the only alleged connection is than Bolt mentions the WUWT and Gore in the same article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If Andrew Bolt is non notable then why does he have a wikipedia article? The North County Times is a reliable source and citing from a journo`s blog is no different to citing from monbiots blog or similer, so whats the problem? And the connection is that WUWT caught gore out when he said the e-mails were ten years old. Perhaps you should reread the article mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that is true, why don't you write this directly? And how does this have any weight? WUWT makes a lot of claims, few of which have found significant resonance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it`s true, gore said it on the Tonight Show with Conan O`Brien. How does it have weight? Well him saying it was enough for a mention here you think science blogs is reliable right? and google 44,500,000 for al gore several million degrees so yes that gaffe is out there big time. on wattsup So we have a reliable source we have a respected journo saying WUWT was the first to catch him out in this blunder, so again what is the problem? mark nutley (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your logic is weird and you mix things up. Gore made a mistaken claim about the core temperature of the Earth in the Tonight Show. That is arguably notable, but completely irrelevant for this article. Gore may or may not have made a wrong or unclear statement about the CRU emails. That may or may not be notable, but is irrelevant to this article (which is not on Gore). Someone on WUWT has called out Gore for this alleged error. That may be relevant for this article, if you can show that this calling out is true (should be easy enough via reference to WUWT) and that it is notable. We do not report your Aunt Annies letter to the editor on the Apollo moon landing, although the landing was notable enough, because your Aunt (for the sake of the argument) is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is true, please look at the link i posted above to wattsup mark nutley (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thats about the million degrees thing. But the e-mail thing made the news as well and we have a reliable source for WUWT tied to it. So shall we put it back? mark nutley (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, for reasons given above. But why don't you make a reasonable proposal about what you want to say here? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the wattsup article btw [17]

Well with regards to the e-mail think what was wrong with the text you reverted? We can look at the million degrees thing after we sort that out mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's 90% fluff, has an unparsable sentence structure, and is extremely unclear. Why should we fix the irrelevant stuff when it gets thrown out anyways? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So because you think it`s irrelevant it should be chucked out? Why not offer an alternative instead of removing well sourced material? I`ll rewrite it and put it back in then if you have no desire to try and offer an alternative mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's neither well-sourced nor relevant. Why should I suggest alternatives to include material that does not belong into the article? In particular since I'm none to clear what you now want to include - Gore? Bolt? Millions of degrees? Emails? WUWT mentioning errors? Some Blog mentioning Bolt mentioning WUWT mentioning Gore's error? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mark -- WUWT picking up on a high profile gaffe by a high profile figure in a high profile magazine. What is the problem? Jprw (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, then maybe you can make a suggestion for a text to include. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

GA article (again)

A lot of work needs to be done to get this article up to GA standard. For one thing, it is lacking a couple of sections and in general looks threadbare. It seems to me that one of WUWT's chief purposes is to make "scoops" on announcements made by environmentalists that are inaccurate or exaggerated – should we not be considering a section that lists these "scoops"? The Al Gore gaffe discussed above might fit into such a section, as well as their picking up on the "warmest October ever" statement from GISS. There must be others out there. Maybe for another section we can consider ideas from DeSmogBlog. Jprw (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not use article about blogs to coatrack violations of BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You think reporting a mistake by Al Gore would be in violation of BLP? Jprw (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, how would you suggest phrasing the material about Al Gore? Cla68 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest not including it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no blp issue here and the material is well sourced, it will be included mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're not going to be allowed to add information about gaffes made by a third party to this article, sourced only to an obscure Austrialian columnist. You're going to have to stop, now - your crusade to disparage living persons you disagree with on Wikipedia has become fully disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I`m not asking your permission to add well sourced material to an article, If gore opens his gob and crap spews out then people will call him on it, in this instance in was WUWT. I`m not disparaging anyone here, gores gaffe was on the news man, half the world heard it mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not call me "man," mark nutley. You must not use this article about a blog as a coatrack to include information that disparages living persons out of context. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it being used out of context? How is it wp:coatrack? Gore said it, WUWT picked up on it, and this was then mentioned in a wp:rs by a respected journalist. There is nothing wrong with this being included policy wise. Give one policy based reason for not including it mark nutley (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22. Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don`t see how that is relevant here at all, A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject This will not fail to give a truthful impression, as it is the truth. Also wp:coatrack is not policy, it is an essay and as such carries no weight in content disputes mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-description

