Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

History section

1. It's still a WordPress blog
2. "had to close the Wordpress blog and moved the site to his own Domain" - WordPress is a CMS, you don't need to "close [it] down" to move it to a different domain
3. The cited source (humanevents.com) says nothing about WordPress, and while it talks about him having to shut down his blog because of the traffic, it says nothing about the blog ceasing to use WordPress (either as a CMS or as a hosting platform), nor does it say that the blog was moved to "his own Domain"
4. The fourth sentence (The story which lead to this was when Watts posted "January 2008 was the planet's second-coldest January in 15 years") is not supported by the cited source. More importantly, how did Steigerwald manage to reference a story Watts posted about events that happened in Jan. 2008 in a column dated Aug 2007? Are you saying that Watts has a time machine, or Steigerwald? Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

1. It was on the .wordpress free blog hosting site, he moved to his own .com per the ref given.
2. (The story which lead to this was when Watts posted "January 2008 was the planet's second-coldest January in 15 years" California meteorologist Anthony Watts says January 2008 was the planet's second-coldest January in 15 years. and in the hours after DrudgeReport.com posted The Pittsburgh Tribune’s "scoop" about Watts, his Web site Watt’s Up With That? was visited by 20,000 people. Normally it gets 3,000 hits a month, which is why he had to shut it down.
3. What is it you don`t get here? mark nutley (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I'm sorry, but the new history section is just unintelligible, and your comment here isn't much better. What are you trying to say in the article? Why should our readers care about this stuff? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured people would like to read how the site began, from a basic free hosted .wordpress blog to what it is now. How is it unintelligible? I can read it ok :-) mark nutley (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets see... For starters, you are confusing WordPress, which is software, with WordPress.com. So your statement about moving "from WordPress" is inaccurate. The URL of the blog has changed, not the software it runs on. (I also suspect that it's still hosted by WordPress.com, but that's another matter.) So the basic assertion is false. It's also not supported by the references provided.

The second bit makes no sense at all. I asked you how it was a story dated to 2007 could reference and event that happened in 2008. You simply responded by throwing up the same pair of links that already existed in the article. That is unintelligible, at least to me. Guettarda (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that in Watts' interview the shut blog is given as http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/. You went a bit too far in trying to draw your own conclusions, mark, from the information available :) --J. Sketter (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the refs does have it as a .wordpress subdomain, so anyone got any suggestions on how this stuff can be used? A history of the site would make interesting reading i think mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ still works. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it redirects to wattsupwiththat.com. Which suggests to me that they are still hosted by wordpress.com Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A redirect is just that, it does not mean the host is the same anymore :) but i did a whois and the site is hosted on the wordpress servers. Any thoughts on how to use the suggested material btw? mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it looks like an obvious way of expanding it. Jprw (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

contributors again

Did an alphabetical list of contributors. Hopefully with less drama this time. TMLutas (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

rv why

Stephen you removed the "who coined climategate" with this edit summary Delingpole is not talking about WUWT - misplaced This is from delingpoles piece The person who really coined it was a commenter called “Bulldust” on the Watts Up With That site. So why did you remove it? mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that establishes a link to WUWT in your text at all. There may be one in the article, but then WP:NOTLINK applies. You need to rewrite this so it makes sense to someone who does not already know the controversy and who has not already read Delingpole's blog. The point of a reference is to support your text, not replace it. That said, Delingpole's "article" is an opinion piece (and one that is quite short and rather stupid), i.e. it needs to be attributed. How is one man's opinion even relevant for this article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did attribute it though, and it makes sense to me, can you propose an alternative? mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'According to James Delingpole, writing on the Daily Telegraph blog, the name "Climategate" was first coined by the WUWT contributor "Bulldust".' I still don't think it merits mentioning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You don`t think the story of how climategate got named is interesting? how peculiar mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Delingpole's claim is interesting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

O ok then, but then again you don`t find delingpole interesting either do you :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does "contributer" come from? Contributer == someone who writes articles on the blog. As opposed to "commentator", someone who wrote something in the comment section. This seems rather coincidental, Delingpole is the coiner - but he got the idea from someone unrelated to WUWT, in the comment section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I always though "contributor" = someone who contributes, but I'm open for otherviews. What about "user"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was commentator when i added it, stepehn suggested the current text, i`ll go change it now to commentator again mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole specifically disclaims credit for coining the term. He didn't "get the idea" from WUWT, he got the term itself. As for calling his statement, "a claim" -- are you saying it's open to dispute? FellGleaming (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Note before I unwatch

Before I unwatch this page again, I'd like to note that my strongest support for characterizations of commentators on the main page is none, or merely their affilation (columnist for X, writer in Y). If we must state that one or the other actors is an activist, we must also state the activist nature of other actors - if we say Dellingpole is a conservative writer, we should then also say monbiot is a liberal, and vice-versa. I would support (but will be un-aware of, unless scibaby makes me revert his changes again) any agreement that treats all sides equally. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I second this, the use of labels on sources is not wp:npov If people want to know a sources politics they should go find out. It is not for editors to show bias by calling sources left or right, liberal or conservative mark nutley (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Labels exist for a reason. If a party is not a neutral bystander, the reader should be informed as such. I have no quibble with labelling people accurately on both sides of the debate, but the term "climate skeptic" has serious problems. "AGW skeptic" isn't perfect by any means, but is a bit less problematic. FellGleaming (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We have a duty to write articles in a wp:npov, the use of labels detracts from that. There is no reason to use them in an article, we provide what the sources say, not what their politics are mark nutley (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Normally I would agree, but when someone is expressing criticism and that criticism can be shown to be largely the result of their underlying beliefs, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to note the background of a critic. In this instance you have a highly partisan critic criticising WUWT for being highly partisan. I would say that not to apply the label is NPOV since it tries to pass off his criticism as being objective, when it is clearly not. Dellingpole's political stance is not relevant when stating that the source of Climategate was from WUWT. You could add it but what additional information would it add? Arzel (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I apparently am out of step with the conversation. I am not suggesting that Monboit be labeled a Liberal. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the debate is centered over labelling him an "environmental activist", a term Monbiot himself has used. You make a good point, though, that the label may be appropriate when someone is criticizing or supporting another's work, but when a person is listed as a source of non-controversial background information, the label adds nothing to a reader's understanding. FellGleaming (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to add that an editor who disagrees that a label is beneficial, who after having their change reverted, then adds labels in other areas, is a textbook example of trying to prove a WP:Point. I think its indisputable that labels can add in certain cases, but others do not. FellGleaming (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot is, first and foremost a writer/journalist. If any description should be used, it should be that. That's what pays his salary. Guettarda (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Journalist? He writes a blog. He's an environmental author, to be sure, and if you prefer that phrase to "environmental activist", that's equally valid. His own WP entry says he is "a writer, known for his environmental and political activism". FellGleaming (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, journalist. If you aren't familiar with him, read the article (with the grain of salt that applies to all Wikipedia articles). Guettarda (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The current "environmental writer" seems most accurate, I would agree. The label on Delingpole, though, sticks out like a sore thumb. Not only is it clumsily phrased, but it adds nothing to the article. If his mention was being used to support or attack the site or its content, a label would be appropriate, but as it is, it seems just added in the article to make a WP:Point. FellGleaming (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say leave monbiot as it is now and remove that stupid label on Delingpole, it is just plain clumsy and silly mark nutley (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So are we agreed to delete it? I think only one editor wanted it. FellGleaming (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i believe the consensus is for it to go mark nutley (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole is a blog. I just deleted that stuff - we shouldn't be using it, not an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And I just restored it. This has already been discussed at length here. I take note that you didn't delete the other blog references in the article that are critical of WUWT. Why are they acceptable to you? FellGleaming (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC the Delingpole ref is to the Telegraph, it is wp:rs as i am sure you know. Please do not remove reliable sources from articles. it is wp:Disruptive mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the Delingpole article is certainly not a reliable source to anything other than Delingpoles opinion (which is rather extremely biased - see redflag later). Delingpole's blog is either not under editorial control or the Telegraph has serious problems.[1]. Now Booker (also an opinion writer) with equally biased perceptions, believe that Delingpole may have coined the name "Climategate" - but since it is in an opinion piece, it cannot be sourced as fact.

