Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 7

Two kinds of skepticism
Some sources use "skeptic"/"skepticism" when referring to climate change denialism, and this is made explicit in at least one source, Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon, but it has recently been very much in the media spotlight. When, in November 2009, emails by climate scientists were published on the internet without their authors' consent, a debate began in which climate sceptic bloggers used an extended network of metaphors to contest (climate) science...Anthony Watts first broke the story of the emails on his (award winning) blog Watts Up With That.

One source had been proffered to rebut the denialism connection, but actually confirms it. ‘Climate scepticism’ and ‘climate denial’ are readily used concepts, referring to a discourse that has become important in public debate since climate change was first put firmly on the policy agenda in 1988. This discourse challenges the views of mainstream climate scientists and environmental policy advocates, contending that parts, or all, of the scientific treatment and political interpretation of climate change are unreliable. It persists today, espoused on sceptical websites (McIntyre 2012, Watts 2012).

Additional clues that the source is using skepticism and denialism interchangeably include cases where the text mentions sceptics/sceptical/scepticism followed by a parenthetical reference to an article that is explicitly about denialism, e.g., Dunlap R and McCright A. (2010) "Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies".

The second meaning of skepticism is, of course, scientific skepticism, and we have a source differentiating WUWT from that, as already mentioned, Denialists often misappropriate scientific skepticism...Muller showed Congress the colors of a true scientist, skeptical and grappling with evidence...Unfortunately, the tone of some of [Watts' and McIntyre's] blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, for example, has a posting...It is important that students understand the difference between the essential skepticism that all good scientists need and being a denialist or a knee-jerk contrarian.

We should focus on reading what sources actually say instead of googling "skeptic" and counting the results. It is still true that the best sources typically use "denial"/"denialism"/"denialistic", and when they don't (like above), they are still referring to the phenomenon of climate change denialism, however it is called. Manul ~ talk 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that you have it backwards. Instead of Googling "denial" and counting the results, we should look at the what actual reliable sources say about the issue.  The best sources typically use "skeptic" or some variation thereof.  I performed a random sampling of all reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, and here are the results:
 * PBS - "skeptic"
 * Scientific American - "skeptical"
 * American Thinker - "skeptic"
 * New York Times - "skeptics"
 * Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text.  Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
 * PBS - "skeptic"
 * LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics".  In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
 * Fox News - "skeptical"
 * USA Today - "skeptic"
 * The Telegraph - "science"
 * BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general
 * These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size).  But based on these results, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Watts or his blog as:
 * Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
 * Meteorologist - 1 Source
 * Science - 1 Source
 * Denier - 0 Sources
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Manul: I see that you made yet more insertions of "denier" in the article. I reverted I see it was reverted. You need a consensus. You don't have it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Manul's sources this time are: Nerlich, Painter + Ashe, and Liu (again). For Nerlich: Manul took the first two sentences from the abstract ... and the sentence about Watts from page 10, using "..." to pass over 10 pages and make it seem like the phrases are related (unlike Manul I provide a no-pay source here). Then Painter and Ashe do not say WUWT is a denier site, the mention of denial is that it's a concept (along with skepticism) which refers to a discourse, whatever that means. And Liu, as explained before (in this post that Manul did not reply to), is not a "source differentiating WUWT from [scientific skepticism]". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results: Google Scholar Totals:
 * IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
 * The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
 * Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
 * Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
 * Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
 * Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
 * Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
 * Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
 * The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
 * Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".
 * 1) Skeptic - 3 times.
 * 2) Meteorologist - 2 times
 * 3) Conservative - 2 times
 * 4) Anti-climate science - 1 time
 * 5) Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
 * 6) Science - 1 time
 * 7) Science (in quotes) - 1 time
 * 8) Denier - 0 times

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the point?