We were using a self-description for WUWT: which according to the banner on the blog it is known for "Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news" - however, this just isn't accurate (well it is technically, because it is what it says it is, but it isn't helpful as a description of what the site is *actually* about, which is stuff about the global warming controversy in general. We often use self-descriptions (clearly labelled as such of course) but in this case I don't think we should. I viewed the first ~10 posts on the main page as of now: they are *all* on GWC William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone restored it but didn't both discuss that. How rude William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did after discussion with tony, he figured the cn tag should go and this was the easy fix mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The al gore thing

Andrew Bolt writing in his blog for the Herald Sun about when Al Gore was asked about the Climategate e-mails and said "the most recent one is more than 10 years old" WUWT picked up on this and pointed out that the most recent one was dated from just two months before the files were released.

Comments here please

This is my suggested text for the al gore thing, it is wp:rs sourced and i see no problems with it`s addition mark nutley (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, of course, but it does not look like English to me. And it's still completely unclear how Bolt is connected with WUWT or why he is mentioned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolt mentions it in the article, or do you just want to use watts up as a source for this? Watts up caught gore on the "mistake" then that got picked up and reported on by bolt. Why is this difficult to understand? mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the confusing style, this would seem more appropriate on Gore's page, if anywhere. It's a pretty trivial thing, imo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It`s a big gaffe by a big player. And WUWT picked up on it first, and got credited got that by bolt. There is no reason for this not to be in, it`s a pretty cool scoop. How is the style confusing? mark nutley (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it's a major gaffe? Understand, please, that as a Wikipedian I don't mean "why do you think it is a major gaffe?" I mean "which reliable sources have identified Al Gore as having made a singular and important error?" Andrew Bolt is an Australian columnist. Are there actual news articles on this matter, and if so, where and how many? --TS 21:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That didn't last long (part II)

MN has stripped out that crit. Since that was, explicitly, part of the reason for dropping the tag it needs to go back, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not mention WHUT anywere in the article. This was posted above. mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So find some other crit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute that is causing the justified use of the POV tag? What would you like included that has not been included? TMLutas (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@ WMC, if you feel the NPOV tag is needed then it is for you to find some crit not I. mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, if there is no crit to be found, and i`m sure you have looked, then the pov tag will have to go. You can`t just tag an article and then say "Go look for crits to satisfy me" I`m going to remove the tag as it is not needed mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I put it back. It is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I took it out. Provide an actual dispute for your addition for the tag *this time* and I'd have no problem with it. POV tagging something without giving a reason consistent with the rules is not ok. TMLutas (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rm: why

I took out the contribs section. It was, as it said, a straight copy of WUWT William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? How else would a list of contributers look? Do you actually have a policy based reason for removing it? mark nutley (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Think. WP:COPYVIO William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Think. Was it exactly the same? It was not was it thus no copyright issues mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....you might want to read something useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a terribly reliable source)) (though still interesting). I think that Mark might want to reconsider restructuring this section, or collapsing it into a descriptive sentence that might belong in the introduction. In any case, there are much more important issues to consider re: this article, such as adding proper, relevant sections describing what WUWT is all about -- it's actual raison d’être, etc. Jprw (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It actually wasn't a straight copy of WUWT but a somewhat reformatted version. Something as prosaic and small as the list of contributors (37 words in toto) in the vast amount of content that is WUWT generally comes under fair use. The prior contributor list was inaccurate. If WMC wants to do a superior edit, fine. If he had wanted to restore the old contributor list, fine. But killing the new contributor list while not even restoring the old is not fine. It's degrading the article. TMLutas (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to engage in the "my text is a somewhat reformatted version of yours so it isn't a copyright infringement" game. That's silly. I also note that the POV tag had been removed and an ambiguous link had been inserted. All things considered, it's easier to revert all the changes and continue the discussion. --TS 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TS, It's a 37 word contributor list that was copyvio'd. The words that are not names are exactly 4. Are you really POV tagging over a list? I just grabbed in the good faith idea that it wouldn't be a problem. Fine, it's a problem. The proper response is to tag it, discuss it, provide a better version that is not subject to copyvio and then replace it. If you really think that Anthony Watts is going to cause legal trouble over this, I'm not the one being silly.