So, we'd end up with something like:

"...Delingpole, who according to Cristopher Booker coined the name "Climategate", attributes an anonymous commentator on WUWT, "Bulldust", with giving him the idea to use the phrase..."

The Delingpole article has other problems though, one of these being that it raises a WP:REDFLAG with this sentence "how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name", and with things like "Because the liberal media aren’t reporting it with the glee and enthusiasm and foaming self-righteousness they accorded Watergate. Instead, they’re giving it the grudging, embarrassed non-coverage the libtard MSM invariably does to a story they’d rather, ahem, drown". Not really a commentary that is unbiased or reliable as a source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(a) None of what you quote is being used within the WP article, and (b) the negative blogs used within the article are just as biased ... and in fact, their biased statements are actually used within the article itself. You don't see the double standard here? FellGleaming (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is attributed to delingpole, and all content in the telegraph is under editorial control, it is wp:rs and i am fed up of these constant arguments over it`s use. Go read wp:rs this ref is sound under that policy mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS is not a black/white thing. All sources can be reliable in context. Some sources are only reliable to the opinion of their author (blogs and other SPS'). And some sources are only reliable in a specific context. One thing you need to find out is: No source is ever 100% reliable, or 100% unreliable - it all depends on context. As long as you can't fathom this - you will trip over sourcing problems again and again.

As for your assertion that the Delingpole blog being under the full editorial control of the Telegraph - well that is something that i find rather hard to swallow - and i'd like a reference for that.

Finally - you haven't addressed the problem of opinion sourcing opinion. That Delingpole should be the coiner of the "Climategate" moniker, is the opinion of Christopher Booker - it cannot be stated as fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No Kim, this isn't correct. If the article said "the source of the term ClimateGate is xxx", that would require sourcing. However, the article says, "Delingpole says the name was coined by xxx". It's clearly attributed to Delingpole. Further, if you're seriously concerned, Delingpole's November 20 story was the first media source to use the term Climategate, which you can determined by checking the relevant dates.

Further, while you are correct that WP:RS depends on context, you miss the point that in this particular context, there is no question of "reliability". We can accept Delingpole's summary of where he obtained the term "ClimateGate" without question. There's absolutely no reason to believe this is unreliable. FellGleaming (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but i disagree. When you are using a source to state something about WUWT - then that reference will have to be relevant and to some degree authoritative. Delingpole really is neither (in fact it raises a red-flag). It amounts to puffery and coat-racking. When we also take into account that both Delingpole and Booker are dodgy sources - then it inflates the problem. Your comment about Nov. 20 is pure WP:OR (and probably not correct, since "climategate" had been used as a moniker for other things - before "climategate" happened). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Kim's right. While it's trivially correct to say that Delingpole is a reliable source for Delingpole's words, the question that matters here is whether Delingpole is a reliable source for what happened here. Given the fact that he largely reproduced Solomon's error-filled post, it's pretty safe to say that he isn't really isn't up to our standards for fact-checking and accuracy. If we aren't using him as a source of information, if we're just repeating what he said because he said it about about WUWT (or, really, a pseudonymous commenter at WUWT), we'd need to establish why we care enough about Delingpole's comment to discuss it here.

For context, Bill O'Reilly has reported on comments made at Daily Kos - not posts, comments. Would we really add those to the main Daily Kos article? If anything, we'd mention them in O'Reilly's article, or his show's article. And then we'd need to establish that this was one of his more notable comments. And this isn't even statement about WUWT. Had "Bulldust" made the comment on a story at the Telegraph, or at CNN, or at Fox News, would we add that tidbit to those articles? Of course not. Guettarda (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Climategate has been and still is a massive controversy, and no doubt the effects will rumble on for years. It is of interest to our readers who coined the term, personally i think Delingpole should be given credit here for saying who it was and claiming it for himself. It is attributed and regardless of what kim says above, Delingpole`s saying that the term was first coined and WUWT is relevent. I really don`t see what the issue is here the source is fine, the way it is written is fine, what exactly are you lot complaining about? mark nutley (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that if an unreliable (but notable) source said it was coined in a comment on CNN, it should be added to the CNN article? Guettarda (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then, 5 days, no case to include a comment that's not about the website. It's gone then. Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No it`s back, how is it not about the website? Given the website is actually named in the quote? mark nutley (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then please answer my question above: if an unreliable (but notable) source said it was coined in a comment on CNN, it should be added to the CNN article? Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure why not, who coined the term is both of interest and notable. Given how much coverage the story got then people would like to know who came up with the name. Why exactly is the source unreliable btw? mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's unreliability has already been established. Why is "who coined the term" relevant to this article? "[P]eople would like to know who came up with the name" - if that bit of trivia is of interest, shouldn't it be in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article? If it's not important enough to be included there, where it actually applies, why is it important enough to be included here? You can't use this article as a way to backdoor it in. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs there. If not there, then in Delingpole's bio. But it's not about the website, it's not about its authors...it appears to be a classic Wikipedia:Coatrack. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole`s unreliability is a matter of opinon to certain editors, under wp:rs he is fine as a source, especially if attributed. Which in this case it is. Why it is relevant to this article is because the term was coined at the blog which this article is about, there is no coatrack here, and it is not being backdoored in. The term "Climategate" was coined and WUWT, please tell me how you figure this is coatracking or backdooring something in? mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that the information is germane to this article. I've attempted compromise wording. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, if you believe that the quote from Delingpole is somehow "coatracking" the article, what exact rack do you feel is being forwarded here? I don't think there's a cabal of people conspiring to inflate the resume of "Bulldust" with credit for the ClimateGate term. FellGleaming (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking WUWT and ClimateAudit: Original Research

Kim, I assume from your insertion of the template, that you wouldn't object to removing the phrase purporting the "same opinion" to these two sites. I think that's valid. Unless another editor disagrees, it should probably go. FellGleaming (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I wouldn't mind a removal - in fact i'm rather convinced that McIntyre doesn't have similar views to Watts (if one looks hard enough, McIntyre has stated this in some commentary), which is why i put the tags on the paranthesis sentence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To late, if your refering to the piece by jeet heer at any rate mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, by doing that i may have broken my 1r restriction, if i have please ping my talk page mark nutley (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And now Mark, you can quote the exact point in the Heer article, where this is written. Since you reverted with " remove cn and or tags, this stuff is in the ref". I can't find it in the ref, but apparently you can. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And now kim, perhaps you should look at what you made me revert ans you`ll see i fixed it mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is btw Wattsupwiththat.comand and climatedepot.com. The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community. As you can see what i did fixed and improved the article, feel free to revert my self revert mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a version that everyone may wind acceptable. Please voice your opinions here. FellGleaming (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No it`s wrong, what i had done actually fixed it, this is what needs to be there In The Globe And Mail Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT and the blog climatedepot "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community It is not CA mentioned by Heer mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the full text of the article? I'm a bit curious to know how a reporter best known for reporting on comic books knows what is "deeply worrying" to the scientific community at large. Did he attribute this in any way? FellGleaming (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No it`s behind a paywall now :( mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on this, and KDP's recent comments about undue weight in other areas, I will delete it. Three negative comments from three environmental reporters in such a short entry is really overboard. A comment by an actual climatologist -- either positive or negative -- would be appropriate I think. FellGleaming (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of criticisms

Why was this removed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC):

In The Globe And Mail, Jeet Heer wrote of WUWT: "The sites' rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community".

See the discussion above. The list of journalists who had negative things to say about WUWT was becoming longer than the article itself. WP:UNDUE. Jeet Heer is best known as a comic book reporter in any case; his comment isn't very notable. FellGleaming (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can show that coverage is unbalanced then find positive coverage to create balance. Otherwise, don't take out criticism to create a false balance. Your personal opinion of Mr. Heer is not germane to determining reliability; The Globe and Mail is Canada's largest circulation national newspaper and considered a "newspaper of record" comparable to the role that the New York Times serves in the U.S. Will undo your revert if satisfactory justification is not provided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue of finding counterbalancing opinions; its a length issue. This is a brief article, and listing 20 opinions from 20 journalists on whether or not they like the site isn't helpful. We have several; any more detracts from the article, and risks COATRACKing it and appearing a poison the well scenario.