 * A "random sampling" is meaningless when specific sources have been presented.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it's our job to present the majority viewpoint. Earlier, I asked the question, what do the majority of reliable sources say about the matter?  I'm attempting to answer that question by providing an objective answer.  It's too easy (and too common in BLPs unfortunately) to cite outliers as though they are mainstream viewpoint.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The implication that Mann is an "outlier" is purely speculative.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on two different random samplings, that certainly appears to be the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So we have good sources to support the following
 * A. He self-describes as "skeptic"
 * B. He and/or WUWT are often described in media as "skeptic"
 * C. Some (like Liu) say the tone used in some posts seems/sounds/appears (exact word?) denialist
 * D. Some (like Brainard) say WUWT is on the "other end" of a spectrum of trust as compared to RealClimate, and that scientists have frequently criticized WUWT for misleading readers


 * Again, is there some reason you are excluding the peer-reviewed book by an actual climatologist, namely, Mann? -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Ubikwit: There are two ways to interpret your question. Since I'm not sure which one you're asking, I'll answer both:
 * Because we need to determine the mainstream viewpoint: What do the majority of reliable sources say about this issue? If 9 sources say A, and 1 source says B, you don't cite the oddball source; you cite the majority.
 * If you're referring to the random samples, they were selected by Google, not me.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION What's the big debate about? I confess I have not studied the play-by-play here, but at cursory pass it sounds like some want the article to just say some of this list of points, and others want the article to say just some of the others. In particular the "majority" discussion sounds like that. Yet we have at least some quality RSs for each of these points, so we seem to be bound by NPOV to write text about the whole range. Aren't we? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That is pretty much the present state of the article, though it probably needs a little fine tuning.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @NewsAndEventsGuy: This particular debate is about whether to describe Watts as a "skeptic" or "deniar", the latter of which is a WP:WTA. Wikipedia guidelines state that "denier" is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources.  But that doesn't seem to be the case here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quest, in my view you're missing the point. Wikipedia editors should not be "describing" Watts at all.  Instead, we should describe how RSs describe him, and some RSs say each of those 4 things.   At WTA I think the specific section that most applies is WP:LABEL, and we can easily provide inline attribution to references for the 4 points I listed above.  Its a fact that people do debate this very issue, and for evidence we've no further to look than this talk page.  Fine, we should do a good NPOV job of informing readers about the conflicting viewpoints, without going to far in the direction of WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE.  On the other hand, blanket squelching of any and all mention of denialist allegations is equally problematic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @NewsAndEventsGuy: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that we should squelch all mentions of "denial" in the article. But we should be extremely careful in using that term.  In any case, the point I am currently trying to get across is that the mainstream viewpoint is that this is a "skeptic" blog, not "denialist" blog.  Can we all agree on that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no we can't. In the uniwikiverse, at least insofar as I am aware, the notion of a "mainstream view" exists only in relation to its opposite as described in WP:FRINGE.  Read that way, saying the mainstream view is that he is a rootin' tootin' honest as they come genuine hardcore scientific skeptic rather implies that anyone who says he's a "denier" spouts WP:FRINGE nonsense but that isn't the case.


 * However, I'm glad you brought up the notion of mainstream vs fringe, because aside from the label issue, we should also follow the basic template of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. At that article, to comply with WP:FRINGE the lead sets forth the mainstream viewpoint of global warming, so that the fringe material in the body of the article is set in proper context, as required by the FRINGE guideline.   Setting the label issue aside, we need to cover what Watts says in substance.  That's the only way the notion of "MAINSTREAM viewpoint" creeps in, or so it seems to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A Quest For Knowledge: you are right. The article is supposed to be about Anthony Watts (blogger). The majority of known reliable sources call Watts's blog skeptic / skeptical not denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , who says "The majority of known reliable sources say...." That means there is a minority of sources that are nonetheless reliable sources which contain other verbiage... "denier", "misleading", "other end" of a spectrum of trusted blogs from the "most trusted" end.   We all agree that -
 * (A) Such sources exist
 * (B) They are reliable sources
 * If the majority label him "skeptic" and a minority label him "denier" then it is POV for Manual to turn those words into synonym, but it is also POV for anyone else to purge the minority viewpoint.  Further, @Peter -
 * (C) You simply ignored my challenge to the notion of "mainstream" view used here.  In wikipedia's guidelines I believe the opposite of "mainstream" is WP:FRINGE.   We really should include a bit about the international scientific mainstream view of anthropogenic global warming to provide context for what Watts typically says, in addition to the label we apply.   Do you disagree, Peter?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are reliable sources that say Watts and/or Watts's blog is misleading or cannot be trusted -- and such statements were already quoted in the article before the put-denialism-in edits started in mid March. If you read all the earlier discussion then you know there are objections that Mann is a poor source for the denier label for Watts's blog, if you read this thread you know there are objections that Nerlich, Painter + Ashe, and Liu (again) are not supports for the denier label for Watts's blog. And I apologize for not making it clear that I was not ignoring you, but I did say what matters here is the view that the mainstream holds about Watts and/or his blog, which was my non-blunt way of saying: I disagree with you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The attempted dismissal of Mann was adequately refuted.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

List of sources saying something other than 'skeptic
@Manul, and anyone else, please list here the three sources you hold up as the three best sources saying Watts and/or WUWT are something other than "skeptic". I'd like to take my time studying the three best. Don't worry if they're paywalled, I've got an excellent library nearby. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What should probably be examined first is the scholarly consensus.