Please provide your specific issues the resolution of which would warrant the removal of the tag. You can't have a dispute without laying out the dispute so we can discuss to consensus. You tagged it. You get to describe it. What, specifically, is the "ambiguous link" and why is it a problem? You're not WMC, unless you want to say that you're working in concert on this. I'm granting you the assumption that you're using your own brains and not just relying on his reasoning. No dispute laid out, no warranted POV tag. TMLutas (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hickman

Looks like he does belong in the Watts article and not here. Some other critical commentary needs to be found to balance the introduction. I noticed when hunting for refs for the Desmogblog article that Monbiot has a few (none too complimentary) things to say about WUWT so maybe start there. Jprw (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you've stripped it out again. This is about WUWT. No-one has heard of Watts otherwise... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

added in the WUWT purpose

The following edit should be noncontroversial. If anybody has an actual beef with it, can we have improved text here?

While the blog's posts on climate change garner the most attention, the stated reason the blog exists is to provide "News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news". Non-climate posts continue to be written.

What percentage of posts is non-AGW related? If it is very low, we should, in the interests of neutrality and trying to avoid the page looking like an advert, reword the above along the lines of "although the tagline of the blog claims to provide "News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news", the vast majority of the subject matter is geared towards reporting AGW news from the point of view of climate change skepticism". I think that something like this would sound more appropriate. Jprw (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

When I looked, everything on the first page (the first 10 posts or so) were AGW related. So I think the new addition is bad: that may be the blogs self-description, and it may once have been true, but it no longer is true William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is your description that is not true. In the first 10 posts from your post date was a post about the improper use of statistics in science, a post about the release of Popular Science's full backlog on the open Internet, and the eleventh post starting back from 3/20/10 is a financial scandal on the Euro carbon credits market. Currently on the WUWT front page is also a post on an extra-solar planetary discovery and how pollution claims in Canada don't stack up as well as a post on how ecological behavior seems to be positively correlated with mean-spiritedness. It's clear that AGW articles are a core interest in the blog but all of it? No, even a cursory examination would have discovered otherwise. TMLutas (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, Watts himself claimed times ago his blog being "Top 1 climate blog", and as the "stated reason" above is really just a ... how you'd say it - an obligatory header, a sign above the door? - neither I'm sure if it improves the article at all. Even if the two descriptions are not strictly mutually exclusive. Articles 1st paragraph describes things very well and in a compact fashion (not to mention that right now the lead is just ugly). --J. Sketter (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Instapundit is generally categorized as a political blog but it certainly does more than that. I get some of my best digital camera information from that site. This article is not so large that we need to prune text so tightly. TMLutas (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Huff. Post quote appropriate?

This post, currently cited in both our lede and Criticism sections, is by Kevin Grandia, "Blogger on Social Media and Public Policy", and was basically an appeal for votes in that year's Weblog Awards campaign:

"So I'm putting this appeal out there.

Take a few minutes today - the polls close at 5pm EST today, January 13th - and cast your vote by clicking here."

And here's the context of Grandia's criticism:

"...the Watt's Up With That blog run by former TV weatherman Anthony Watts has become quite the sensation amongst the climate denial blog comment trolls. And now it seems that the site is about to win the award for "Best Science Blog" in this year's Weblog Awards."

In my opinion, this blog post fails the WP:Weight test. I think one could also argue this is a BLP issue -- indirect criticism of Watts sourced to a blog. Propose to delete it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree per wp:weight but why is it in there twice? I have noticed this on bookers article as well, all the crit`s are doubled up mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I subbed in a criticism by Leo Hickman, but see that was also criticized above. Eh. I'll note that Hickman links Watts (in the passage quoted) to WUWT, which seems good enough to make this useable here. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to the cite, clarifying that Hickman hyperlinked Watts' name to the blog URL. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)