As was said above, a statement from an actual climatologist or scientist in a field relevant to the blog's content would be a step forward. But how many journalist opinions do we really need? Another dozen on either side...would that make the article more encyclopedic, or just look silly? FellGleaming (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have any problem with including reliably sourced criticisms, such as from newspapers. Any balance in the article I believe will occur naturally. I assume some newspaper columnists somewhere, such as Christopher Booker, must have given the site some positive reviews? Anyway, I'm not confortable with removing reliably sourced opinions from an article that isn't a BLP. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me add, I think our readers are able to read the information, check the sources, and decide for themselves whether the criticisms and praises are credible or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you wouldn't object to several negative opinions from columnists criticizing say, a site like RealClimate? I notice that blog has no criticism section yet whatsoever. FellGleaming (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just started working on that article. Here are my list of potential sources so far. Notice that it is a fairly assorted mix of praise and criticism. I want to take the article to Good Article level, if not higher, which requires it to be expanded greatly. That means that I need to use everything in reliable sources that I can find, which will include a mix of both criticism, praise, and stuff in the middle. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk page you linked says you "just completed Desmogblog, and nominated it for good article". Yet the updated article contains only positive references, and no criticism whatsoever. Why the difference between that site and this one? FellGleaming (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much negative criticism of DeSmogBlog. You might have missed the one negative criticism in the article, which is the second sentence in the second paragraph of the "notable media mentions" paragraph. If there was more criticism of the subject in reliable sources, I would have put it in there. If people click on the links in the references, I think they will find out more about that website. RealClimate is another story. I think that article is going to be an interesting one to expand, as opinions on that blog are a little stronger, on both "sides". Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think Heer was being critical of the site, he was saying how it had gotten so popular, i believe it should stay in myself mark nutley (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I agree with G William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, i will revert this per my reasons above mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New Delingpole reference

[2]

Substantial reference to WUWT made. Jprw (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly apropos, but needs some trimming somewhat to fall in line with the rest of the article. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the original Delingpole material that's been batted around a couple of times is that it's not about the blog per se which is the topic of the present article. Saying that Delingpole has been a guest poster at WUWT would be fine; making a brief mention of an especially noteworthy guest post by Delingpole would be fine (assuming the noteworthiness is established in reliable sources). But analyzing Delingpole's argument is a textbook example of WP:COATRACK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not Delingpole's argument. It's an argument by Steve Goddard, WUWT commentator. Delingpole is simply reporting on it, which makes it notable. I think the text needs to be rewritten to indicate this...it doesn't need to refer to Delingpole at all(just be sourced to him), and it needs to be trimmed a bit as well. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the point of the extensive volcano stuff mislabelled "guest postings" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Not every blog post pigged up by a partisan commentator in an editorial is notable or relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, but I think WMC's edit summary was unnecessarily provocative. Thepm (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is going back in, please suggest an alternative wording for it, thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested wording, given due weight: "" It would be great if can shorten it further. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Very constructive :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If this were a pop culture blog, would it be relevant to have a section about somebody's guest post on Lady Gaga? IF so, what would you write then? Thepm (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s not pop culture though. I think a rebuttal to what the MSM were saying (incorrectly) about the eruption is very notable, especially as the rebuttal was picked up and relayed via the telegraph mark nutley (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Some editors seem to be having trouble spelling Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Such editors should look at the extensive discussion on the article name on that talk page, and not attempt to re-import settled arguments onto other pages William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the consensus Here the use of the term is allowable within section headers and article content mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Um. The "consensus" there is thin indeed, especially compared to that at talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. But even granted your point, which I don't, all that does is make the use of the term "allowable" not "required" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

William, just how many average readers do you think will recognize "Climatic Research Unit email controversy," vs. Climategate? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Most people have heard of neither, so what's it matter? Guettarda (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from anyone who has read [3] these sources of course mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perspective

I think that "from a global warming skeptic perspective" is more accurate than "skeptical". In this contxt, "skeptical" has a particular meaning, that of disagreeing with the consensus, not the meaning it used to have William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot

MN has this wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please expound on your rationale? NW (Talk) 15:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Without taking a position in the underlying dispute, it seems that MN is stating that Monbiot retracted his comment about WUWT in the bolded paragraphs of [4]. It appears that what Monbiot retracted was his claim that 'it is incorrect to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average', not his claim that 'He must know that this source is highly partisan and untrustworthy.' As an example, if I were to say "NW, you have long been a terrible admin - and as such, your block of Lambteeth must have been wrong," but I later determined your block of Lambteeth was correct, that would not mean that I retracted my claim that you were long a terrible admin. (Note that I take no position on your terribleness as an admin, used only for the purposes of this analogy, nor on your block of Lambteeth, who I pulled out at random) Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion was delivered in the context of what he later admitted was a mistake on his part. The entire paragraph should come out. ATren (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He admitted to one mistake, but didn't retract the column. (note btw. that he still considers Bookers information wrong (just by month). And it has nothing to do with his opinion on WUWT. [on that account i find the use of Op-ed's/editorials/blogs overrated - which is an entirely different thing] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot made that accusation based on a mistake, he then manned up and admitted he was wrong and that the information on WUWT was in fact correct. What exactly is the issue here? Either we say he retracted or the whole lot has to go, which is it to be? mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article nom

I think I may have some additional info to add to this article before a GA reviewer gets to it in a couple of weeks time. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Until the voluntary topic ban is over, however, I'll probably just post suggested additions of text here to the talk page and someone else can add it. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that unless (as the person who nominated it) am forbidden from doing so.Jprw (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you nominated it then you should help it along :), as i am due a topic ban soon i`ll add any content posted here, it`ll make no difference to me in the long run mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I got my fingers burned when I first nominated an article (The Real Global Warming Disaster) and then requested fellow editors from the GW topic area to review it, upon which the nomination was promptly quashed (all according to correct WP procedure). So I'd rather be safe than sorry)) Cheers Jprw (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one of the strengths of the GA and FA promotion forums is that they often bring in outside observers to look over an article and offer helpful critiques and suggestions for improvement. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, an NYTimes blog appears to have some information in this entry for which I'll try to find the link:

• Hansen and Watts Agree: Cold Weather, Warm Climate." Nytimes.com Blogs 17 Jan. 2010. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this entry, Viscount Christopher Monckton used Watts' blog last month to give his version of the story behind Margaret Thatcher's advocacy for global warming action. You may not be able to find this one online somewhere:

• "Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign." Europe Intelligence Wire 22 June 2010. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Available here. Note especially the subtitle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems ok to use as source for information for this article. This source is an example of confusing citations I often find in Infotrac. Infotrac gives the source as a Financial Times' newswire. The Guardian, however, appears to be running the piece as if they published it. Who actually published it? Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LSE (Ward's institution) is attributing it to the Grauniad.[5] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tag and edit warring

• The article appears to have been nominated for GA with an expansion tag still in existance. I take it that the expansion of that section is still considered necessary then. I notice that there have been some battles over tags on this article in the past so I am unclear as to who still thinks the expansion tag is needed and who does not.
• There have been several reverts over the last month. In fact I count 10 in the last calendar month. These are fairly clear edit warring and are clearly not good faith improvements in general or reversions of clear vandalism. This means that the article fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria part 5. This should be sorted out for the article to be rated as good. It is poor practice having an article rated as good when it is being edit warred over.