 * Mann also characterized Watts as a "climate change denier"(p.222)
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Source number 3. Page 43, paragraph 2. "Having students compare and contrast the way climate science is discussed with in a popular skeptic blog run by an ex-TV weatherman (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)" proves the opposite.  Haven't looked at the others yet.  Arzel (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)  (NAEG adds that pg 43 of the paper = pdf page 29. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC))
 * Might as well post both quotesThis just shows that they use the terms in an almost synonymous manner. (p.43 of paper/29 of pdf)-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it pretty much makes one of your "best" sources useless in its inconsistency. One of your sources is Mann who has a known personal beef with Watts, thus his opinion is degraded.  The first source calls his blog part of the "cyber-ghetto", not exactly a scholarly approach and makes a claim which is clearly false in its hyperbole.  Emotion appears to be driving this author, and is clearly not a neutral presentation.  The only neutral presentation is source 3 which is inconsistent.  Arzel (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not inconsistent if other sources also use the term interchangeably, and it was just one of the sources that was reverted--not a source I'd personally researched--and was listed above by another editor as well, so I assumed its reliability was not at issue.
 * No need to personalize the discussion, which is already highly irregular as far as policy is concerned anyway. What is the basis of your claim of a personal dispute between Mann and Watts? And what is it that you claim is relevant about that? Watts' book is a peer-reviewed academic publication in his field of expertise.
 * Furthermore, the comment regarding the term "cyber-ghetto" is irrelevant: the sources is reliable. That is to say, the sources can be as biased as it likes, it is not required to have a "neutral presentation".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Elshof not that great I read Elshof's paper with some disappointment in his use of language. In addition to Arzel's observations, Elshof's footnote 1 is about terminology, where he says "The   terms ‘skeptic’, ‘climate denier’ and ‘denial’ will be used in their original contexts as quoted from sources." but Elshof goes ahead and uses the terms without such context when speaking his own thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)I didn't personalize this discussion, I said the author of the source was being driven by emotion. If you are arguing that the terms are interchangeable, then why do you care if the term is skeptic or denier?  You are arguing for a contentious label and at the same time argue that the use of biased sources to back up that label is perfectly fine.  I find it hard to square that circle.  Arzel (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All sources are biased in some manner. See User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy.  According to confirmation bias, the only exceptions to this rule are those sources that agree with me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but I think we can agree that Watts has made some serious complaints about Mann, and Mann is pretty upset with Watts. Seems odd that Mann's opinion should be taken at face value just because he wrote a book with his opinion, we certainly wouldn't label Mann based on Watt's opinion.  There is bias and then there is the extreme where one could reasonably assume that the writer is incapable of being objective because they are part of the story.  Arzel (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that that's in a journal that "is not using a peer-review process", but I think the put-denialism-in side would do better to mention the only high-quality academic source: Dunlap + McCright. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that that journal is not peer reviewed. Where are the quotes for "Dunlap + McCright"? Do you have a link?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * " the put-denialism-in side would do better to....." Peter, if you are taking any side other than the reliable sources side, you are engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking, and you've already been alerted to WP:ARBCC, which explicitly bar battleground thinking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy: If you're serious, take your accusation to an appropriate forum. Ubikwit: try here. Dunlap + McCright are not "notable" in the sense that people who aren't in Wikipedia aren't notable, but they are academics (sociologists, which I regard as a field that's relevant when studying the blogging phenomenon). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't express yourself very clearly... according to the notion of WP:NOTABILITY as you typed it, not a soul on earth was notable prior to creation of the very first biographical article, which should have never been created due to the person's lack of notability. See WP:ARTN NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That source is reliable, and describes Watts as a "contrarian scientist" that is part of "the denial machine".