Maybe things need to settle down, the tag needs removing by consensus, the edit wars need to cease completely for a few weeks and then an attempt at GA. The only edit I have ever done prior to this comment was a minor edit to remove a space therefore technically I could review this article. However, as I would fail it and tell you to come back later I think this would be extremely controversial and so I will leave it up to someone not involved in the current arb case. Polargeo (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the expand tag – it appears to be a remnant from an earlier time. What would be really helpful would be for someone to review the article as it stands, list the deficiencies preventing it from reaching GA status, and then let other editors have a go at rectifying those errors before a re-evaluation took place in, say, a fortnight. Any takers or is this too optimistic a timeframe? Jprw (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree a minimum of two weeks from now edit warring free may be adequate. One thing I would require up front is a source for the list of contributors. You are effectively saying these living people contribute to this skeptic blog with no given source for this statement. A separate source (or inline citation) for each one may even be necessary. Polargeo (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had a search history as a cite for the contributers? has it been removed? mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears it was added on 23 March [6]. I cannot see any attempt since then to source this information. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I`ll do it now, i could have sworn this had been sourced using the search function at the site, i must be thinking of another article mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with the sources you have added so far. However, the posts are all on Anthony Watts's blog and all posted by Anthony Watts. This may need checking by the BLP crowd as they seem to have a real problem accepting blog posts of any sort on BLP issues. Polargeo (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources Mark are providing are not valid references, and certainly don't verify anything more than "A search on watttsupwiththat shows that these names have been used on the blog." For instance, is there an author titled "Whooping Shit?" Based on mark's methology, there is - [7]. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How exactly are these not valid refs? Are you perhaps thinking these people do not post on the blog? How exactly have they failed verification? mark nutley (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I clicked on the links, and they didn't demonstrate that the people you say were authors were authors at all. For instance, what at http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Basil+Copeland leads you to believe Basil Copeland is an author. Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::How about this A Guest Post by Basil Copeland sorry i did not realize you had trouble reading the actual search results mark nutley (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you asked another long term contributor to verify it's acceptancce as a source you'd get an informed opinion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem. But even further than that if the source was to the actual person's post. Would this be adequate? I am not sure if the BLP checkers would accept it. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an author page for authors - for instance, [8]. I don't know why these weren't used for the other personages. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay so you are saying the author page on the blog is an acceptable source to list these people as contributors. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using the "authors" page from the blog is an adequate source. By the way, Mark and Hipocrite, we should be allowing JPRW to make these edits as we're supposed to be following a voluntary topic ban until the ArbCom case is decided. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing contributors

Mark is apparently sourcing Blog contributors to search result pages on "What's up with that". That is problematic on several levels. First, these are, of course, primary sources. Secondly, a search result is not a static verifiable resource, but a dynamic result that can and will change over time, and in non-transparent ways, based on the internal organization of the web site. And third, of course, the result is at best as reliable as the web site, which, in this case, means "not very". Finally, it seems like the search returns every article which mentions the search term anywhere. I doubt that e.g. James Hansen has written for WUWT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but let us make this simple rather than arguing about search result sources that will be easily corrected. Is a posting on the blog itself which is credited to the individual sufficient to list the individual? Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - is WUWT considered a reliable source for information about living people other than its owner? It's a valid source for Watts' opinion because he can be tied to it by reliable third-party sources. We wouldn't use WUWT alone, without corroborating sources, as proof that it was authored by Watts. I'd think the same standard should apply for other contributors. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know BLP policy I would think so too (my own thoughts about BLP policy asside) Polargeo (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Recuse. I don't know the correct answer. I do know that a search results page is not a valid source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But that can be corrected. I hope this issue can be resolved here as there are enough people who should be able to give informed opinions but if not the BLP noticebord can sort this out. I would love to be able to say yes this is okay or not but there is some horrific BLP zeal on wikipedia over the past year which in my opinion needs pegging back as it goes against the ethos and even against what it is trying to achieve and enters into the realm of wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the blog has an "authors" page listing its main contributors. This should suffice as a source. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is still problematic. With BLP the blog can only be considered reliable for the opinions of one person (Anthony Watts) who has been confirmed as the blog's author by independent sources. Is it a reliable source for contributors? Particularly as we have to take Anthony Watts word that he has checked all of the contributors and confirmed they are who they say they are. Does the blog have a good reputation for fact checking? This really is a BLP issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But we can add "According to WUWT, contributors include..." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a solution. I am not bothered one way or the other I am just trying to give advice for GA review. Polargeo (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That still involves using a blog as a source of information about living people. And, quite frankly, it's the kind of thing that, if untrue, could be very embarrassing to people. Attributing something to an unreliable source doesn't make it BLP-appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But the reverse doubletake is that now its a statement about WUWT, no about the contributors. WUWT is OK for some kinds of statements about WUWT. Agree with the embarrassment part. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but bear in mind the concerns expressed recently about the case of Rosalind Picard, who appeared in a reliable source (the NYT) as signatory to a petition used by ID proponentsists to promote ID. Even though she is definitely shown in that RS to have signed it and had not published any rebuttal or retraction, many editors felt we shouldn't report this because she might not like it being more widely known. This must surely apply much more so to a fringe blog source, the only possible saving grace being that the individuals don't seem to be notable enough to have articles yet. Safest to delete this until the list is given in a better source such as a reputable mainstream newspaper or an academic book. . . dave souza, talk 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, I don't think that it makes a difference whether we attribute it or not. "Blogger X says Y about person Z" isn't a whole lot better than saying Y about person Z<source, blogger X>. And, when it comes down to it, WUWT is either a Watts, or Watts' guest contributors. It's not an institution or a corporation that can speak with a voice distinct from that of individual people.

Dave's point is important too. Who are these other people? Other than Goklany, there's no way to find information about them. There's no way to know which Evan Jones we're talking about? (Likely none of the ones listed on the dab page). Without some biographical information, it's a meaningless list. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe introducing a general sentence in the lead along the lines of "in addition to Watts, the blog has a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany", and then deleting the Contributors section, which seems to be more trouble than its worth. Jprw (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I would avoid singling out Goklany though to avoid any issues whatsoever. Just say that the blog has a list of regular guest contributors then reference the blog page with the contributor list. That way anyone who wishes to see the list can get it on the blog itself. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Also get's rid of the need to keep the list up to date. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

looks like we have a clear consensus: the Contributions section is toast. I'll do the edit now. Jprw (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Watts Up With That?

The article name needs to be changed to this new, correct title. Does anyone know how to add a question mark when moving a page? Jprw (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You need an admin to delete the redirect page Watts Up With That? so that the move can be made. I will do it if nobody objects. Polargeo (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Move done now tidying up related stuff/links Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Jprw (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lead

Sounds too positive and could do with a critical ref – perhaps something general like "However, the blog has been described in some quarters as being highly partisan and selective in its reporting of data". Otherwise a valid point could be made that it is lacking in neutrality. Jprw (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: the above, I have added a sentence to round off the lead which is critical.Jprw (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One of those is no good, monbiot retracted his accusation after it was ponted out he was totaly wrong mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. Can you please give the source/link for this. Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s in the ref given Whoops – looks like I've boobed this was discussed above mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are still misrepresenting what Monbiot retracted. He did not retract his statement about WUWT. He did not base his statement on WUWT on the minor statement he retracted. You have been told this already - but you don't listen. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the previous thread where it was argued that he admitted a single mistake which was outlined but he didn't retract the column based on it. If only everyone would do the same when some part of their argument was proven wrong then this would be a lot easier. Anyway, the link is to the entry where he has already corrected his mistake so you are now saying he is still not credible even after he has corrected his mistake. Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not saying he is not credible, but if his critique was based on a mistake which he manned up and admitted to then the critique within the article is based on the first false premise mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it wasn't. Please read the source carefully. . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• "In some quarters" is weaselly and misrepresents the majority expert view of WUWT, so I've changed it to "in mainstream sources". . . dave souza, talk 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Even more weaselly is saying mainstream sources when only one such source exists, so i changed it to reflect that mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also is`nt this a blog [9] mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this is an article about a blog. It is not a BLP therefore there is no blanket ban on blogs as sources. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is if they are not commenting on themselves wp:sps it does not involve claims about third parties; mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. "Caution should be exercised." So has it been in the use of this source? Polargeo (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No not really as it is being used to make a statement of fact and misinterpreting empirical observations Care to tell me how this usage of a blog equates to wp:sps it does not involve claims about third parties; A blog can`t be used to source statements of facts about a third partym you know that mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So remove it and find better sourced criticism. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not like i have not tried, there are no crits to be had, i have tried news, books and even scholar were funnily enough i got hits :) "watts up with that" but apart from monbiots column there are no MSM crits of this website, plenty of praise though mark nutley (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why we need to use whatever negative crits are out there as they help avoid articles sounding like glowing tributes to the subject. Jprw (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the NPOV argument is strong enough to not ignore this source. Maybe it should be changed to say something milder like "making errors in the interpretation of..." rather than "misinterpreting" because misinterpreting can suggest that it is deliberate and I don't think the source conveys this or even if it did it is not a strong enough source to say this. Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise I'll make the adjustment. Jprw (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That`s cool, i`m good with that. Nice one Polargeo mark nutley (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to the minore edit war over the blog ref i have removed it per wp:sps. Either people come to an agreement on the talk page here or it stays out mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Parrisian is, I take it, a sock? Jprw (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t know, he may be ratel. I have asked him on his talk page to stop edit warring, come to talk and also to disclose any previous accounts he may have had mark nutley (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done -- edit warring/unhelpful, disruptive tendentious edits by socks are going to well and truly scupper this article's chances of reaching GA, and such activity should be pre-empted as much as possible. By the way the last line of the lead still needs tweaking and we might want to reconsider introducing the blog ref for the sake of critical balance. Jprw (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The blog ref can go back to help with balance, but go with Polargeo`s suggestion. There is a nice piece in the NYT about the site btw For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That? mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Watts Up is, like RealClimate, a moderated site which means reader comments are screened and subject to approval before being posted. I don't have a reliable secondary reference to source this, however, but I think it's an important piece of information for this article and should be included if a source can be found. Cla68 (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pub?

Why is there a problem with noting the lack of publications? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why has unverified content been reverted into this article? mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly

I took this out:

According to journalist Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster, in 2007 WUWT and its readers found that a significant number of weather stations used to capture temperature records were located in the US, giving the US a disproportionate impact on global temperature reports.

because it is silly William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also some more stuff that was more about Booker than WUWT William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To delete text because you feel that it is "silly" doesn't appear to me to be very helpful. We're supposed to be adding information to this article, not deleting it. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Booker wrote, or what WUWT found, but the connection it is plain and simply wrong and misleading. The number of weather stations in a given area is irrelevant for the "impact" that area has on any gridded temperature product (like the CRU, NASA, and NOAA temperature products). So this statement either needs a lot of context (which may be hard to source, since no-body would think it necessary to comment on such obvious nonsense, and no scientific journal would publish a note on such a trivial error), or it needs to go. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think we're supposed to be indiscriminately adding nonsensical material, I don't think there's much that can be done here. StuartH (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla is keen to push "verifiability, not truth". As far as Cla is concerned, rampant nonsense is fine as long as there is a source Cla considers reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting content without discussion

Can I please remind editors that the article is GA nominated and that instead of deleting/reinstating content without discussion (in short, edit warring) it would be much better to discuss on this page first. Otherwise, the GA nomination goes up in smoke. Jprw (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to talk to Cla then, because he is re-inserting total tripe into this article William M. Connolley (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The warring begins with deletion though. Let's make full use of this discussion board over the next week or so. Jprw (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, removing tripe is not warring, esspecially when backed up on the talk page, as I did. If you're going to try to help in this dispute, you're going to need to know what you're talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You took it out before discussing it first. Why bypass the discussion process, especially when you know that the article is up for GA? Deletions should be reserved for edits by obvious socks/vandalism, otherwise we are straight into a batttleground-type scenario. Jprw (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I took it out because it was tripe, which seems especially sensible given this is up for GA. Lets try this the other way round: do you think it is a good idea to have that text in the article? Or, perhaps the same question, do you have any idea whether that text is true or false? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WUWT, the most prominent sceptical blog, is referenced at least twenty times in The Real Global Warming Disaster, the most prominent book from the sceptics camp. It seems to me that it would be odd if the WUWT Wikipedia article did not at least somewhere reference this fact. As for dubious claims, shouldn’t we let the reader make their own mind up, and just let a major source speak for itself? Jprw (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jprw, that is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"None of WUWT's analyses have been published in the peer-reviewed literature"

This somehow got embedded in a link. I've taken it out. Does anyone have a source for it? Jprw (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't think tha absence of any sch publications is good enough? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From a GA point of view would that not make it original research? Jprw (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course it does. I view WMC's question as rhetorical. He is correct but that matters little here on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Heffernan

A rather bizarre removal by mark nutley of a Virginia Heffernan quote that was verified to a certified Twitter account seems strange. I can understand removing everything to the talk page, but why only the quote that disputed that which was published in the NYTimes? Explain? ScienceApologist (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no response here and mark seems to be insistent that this should not be left, I will remove the entire content. I will post it here below in short-order so that we may all consider whether any part at all is worthy of inclusion in this article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well gee, perhaps i would have had time to post here if you had not been so busy posting threats on y talk page. Your insertion of SPS sources is a problem, don`t do it again. Your removal of sourced content is also a problem, don`t do that again mark nutley (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

??? I have made a very clear-cut point here. Virginia Heffernan has verifiably said she regrets recommending Anthony Watts' blog. Is this something that we should take into consideration? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because it can be verified to a forum post and a twitter account? No of course not, and you know such sources can`t be used mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there really an issue with using a "confirmed Twitter account" to verify that a person thinks something? I'm actually fine with removing the whole thing if she regrets it, but it seems very dishonest to keep in just the recommendation if she really does regret recommending it. Isn't that reasonable? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've answered my question by doing a search for "confirmed Twitter" at WP:RSN. I'll spare you the details, but suffice to say there are a lot of people that claim a confirmed Twitter account is simply a WP:SPS. In fact, there is a link that claims this very thing: WP:TWITTER. So, interestingly enough, we can use this source because we are referencing Virginia Heffernan's very own opinion. Whether it is appropriate for a WP:BLP, well, that's hard to say. It seems weird, though, that her opinion published by NYTimes is not in violation of WP:BLP but her own self-published opinion which expresses regret for the self-same opinion published by the NYTimes is not allowed to exist here. Interesting issue, I must admit! ScienceApologist (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to reinsert the reliably sourced content you removed now? And find a reliable source for what you wish to add? mark nutley (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not of the opinion that we should include opinions of people after they express regret for saying them without also letting people know that they expressed such regret. That seems to be a fundamental WP:BLP issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Were exactly does she "express regret" cos, i`m not seeing it. She allegedly says she does not endorse the views expressed on the site. And that she was sorry people (read activists here) that what she wrote was ideological. She does not say she regrets what she wrote at all, try and get it right ya mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote directly: "One regret: the Watts blog." ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem about using that source as a reference for her change of opinion. But it shouldn't be made to look as if it was being used as a source for factual statements about the topic of the article. Therefore, shorten it down: "She later stated she changed her mind and distanced herself from her earlier recommendation", without the rhetorical detail of why she did so. Or, preferably, remove the whole thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"She later stated she changed her mind and distanced herself from her earlier recommendation" The first part is not what she said and the second part is WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right AQFK. We have the quote exactly as she said it below. It is relevant, but I'm not sure how to handle it. We certainly don't want to indicate only that she made the recommendation full stop. I think that's being dishonest. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably clear Virginia Heffernan regrets commending Anthony Watts' blog, therefore my inclination is to remove her name altogether. Surely editors can agree? Wikispan (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably clear that an e-mail campaign by activists lead to her saying she did not endorse the views on the blog. She did not retract her opinion that it is a credible science blog at all. It may be better to remove the lot just to save the hassle mark nutley (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But we're, of course, not entitled to right great wrongs if this is the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Friends or colleagues may have conveyed dismay. There is nothing to be gained by speculating. Wikispan (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Workshop this content

New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended Watt's as a top Science blog on August 1, 2010 stating; "For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?" She later stated, about that piece that she had "[o]ne regret: the Watts blog. Virtually everyone who emailed me pointed out that it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there. I linked to it because has a lively voice; it’s detail-oriented and seemingly not snide; and, above all, it has some beautiful images I’d never seen before. I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs, so I frankly didn’t recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist”; I didn’t even know about denialism. I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog, and I’m extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological"

I'd say remove it all. Keeping a recommendation that was made in error and retracted is misleading, discussing the whole issue is of little relevance to the article. It may be useful to put the discussion into a FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps this all should go in at Virginia Heffernan, but I have no way of knowing whether it is highly relevant to her biography or not. Sometimes, some verifiable things don't belong in Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Only keep the NYT's RS if it attacks our Villain in this piece. Otherwise, absolutely all means should be used to Game and remove any positive mentions no matter how seemingly trivial. Only our "Vigilant Defenders of the One True Path" (obviously not found here) are allowed to have it the other way. If you want neutrality please leave the "science" related bio's and look at less important topics where the future of the Earth is apparently not held in the balance.99.141.242.135 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add that I agree with everyone above that random internet comments always trump the New York Times. Why not? No need to wait for a retraction - we can retract ourselves based upon pretty much anything we want, right? The time when the NYT's controlled their own retractions and corrections is long past. We control, shape, form and create impressions now - and we'll be the judge of what the NYT really should have said.99.141.242.135 (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and the others are right: remove the whole thing. She said it, she regrets it, that's reliably enough sourced, end of story. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not one single source, reference, link or citation has been introduced in any way, shape or form to support the idea that The New York Times has in any way retracted, corrected or clarified the referenced quote from its edited and fully vetted reliable pages. Not a one is to be found here. What you people may email back and forth to each other off-wiki as you prepare your versions is not known to us here on the open and public side of Wikipedia.