 * Also, it would seem that a "label" cannot be said to be contentious when reliable sources use it interchangeably with another "label". The term can also be applied in a descriptive manner (and has).-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit: Yes that source is reliable and that's why I recommended it to the put-denialism-in side. If Arzel is saying denialism is a contentious label and Mann is a poor source then Arzel is correct, and we already know there's no consensus for putting in either one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to get a grip on the issues and sources, but as a matter of process I'd say there is also no consensus for keeping them out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy: WP:NOCONSENSUS says "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That alone should suffice, though the editors who've reverted have also shown other reasons, and willingness to discuss them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's good to have more than one source available, but what is the basis of your arbitrarily anointing the pronouncements of Arzel as "correct"? I have (obviously) disagreed with him, and he has not responded to questions regarding his assertions.
 * Incidentally, "contentious" is a somewhat relative term here. because reliable sources use it on its own, and reliable sources use it interchangeably with skepticism or define skepticism in terms of denialism as its primary feature.
 * In order to declare that Mann's peer-reviewed book is not a reliable source, a strong reason must be provided for doing so, and none has been provided, let alone discussed. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re me: please use neutral terms. Re Arzel: he or she already pointed to a guideline. Re Mann: the objection is that the book is a poor source for statements about Watts and his blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re me: please use neutral terms. Re Arzel: he or she already pointed to a guideline. Re Mann: the objection is that the book is a poor source for statements about Watts and his blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK so three possible sources have been listed. Any other "best" candidates to be nominated? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the three sources listed, Mann seems to call Watts a "denier." The other 2 merely note that an effect of skepticism is pockets of denial.  But that does not make the skeptic equal to the denier.  Any more than a statement that an effect of rain is puddles makes rain equal to puddles. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a potential source- identification thread. Eventually I will get copies of the nominations and do my own analysis, and probably start dedicated threads to discussion of each.   Rlendog, do you have any additional sources to suggest in answer to my opening post in this subthread ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not. I was just responding to the claims regarding the sources that were listed. Rlendog (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 4. Here's one from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (bold added, removed internal cites)
 * "Public confusion is heightened by misleading sites and blogs labeled as science when they are decidedly not. For example, two of the most popular “science” blogs listed by Wikio, a site that monitors blog traffic, are Watts Up with That? and Climate Audit. Both are anti-climate science, conservative sites that deny that climate change results from human activity. In contrast, two of the other top-ranked science blogs listed by Wikio,30 Climate Progress and Real-Climate, strongly support both climate change science and a political agenda to curb carbon emissions." Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholser, Science and the Media, Published by American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA 02138; 2010; ISBN#: 0-87724-087-6 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

List of sources saying to some speakers 'skeptic' = 'denialst' = 'skeptic'
Three best sources saying that for some "skeptic"/"denier" are synonyms, or an example of 'rebranding', or "interchangeably used" etc? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's one that defines skepticism in terms of denialism.


 * 1) Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap & Mark Freeman (2008) The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism, Environmental Politics, 17:3, 349-385
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 "Bill Nye: Stop calling Sen. Inhofe a climate change ‘skeptic’", Washington Post, Dec 12 2014 bold added
 * "''In a statement released this week, several dozen people from the science world asked the media to stop calling Inhofe (R-Okla.) and others who do not believe in the scientific evidence supporting climate change “skeptics.” Instead, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry argued, it would be more accurate to call Inhofe and the others “deniers.”
 * "We are concerned that the words ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ have been conflated by the popular media,” reads a letter released by the group. The statement is signed by Bill Nye and Carl Sagan’s widow, Ann Duryan, along with several prominent scientists."
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this discussion is continuing. It seems extremely obvious that the term "denier" is not widely used by reliable sources.  So what's the point of continuing this discussion?  This horse is dead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you have nothing to fear if I keep looking into it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. But it does seem like a fool's errand.  Even if we assume that it's an even split between "skeptic" and "denier", what are the statistical odds that out of 20 randomly selected sources, that not a single one uses the term "denier"?  To make an analogy, what are the odds of flipping a coin 20 times and all 20 times resulting in the same outcome?  Sure, it's mathematically possible, but it's extremely unlikely.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ubikwit: Regarding your first source, I don't see Watts mentioned. Can you please indicate which part of the source describes Watts as a "denier"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The second source doesn't seem to mention Watts either. Am I missing something?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear your reply on the last two comments also. AQFK, thanks for increasing the signal-to-noise ratio with good questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann is the source for "denier", and the page number is provided above along with a link above, or here.