Where, precisely, is The New York Times retraction to be found?99.151.162.27 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This diatribe manifestly irrelevant to the point of this discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a diatribe - it's precisely the point. Not one single source, reference, link or citation has been introduced in any way, shape or form to support the idea that The New York Times has in any way retracted, corrected or clarified the referenced quote from its edited and fully vetted reliable pages. Not a one is to be found here. 99.135.171.251 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ip guy is correct, there have been no wp:rs sources presented stating this retraction (whic his not actually a retraction btw) mark nutley (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the NYT link at [10]. The recommendation is still there. As I understand it, that means that it hasn't actually been retracted, and should be in the article.Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an invitation for a custard pie in the face. Heffernan has expressed regret over the recommendation (on a blog). If she returns to the topic in the future, which is entirely possible, then we may end up with lots of unnecessary back and forth. There is nothing preventing editors from returning the original material apart from common sense. I hope the same editors now pressing for a return don't turnaround and press for its removal if and when she does. Wikispan (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No her post was that she did not endorse the views held on WUWT, she never said anything about regret did she? mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

She said WUWT was her "One regret". [11] This is not a reliable source so it's your call whether you want to ignore it or pay heed. Wikispan (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually putting forth -- not even a blog, but a comment post to a blog -- as something we should rely upon??? (I had to physically restrain myself from typing more than three question marks) The original statement is relevant, appropriate, and well sourced. What's your objection ... other than you don't agree with her opinion? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Learn to read. Wikispan (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with Virginia Heffernan's recommendation? If the answer is Yes, the text needs to be moved to the main body. Only then can we summarise the various different opinions in the lead section. Wikispan (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

George Spyros (Huffinton Post) concurs with Virginia's first two recommendations, but urges caution with the third, "We've covered Watt and his site before finding that his posts may at times glibly misrepresent data or lob ad hominem attacks supported in facts but which lead to illogical conclusions." [12] Wikispan (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It could as easily be said that George Spyros agrees with her recommendation of Watts Up With That. Here's more of the quote:

Which brings us to note that Virginia also advocates you visit former TV meteorologist and blogger Anthony Watts' punily titular site Watts Up With That. While we don't disagree with this guidance, we suggest you proceed with minor caution.

Is HuffPo a reliable source? Minor4th 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as with all columns, only for the opinion of the author. Attribution is key. Wikispan (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

She regrets it, and not to include that is a BLP violation

I really don't care if the statement stays or goes, but if it stays the verified regret she expressed for the recommendation must also be included. I will not back down from this as it is a WP:BLP matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Virginia expressed regret on a blog (NEURONCULTURE.COM). Until we have a solid reference, we should balance her original view with an additional comment from George Spyros on the same topic (see immediately above). Otherwise you won't get very far. Wikispan (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's okay for a person to clarfiy themselves on a blog. There is nothing in BLP which contradicts this. In fact, WP:TWITTER is relevant here. Read it and understand that the real BLP issue here is with Heffernan. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: You added unsourced BLP information to the article. Per WP:BLP, I am removing your BLP violation. Do not add contentious material about BLPs without citing your sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a lie. The information is sourced. That I didn't put in a cite is another matter, but it is NOT a BLP-violation. The true BLP-violation is to keep a recommendation in the article that she has verifiably stated to have later regretted. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologist, you really should read the BLP standard more carefully if you feel that this is a violation. An encyclopedia reports what people do, not how they later feel about what they did. This is a moot point, because if she actually did state she regretted it -- clearly, and in a WP:RS -- we should probably strike her statement for accuracy concerns. But in neither case would it be anything near a BLP violation, which exists to protect the Wikipedia Foundation against tort liability. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's baloney and you know it. Since we know she regretted it, we agreed above to remove the information. You reinstated it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just re-word it to say that she did not agree with its agenda but did agree wiht its style (which seems to me to be what she is sayingSlatersteven (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me! Go ahead and rewrite it! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how do we know she "regets" it? Is there a retraction in the NYT? This is her professional work we're talking about. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

She verifiably wrote that she regrets it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found the source for SA's edit.[13] It appears to be a comment to a blog. Also, SA appears to be spinning her comment to make it look like she regrets the recommendation - which it doesn't really say. Instead, she seems to be saying that she regrets that the recommendation seemed ideological. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good find...and THAT, people, is why we don't use random blog postings as sources. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not a new find,its been here a while. I would also say that wghilst it does not support the idea she 'regrets' her endorsment she does caveat it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

One uqstion why is this womans views considerd notable enough to be in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Good point. I was thinking the same thing myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you felt her regret of her recommendation belonged in the lede. Now that you find out she doesn't regret it, you've not only removed her recommendation from the lede, but from the entire article? I'm asking you to self-revert on this; it's clearly a disruptive edit. Move it into the body if you wish, but do not delete it entirely. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

She regrets it. She stated that she had one regret and that was the Watts blog. That's not spin, that's not interpretation, that' just what she said. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

SA, if you persist in this, you're going to find the waters closing over your head. The only source provided doesn't even claim she regrets it. So you're not only making inaccurate statements, you're perpetuating a BLP violation. Fell Gleaming^talk 21

28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

One AGF Two There is no evidence she does not regret it (though there is also non to say she does). No one has proven she did not write the blog entry (and there has been no denial from her she wrote it, so we have no reason to assume she did not). Three I did not say her regret should be in the lead, I said it should say she did not agree with its agenda (which is what the blog entry says). Four this discussion is about evolving ideas and attitudes, at first I felt that her views should be accurately reflected. I then decided to actually check who she was rather then what she said. I found that she seems to be some kind of arts writer, not a science writer.Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretzel logic isn't going to buy you anything here. WP policy is clear. We post only what can be verified in reliable sources. There is no reliable source claiming she regrets her statement. End of discussion. There is also no consensus to remove the material entirely from the article, so please restore it immediately. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

One AGF two Yes Wp policy is clear contested material should not be iniserted untill consensus is achived, it has not been so should not be included (nor I have said her regret should be included please stop mis-representing my statments). If you wish to re-insert the material into hte body of the articel (I still fail to see why her views are notable on this matter) it would not breach 3RR as it is clearly a new edit so I fail to see whny you cannot insert it in a more apporpriate place.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing WP policy on material contested as a potential BLP violation. Normal content cannot be block removed during an ongoing discussion unless consensus has been reached. I believe we have consensus the material should not be in the lede, but there is no consensus to remove it entirely. Please self revert immediately, and move the content to a more appropriate section if you wish. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a number of persons saying it Actually should be removed, and none saying it should be moved that I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: When I agreed with you about it being in the lede,[14] I thought that you meant it should be moved to the body of the article. Unless this article is too long, I see no reason to completely remove reliably sourced content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to you but the wider discussion (and the claim that there is consensus for a move, I do not see such consensus). I have no objection to including her views, but also see no value to be gained from it (and if they are included include the caveat too, her reason for liking it are to do with presentation, not science (not a surprise as she seems to be a culture writer)). She is not a science writer but an arts writer so her views are a bit fringy on this matter. .Slatersteven (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) (ec) We can use self-published material as evidence of a person's own words, if the identity of the person who wrote it can be confirmed. Virginia Heffernan's twitter post, which says (after deleting two "http://"'s to avoid triggering the blacklist) "Thanks for replies to [deleted] tinyurl.com/2d45nrw. Posted some clarification (and regret!) on David Dobbs's blog: [deleted] tinyurl.com/29kb6vr 10:18 PM Jul 30th via web", and is at least temporarily at here, is strong evidence that she did indeed write the blog post. Cardamon (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The point you're ignoring is that she doesn't regret her article. She regrets that it appeared idealogical....a considerably different matter. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So you accept that she stated that she did not agree with its ideology. So why did you rem ove that material as well?Slatersteven (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting sources. She didn't state she disagreed with its idealogy. She stated she regretted it appeared idealogical, in other words, that other people interpreted it as such. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So why did you remove the material that gave her direct quoted caveat if you accepet she did in fact say that she "I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog," (I would argue a statemnt that she disagress with its views)?Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) She also said: 'One regret: the Watts blog. Virtually everyone who emailed me pointed out that it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there.' and '... I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs, so I frankly didn’t recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist" ...', and ' ... I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog ... ' [sic]. This is enough to show that she probably doesn't stand behind her earlier recommendation of the Watts blog. I also think it would be a good idea to take the whole thing out. Cardamon (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming is correct. There seems to be a lot of effort trying to spin this comment to mean something more than it actually says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how direct quotes constitute spin. Cardamon (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

She says that "I’m don’t endorse the views on the Watts blog," which is effectloy saying she does not agree witt it (or at the very least she has no views one way or the otehr) as such her only recomendation is that she rather likes its style, not its content. That is not an endorsment that seems all that relevant to the articel. Moreover the material I added was direct quotes only, there was no attmept to spin her statment.I think the issue is she does not withdraw her recomendation, she explains that it was not an ideoloogical or sceintific but an aesthetic one. s such to caim that she has withdrawn her recomendation is not true, she explains it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that taking the whole thing out is best William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just checked WP:LENGTH and it mentions 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose as an upper limit. According to Microsoft Word, we're currently at 925 words, so there's plenty of room to expand the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal

Resolved

NYT content stays, but blog comment is not reliable source and stays out. Minor4th 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)No, we don't let people make manifest declarations such as this.

How about this:

"New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended it with two others as a top Science blog on August 1, 2010 stating; "For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?" Heffernan later stated that she selected this blog in part because of its beautiful imagery but does not endorse the views of the blog."

And we move the content out of the lede into the body? This contains content that Fell Gleaming wants to add, as well as content ScienceApologist wants to add. Does this satisfy everyone's concerns? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why her views are relevant. I wouike to see the part wehre she admits she does not rally k now anything about science blogs (well words to that effect).Slatersteven (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your objection is like claiming a NYT book-of-the-month recommendation isn't relevant to Steven Hawking's latest book, because the reviewer isn't a physicist. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am saying. Is it relevant to a 'Brief history of time' that a NYT reviweer said its a really good read and I liked the pictures? Slatersteven (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? A recommendation from the NYT is considered relevant, and is included as standard practice in most science book entries on Wikipedia. Here are just a few examples:

• Cosmos [15]
• The God Delusion [16]
• A New Kind of Scince [17]

Fell Gleaming^talk 23:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: How about this?

Source one is a review (and I would say I am not sure what values it has), but its also a review section in the article, not an endorsement of its politics or science.

source two are about placemats in the NYT best seller, they are not endorsements.

Source three is about coverage in the NYT not an endorsement.Slatersteven (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended it with two others as a top Science blog on August 1, 2010 stating; "For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?" Heffernan later stated that she selected this blog in part because of its beautiful imagery, that she but is unfamiliar with the debates on science blogs and does not endorse its views." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to se what relevance her recomendation has, it like hainf a sentance on the page about Steven Hawkins new book that says something like. "I don't normaly read science books but found this one a really good read" .It tells us nothing about the site, or its value (other then looking really nice). But if it has to be mentioned I'll support this proposal.Slatersteven (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A recommendation is noteworthy. A heavily qualified one is not. If the consensus evolves into this form, then I'd support withholding it entirely, rather than include a weasel-worded paragraph that essentially says nothing. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this? New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended it with two others as a top Science blog on August 1, 2010 stating; "For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?" However, Heffernan later wrote "One regret: the Watts blog. ... " saying that it had been pointed out to her that "... it’s as axe-grinding as anything out there...", that she had failed to " ... recognize the weatherspeak on the blog as “denialist” ... ", and had selected it in part because of its good writing and beautiful images, but does not endorse its views." Or, and this would be better, we could just leave the whole thing out. Cardamon (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Leave it out, its not even an indpeth review.Slatersteven (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would leave all of it out, given her expression of regret. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think this needs to be included. It's like getting a good book review from the New York Times. It is notable, it's significant to this blog. WUWT was mentioned in conjunction with scientific american and discovery and that really means something. Leave the comment in -- her later expression of regret did not in any way retract what she said in her recommendation. She expressed regret because she later got bombarded with correspondence from Watts' detractors and she didn't know she was signing up for such drama. She did not retract her statement recommending the blog. Keep it. There is no need for the compromise wording, and there's no need to refer to her Twitter post. If she had said something to the effect that she looked at Watts' blog again and realized he was a complete fraud and she would no longer recommend it, that might be a little bit different but that is not anything close to what she said. Minor4th 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can`t use twitter not a forum post as a source and i am unsure why people are doing so. mark nutley (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can use forums and twiter for persons statements, also she says she does not endorse the blogs views, so that is rather impoprtant too. She ealso does say its an axe griding “denialist” blog. This is not an endorsment of its sceince but its astheticshe mkes that clear). Also its not a review its a throw away line in an op-edd peice. As to why she caveats that is specualtion, she does caveat her opinion and that needs to be mentioned, i8f her opinion of this page is notable so are her re4asons for liking (and not liking it). That is what a review would be some one explaining what they like and dislkie about something.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No you can`t use a forum post nor twitter as a source please read wp:rs and wp:sps if she regrets what she said then she would ask the newspaper to amend her article, she has not done so. mark nutley (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually SPS can be used for information about themselves [[18]] So yes they can be used in this instance as its her twitter (and no one has denied its her blog entry as well) about something she said. Also we do not speculate on what she might or could do. She has made statements and unless you can prove she did not make them (and the twitter is defiantly hers) we report them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No per wp:sps self published sources can only be used for statements about the person and can`t be used as statements about third parties, as stated, those sources can`t be used in this article mark nutley (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

She is commenting on her endorsment. Shas sdaid she does not agree with the views of the blog, she is commenting on her opinions not on the site.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No she is allegedly making statements of fact about a third party, we don`t know if it is her forum post, that is why forum posts are not allowed as sources. Stop saying a forum post meets wp:rs when it does not mark nutley (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No she is making a statment about her views.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

From a WP:V and WP:RS perspective, I think an argument can be made that this meets the spirit of WP:SPS, although not necessarily its wording. I also think that a strong argument can be made that this blog comment is not important enough to bother including. After all, Virginia Heffernan is a journalist for the New York Times. She can easily write another article qualifying her recommendation or ask the New York Times to withdraw her article and she has done neither. I'm fine with my compromise proposal or the original paragraph without the addition of her blog comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I`m not arguing with you anymore slater, neither source is usable. Try to use them and they will be remove per wp:sps and wp:blp give it up mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then we leave her endorment out as its clear its not as black and white as presented. It also in my opinoin WP:UNDUE. She is A TV journo this is not her area of expertise (and indead not even the subject of the artciel, its a couple of lines in an articel about probloms wiht science blogs not a review if the site).Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[[19]] Here is the Watts blog reapeating the same stuff, so yes we can use it its repated by the subject of this artciel.it sted by the origional endorser. Non one has raised doudts that it is genuine (not even Watts)Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan recommended it with two others as a top Science blog on August 1, 2010 stating; "For science that’s accessible but credible, steer clear of polarizing hatefests like atheist or eco-apocalypse blogs. Instead, check out scientificamerican.com, discovermagazine.com and Anthony Watts’s blog, Watts Up With That?" subsequenlty Watts wrote in his blog that Heffernan later stated that she selected his blog in part because of its beautiful imagery, that she but is unfamiliar with the debates on science blogs and does not endorse its views." This thus uses only material either nor from blogs or from Wattses own blog (the subject of this artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly we can`t use WUWT to source her opinions due to wp:sps. Personally i think the whole lot should be dropped as this is just a pain in the arse mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So we can't uxe her comments about her views, nor the person about whoes site she writes. Yes I think we should leave the whole thing out.It seems to me that any inclusio is a potential BLP violation. To include her origianl endorsemsnt wiiht out the caveat implies a degree of support she now denies. To include the Caveat appears to some3 (not by all means all) to be a BLP vioation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, leave it in. The review that she gave was not retracted. If she wants to retract it she can do so at the New York Times. Minor4th 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim she retracted it she said she does not endorse its views, to leave that caveat out implies a degree of support that she does not give it, that would be a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it out of the lede and into the criticism section. I reworded it to take out "top Science blog" and her exact recommendation is quoted. There is nothing in the review that suggests she endorses the views on that blog or the two others that she recommended with it.Minor4th 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But she does go oin to make it clear that she does not endorse its views, as such to leave that out implies greater support she she intended, this is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Can you please explain exactly how this is a BLP violation?[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s because she subsequently caveats her endorsement making it clear she does not endorse the sites views. As it stands the text implies that she unequivocally endorses the site with out reservations (which she does not) and thus misrepresents her views by taking a snap shot and providing no subsequent context, which she herself goes on to do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the published, edited and fully vetted work of The New York Times - an organization that on a daily basis retracts, amends and clarifies items it has previously printed when it finds errors and omissions. The article still stands and is available from the publisher and no changes have been made to it. There really is no basis in usurping the Times by quoting comments from a blog in which anyone can sign any name and publish any comment indiscriminatly without any editorial control, oversight or hint of Reliable Source professionalism as is found, almost by definition, at The New York Times. The NYT's controls its voice and published work - it is not our place to decide for them what is or isn't said by them. It's the very antithesis of the Wiki-way to even suggest such a thing. 99.144.248.213 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No one (including Mr Watts) has said she did not issue the caveat. No one is saying that we say they did ot say this, just to make it clear that she does not fully indorse the blog's views. To explain she liked about it (that is after all what reviews are for).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't find your argument compelling. The content isn't at all negative and it's sourced to The New York Times. As I pointed out earlier, Virginia Heffernan is a journalist for the New York Times. She can easily write another article qualifying her recommendation or ask the New York Times to withdraw her article and she has done neither. Also, WP:BLP emphasizes a person's privacy. Clearly, there is no violation of her privacy involved here. In fact, from a privacy perspective, I think a stronger argument can be made that including the blog comment is a violation of her privacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