 * Note Neither Mann nor the paper cited above are "popular media" sources, both are scholarly, peer-reviewed sources.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Any sources that first discuss skeptical vs denial and then apply EITHER to Watts
Please list all sources that discuss the distinction between genuine scientific skepticism and denial, and then having done so apply either one to Watts and/or WUWT? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"ungrammatical change"
In regards to this edit, can you please be more specific? What exactly is exist is the grammatical error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That you deleted "writer". I have copy-edited the text to comply with the policy you cited.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't meant to do that. Thanks for correcting my mistake. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann is a poor source
Michael E. Mann is a poor source for the claim that Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog are denier / denialist, for these reasons: involvement, lack of knowledge of the subject, history of name-calling.
 * INVOLVEMENT: Watts and Mann are on opposing sides of the climate change controversy. Watts has made accusations about Mann (example post: "Dr. Michael Mann's dishonest political messaging"), and Mann has made accusations about Watts (example post: "Is #AnthonyWatts really the best front man the #KochBrothers can buy?"). So the Mann source is written by a person "directly involved", who is not independent -- a primary source. WP:NOR says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT: We've seen no answer to the question: What qualifications does Michael Mann have to decide whether Watts is into "denialism" / is a "denier"? Mann is known to be qualified in climatology, which of course means he can say with authority that Watts is wrong, but saying it's because of denialism is a non-climatological diagnosis of a person. We can see that Mann has not studied Watts from this quote: "How can someone w/ a Meteorology degree have as poor an understanding of the atmosphere ... as #AnthonyWatts?" ... If Mann had done basic study of Watts (perhaps by reading this Wikipedia article), he'd have known Watts has no meteorology degree. So: he's no Watts expert.
 * HISTORY OF NAME-CALLING: This was stated at the beginning of the WP:BLPN discussion: Mr Mann is known for labelling others, for example calling Roy Spencer an "evolution denier", calling Judith Curry a "disinformer", calling Steve McIntyre a source of "denialist drivel" -- which should suggest not that they all are guilty, but that he likes to accuse.
 * In that WP:BLPN discussion and on this talk page other editors have objected that "denier" is pejorative, that Mann "has a known personal beef with Watts", and so on. I've taken the Mann source out (without taking out a use of the source in the Surface Stations section). I don't think anyone has objected to there being criticism of Watts, but we already have lots of that, and name-calling is a different thing than disagreement. Let's see whether there really is a consensus that Wikipedia should relay Mann's calling Watts denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars was published not by Greenpeace or by The Heartland Institute, but by Columbia University Press, one of the leading publishers of academic books. It doesn't get much more reliable than that. Watts and his blog has run attacks on nearly all highly visible climate scientists. That does not magically insulate WUWT from qualified criticism. And while I'm not much into guilt trips (note: believing weird things is not a crime in most modern legal systems): Do you seriously deny that e.g. Spencer can be described fairly as an "evolution denier" ? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would take issue with any language that evokes the image of "holocaust denialism" which is what that word does. It should be considered a form of Godwin's law and the party that invokes "denier" or "denialism" should immediately cede the argument.  It's really not disputable that the term was used to evoke this imagery and it's shameful that we are even debating it.  It has no encyclopedic value considering there are less hostile terms that can be used.  Continuing to use it even after the holocaust reference has been pointed out is beyond the pale. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Denial is the usual word for it, and it is the right word for it. Climate change denial is clearly in the same category as evolution denial, moon landing denial, Al-Qaida-9/11 denial, AIDS denial, and, yes, holocaust denial. All of those are easily refuted, far-fetched ideas, posing as science, and denying scientific facts that, in most cases, collide with the ideologies of the deniers. They are all attractive to people who do not know a lot about the subjects and like the "results" the deniers "get". Look it up: Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It's not. Applying "denial" to political topics is very recent with "Holocaust denial" followed by "AIDs denial" and I'd submit the WP article was created to support its use in climate change in much the same way that mythical Global warming hiatus was created on Wikipedia as a generic, multiple occurence event that really only applies to a single, specific case.  WP is not a reliable source.  "Denier" use here is incorrectly and inappropriately conflated with a non-political use of "denial" as a psychological term used by Freud.  This is by design. They are not even close with regard to climate science and its use has been appropriated much the same way that adding "gate" to a name means it must be a scandal and taint those that are touched by it.  It's use is intended to remove all discourse on the topic by making its defense unpalatable.  "Denier" in this case is a pejorative term misapplied by Watts' ideological opponents for ideological reasons, not scientific reasons.  It's very difficult to find any aspect of climate change science that Watts disagrees (the same with Curry, Lindzen, et al).  What they find is there are political disagreements over scale and priorities. In places where there is scientific uncertainty (such as the average temperature in the year 2100), it is incorrect to label lower projections as "denial".  Mann chooses to label those that don't follow his political outlook as science deniers is an incorrect application and pejorative in its use.  We certainly don't label Mann as a "fraud" because certain people call the CRU email controversy "climategate."  I would hope we don't quote or use the term "fraud" in his bio just as we shouldn't use "denier" in Watts bio.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is anyone operating under ideological pretense that would obviously have to be Watts. Mann is a scientist whose research is published by a university press in a peer-reviewed book; therefore, his statements are regarded as highly reliable by Wikipedia. The attempted verbal gymnastics to dismiss his characterization of Watts as a climate change "denier" engaged in climate change denialism is not based on "politics", but science. That is to say, the only individual being scrutinized here to offer an expert opinion of that nature is Mann, as recognized by his peers and the university press publishing his work in book form.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not the editor that brought up ideologues or politics. Editors that support the "term" denier at least have the intellectual integrity to realize his book was political.  "Denialism" is indisputably used today as a political term to stop debate.  It is not a scientific term.  A book publishing house is not "peer reviewed" either, they rely on the reputation of the author.  This particular book was about politics as much as science and it even says as much in its description.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors edit according to community policy "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 06:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I agree it should be omitted for not meeting that standard regarding the use of "denier."  --DHeyward (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Definition of denialist in English: A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. The holocaust has nothing to do with this topic, so please stop invoking it.  — TPX 11:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. All due respect, I know it's Remembrance Day and all, never forget, sure, but I can't believe the reason there are no climate change deniers on WP is because the whole concept of denialism was co-opted by the Nazis in the mid-20th century. Hugh (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael E. Mann and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars are absolutely a reliable sources for whether Anthony Watts (blogger) and blog is deniers or sceptics. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course Mann is a good source for this information. Peter Gulutzan's arguments are bizarre. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a useless criticism of Gulutzan's argument, straight from the "Is not!" "Is Too!" school of debate. Marteau (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument isn't persuasive. It's similar to disbarring Christopher Hitchens from our articles on religion, on the basis of not having particularly nice things to say, 'name calling', and being on the opposite side of the issue. — TPX 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is not a single argument for dismissing the peer-reviewed source that has basis in any policy. See WP:BIASED, for example.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mann is only reliable for his opinion about Watts, and that is what this is. Peter is right on target with this.  Arzel (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann says that Skeptic equals Denier. Skeptic and Denier have different definitions.  Mann is not an expert on the English language, and his defining of the word Skeptic to be the same as Denier has no weight.  His opinion is simply is opinion and should be treated as such.  Arzel (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused here Arzel. Mann is not being used as a source for English language usage - he's being used to say that Watts isn't actually a skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic or denier. I can see how this discussion might be confusing - you really should check out what the article - and ideally, the source - says before weighing in. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not confused. Mann's opinion of what is the definition of a true skeptic is the issue.  Mann is not the arbiter of who is what.  He can state his opinion on the issue, but it cannot be stated in WP voice.  Frankly this whole issue of what is a "true skeptic" is Orwellian in its approach.  The issue is a Catch 22 making it virtually impossible to rationalize.  It is not even clear what constitutes a "true skeptic", virtually anyone that is skeptical about projected increase in temps, the future effect of CO2 on temps, or man's impact on climate change is labeled a denier.  That is not science.  Arzel (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by NAEG, Mann GOOD source
 * (1) Agree that Mann's opinion is RS for Mann's opinion;
 * (2) Fact of Mann's opinion still RELEVANT with due WEIGHT
 * (3) General Rebuttal (updated)
 * 3a, Peter reason 1 (involvement);
 * Peter, have you read Mann's book? Do you consider yourself "educated" within the meaning of NOR as you quoted?  If so, then with reference to the book's contents, please explain the particular details the book fails to provide so that educated people can arrive at that conclusion.  Otherwise, you're slam of Mann's book has very little to do with RS-quality assessment, and instead has everything to do with your dislike for Mann and/or derivatives of "denial" applied to Watts.