She can easily write another article qualifying her recommendation or ask the New York Times to withdraw her article and she has done neither. Utterly irrelevant and impossible to verify as a justification for an editorial stance. All we can say is that she wrote the first article and the blog comment. That's it. We have no idea what her relationship with the Times or the editors is and, even if we did, we're not supposed to act on such foresight. Please read WP:TWITTER. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The only BLP violation is in using comments ascribed to her personally from a blog user-comments section to usurp The New York Times. The prohibition against this use is absolute:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);it does not involve;claims about events not directly related to the subject;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This comment {non-vetted comments from a blog's random comment section and attributed to Heffernan) has claims about third-party people, organizations, or other entities and should not be included.

The policy is crystal clear. Further policy controls our use of the Reliable Source.99.144.248.213 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets mark this one resolved Minor4th 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope! Read WP:TWITTER. We can use what she said to source her own opinions. I leave out the third-party opinions and the speculations about denialism. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that guideline suits well - all she is doing is voicing a point of view on her own blog. Like it says, no third party involvement. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I agree this Heffernan quote shouldn't be in the lead. We'd not normally put views by a single reviewer in the lead of a media entity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have said I bleive that including this one (non experts) opinion on the value of this blog is a breach of undue. She is a TV oundit and her 'endoremset', mwas a one line recomendatio of the week she later partialy backtracked on. This does not therefore seem a ringing endorsement, it was not the the main purpose of her articel (nor was the artciel a review of this blog). Her opinion id being given the saem wieght as climate experts ans qaulified biologiosts, this is undue weight. If her views go anywehre it should be in a media respponse section, not a section that contains the views of experts (implying her view carries as much weight).Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was having trouble following - I do see what you mean - we can solve that by placing in two paras - those who work in the field in the first, and the more media commentary in the second (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume by paras you mean section such as

==climate change specialist== (not a very good title I know)

==Media comentry==

I could live with that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I just organised it into two rough paras (took a bit of a guess at who'd go in which and some could be argued either way...). I'd leave off the subheading names as it is sort of obvious how the commenters are divided (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Stop adding the unreliable source and otherwise deleting sourced material and moving paragraphs around to trash Anthony Watts and his blog. See RSN [21], and see policy quoted above. The matter is resolved. Minor4th 11:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The matter is not reloved, I still challenge her apperance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the Reliable Source noticeboard. Minor4th 21:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

The majority of commentators on this issue have either called for or have agreed to an outright removal of the Heffernan quote.

• Wikispan
• Stephan Schulz
• ScienceApologist
• Becritical
• Slatersteven
• William M. Connolley
• Cardamon
• Mangoe
• Wikidemon
• Casliber

Pursuant to this, I'm removing the content (once again). Please form a consensus before reinserting anything relating to Heffernan.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed one: [22]. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, a majority of editors does not a consensus make, second of all, you don't have a majority even. Lets look at the numbers.

For inclusion of the NYT sourced reviews without the self published Twitter feed/blog post:

1. Minor4th
2. marknutley
3. Casliber - could go either way
4. A Quest for Knowledge
5. Wikispan -- either way
6. Sloejoe17
7. Torchwood (from RSN)
8. II (from RSN)
9. FellGleaming (adding my vote here myself)
10. Various IP's, collectively counted as one editor

Not to mention the fact that policy is clear on this issue, and even a consensus of editors cannot override policy. This is not a BLP issue at all. Who is the BLP and what is the information that is negative toward that person? I want to point out also that this article is up for GA nomination, so definitely content should not be removed without a very clear consensus. We should be adding content to the article to improve it. With that in mind, can we please quit the edit warring, and think more in terms of getting this article in shape for GA review? Please. Maybe we should look at the state the article was in when it went to nomination and think about starting from there. Minor4th 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide diffs. Torchwood and II are ambiguous at best. Counting Casliber as supporting inclusion of Heffernan's comments without reference at all to her later statement of regret is contrary to what he has been writing. Wikispan placed a conditional on including other opinions if Heffernan's NYT piece by itself is included. Consensus is not certain in any case, so the default is to workshop here until we reach consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below in the GA section. I think we are in agreement for now to keep the content out. Perhaps at some point, the caveat will be covered in a way that we can paint the whole picture within Wiki sourcing guidelines, but for now we can't so ....Minor4th 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. To summarize, I think that the difference is that I think that the Heffernan blog comments are about Heffernan's opinion while you think they are about Anthony Watts. She certainly was not trying to be diplomatic and the BLP issues are marginal in all directions, I think. When a critic engages in this back-and-forth with her own ideas, it's really hard to know what exactly to do. That's why keeping it out may be best for now. Also, please keep in mind that WP:TWITTER does exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

After some discussion on my talk page, we seem to be agreeing that including her recommendation and later caveat is appropriate, even if her caveat came by Twitter feed. In her caveat, she isn't retracting her recommendation of the blog, but saying that she doesn't endorse its views, and was sorry that her recomendation appeared to be idealogical. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Initially, I had just included a direct quote without any commentary. People didn't like that. Then we tried removing it. People didn't like that. Then I tried just to mention that she had later stated regret. People didn't like that neither at the end nor the beginning. Then we tried removing it again. People didn't like that. Then I tried to just include the sentence from NYT without additional statements. Below, AQFK doesn't like that. Now we've removed it again. Do people like it? Not sure. If you'd like the diffs, I'll provide them. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary of past discussion SA, but how about instead saying, "of all the compromises and suggestions offered so far on including both, which does everyone here prefer?" Then stand out of the way and let people voice their opinion. We seem to have made a decision on including "all" so let's get it moving. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the past, my using this technique has gotten us to an unsatisfactory return to a status quo where there was a complete omission of her "regret" statement. However, the discussion on your talk page may have sparked a paradigm shift in this talk page's culture. Let's see what happens over the next few days. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To me the case seems to be absolutely clear: Per WP:V, verifiability in the technical sense is the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia" (my italics), not for non-inclusion. Libraries are full of totally wrong and outdated information, and for much of it no contradicting statement can be found in reliable sources – either because none exists or because it is in an obscure place where we can't find it. When we know something is wrong, we don't say it. The standard for this is intentionally lower than that for saying something. This is not just common sense, it's also standard practice throughout Wikipedia. Of course the weight of retractions varies. If a philosopher or politician now thinks differently about something they wrote 60 years ago, it will be enough to make clear when the original statement was made. But this is not such a case. Hans Adler 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)