 * 3b, Peter reason 2 (lack of knowledge of the subject);
 * "The subject" at hand is knowledge of the criteria which disginguish genuine scientific skepticism from denial. Mann is a full professor engaged in hardcore research.  To these sorts, the philosophy of science needed to tell these things apart is as fundamental as needing bread in order to make toast.  On the flip side, do we have any evidence whatsoever that Watts has training in genuine scientific skepticism?
 * 3c, (history of name-calling); Uhhhhhhhhh......... pot's fan calling the kettle black?   You've actually read Watts' blog, right?  Moreover, show me where its written that we assess a given RS on the basis of their manners or rhetoric?
 * (4) We should write Watts' says "skeptic", Mann and AAAS say "deny", other researchers observe the terms are pretty useless due to lack of clear dilineation and what's important are the views underlying the labels; I'll work on that more eventually but see little point while there's this daily quibbling.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mann quote has been restored and there is strong support for keeping it. Okay, as long as there are no attempts to expand or emphasize it, perhaps it's not bad enough to be worth further argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mann book is a high-quality source that is reliable for this information. Agree that the arguments against are somewhat bizarre.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mann's accomplishments are those of a real scientist and his ability to thoughtfully distinguish between skepticism and denial may be safely presumed well within his expertise. If Mann's judgements on this dimension are not RS no one's are. Hugh (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (A) This thread's consensus -- Is Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars an RS? (Answer, yes)
 * (B) Unasked and unresolved by this thread -- What text actually goes in the article?
 * Peter, are you saying you will concede point A if and only if you get your way on Point B? In my view, we haven't really focused on "B" yet, so I'm not ready to characterize this thread's consensus in the manner you describe.  Also, I'm not sure if I'll have wiki time during the next week, but its not an emergency, right?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy: Re (A): the argument was about a far more specific point than that. Re (B): my objection was due to the addition in the article of quotes from Mann saying Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog are denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mann is a reliable source for climate science. He is not a reliable source for taking his opinion as fact with regard to blogs or other scientists.  He may disagree with other climate scientists and those disagreements may be notable.  But claiming that he can unequivocally label other people goes beyond his expertise.  His critical analyses of scientists like Judith Curry or Spencer or Lindzen is notable but his name calling is not - nor does his name calling somehow extend to Watts when it doesn't extend to scientists.  The argument that Watts labels Mann in his book is without merit since we wouldn't take Watts opinion of Mann for his bio.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the man, but his Blog. And Mann's book is not (only) on the science, but also on the political wrangling. It's published by a highly reliable publisher - that's our normal bar. Heck, we accept Fox News.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All of which seems to miss the essential. Mann's book fully meets the requirements of a reliable source. Let's accept the opening statement that "Watts and Mann are on opposing sides of the climate change controversy". As the topic is science, Watts undoubtedly presents the minority view, and indeed his views at best are fringe and have characteristics of pseudoscience. Mann is a well qualified and respected source for majority [mainstream] scientific views on the topic area, and from that perspective Watts is both denying clear scientific findings, and promoting fringe views. Both WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI aspects of WP:NPOV policy require us to show how the minority/fringe pseudoscientific views of Watts have been received by the scientific majority, and Mann is a reliable source for that majority view, as required by weight policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is a bit difficult to follow. The article seems (more or less) fine the way it is now in regarding using Mann for this content.  What exactly is the proposed change?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed change was what I said in the start of the thread: with respect to the quote where Mann calls Watts a denier and calls Watts's blog denialist: "[take] the Mann source out (without taking out a use of the source in the Surface Stations section)" since Mann is a "poor source" (WP:BLP says poorly sourced material should be removed). However, most editors on this thread rejected that argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to say what the blog is about
Please try to describe the blog.

We can't just say it's a weather and climate blog. It has an editorial bent and the sources show that it does.

jps (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate science blogs
In the Nolan RS, he says WUWT won the bloggies because the "LEGITIMATE science blogs don't want to compete". Is that an RS for the assertion that Nolan thinks WUWT is the other kind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that would be an inference. Whether it's the other kind or "other legitimate" cannot be inferred. If it were an Oscar and a good film chose not to compete, it would be a "legitimate contender didn't want to compete" but it takes nothing away from the legitimacy of other contenders.  Marlon Brando chose not to compete for the 'Godfather' Best Actor award but there was still a very good actor that won.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
I don't think Canvassing is an appropriate action. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're banned from American Politics, broadly construed. jps (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Anthony Watts is not an American Politician. This is not a political article.  Climate change is a global issue, not an American Issue.  I see your response to canvassing is to try and bully me off the article.  I would say that you are in violation of general sanctions for Climate Change articles.  Arzel (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Climate change is an issue in American politics. I can't see how Arzel's topic ban doesn't apply here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about Watts and I don't think his political views are known. Climate Change is a science topic.  The response to climate change is a political topic.  Watts and his blog are known for being skeptical of the science.    --DHeyward (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Watts comments a lot on the politics of climate change lambasting various governments and taking particular glee in decrying the politics of Al Gore and Barack Obama. jps (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, you all can make your opinions known as to whether Arzel is violating his topic ban here. jps (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue here
Seems to be that a fair amount of the editors above are climate change deniers themselves and are, thus, trying to minimize the discussion of Watt's denialism within the article itself. Essentially, they are POV pushing their anti-science and fringe denialism on the article. Many of the above editors really should be topic-banned from this subject area entirely. Silver seren C 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not editors are climate change deniers or not. Editors get banned / sanctioned on en.wikipedia for actions not beliefs. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm just explaining why all the weasel wording arguments are being made above to not explicitly describe climate change denialism, as sourced, as such. Silver  seren C 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because an editor advocates following WP:NPOV and WP:WTW, doesn't make them a climate change denier. In fact, I personally support doing more regarding climate change, however, I try to check my politics at the door.  WP:BLP applies to all living people, even those with whom we disagree.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't seem to support content.
In regards to this edit, it states that the blog " most notable for" and cites sources which don't actually state what it's most notable for. For example, it cites a source which states, "a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts". Being the most notable out of some group isn't necessarily that same thing as what's it's most notable for. Sorry, I realize that I can be anal about these sort of things, but it seems a bit sloppy to me. Perhaps the wording can be tweaked to more closely match the sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's a little frustrating when people revert rather than revise (the entire issue seems to be related to whether he is "most notable" for this rather than simply having the attribute), but anyway the wording has been changed and hopefully we can move on. jps (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources for "denier", etc.

 * 1) The Inquisition of Climate Science, p. 136 (peer-reviewed, academic press)
 * 2) The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
 * 3) Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but anyone can search for sources which specifically use a particular term. Note that you didn't create a list of all the sources which don't use the term.   The question we need to answer is, What do the majority of reliable sources say about a topic?.   If 9 sources say A, and 1 source says B, we don't cite the oddball source.  Instead, we follow the mainstream majority.  This is how WP:NPOV works.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that is not how "NPOV works".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you figure? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not figuring, but I suspect "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" plays into this. We have a number of very good sources for "denier", and I'm not aware of any good sources that disagree. We have many sources using other descriptors, but not, generally, conflicting ones. If Journals A, B, and C say "the thingumi is red" and Journal D says "the thingumi is big", that's not reason to claim "the mainstream is against "big". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That first book ref above is a Columbia University Press imprint, it is not "peer reviewed" in any sense of the word. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian ref is an opinion column. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why Capitalismojo says that the first ref above, (James Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia U. Press, 2011) is not peer reviewed. What's the reasoning here? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Papers in academic journals are peer reviewed. Books are not peer reviewed. There is no indication in the book that it is somehow uniquely peer reviewed. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Books published by university presses certainly are peer reviewed, using the same double-blind system employed by journals. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Actually, that's not universally right. Not all papers in all academic journals are peer-reviewed (in particular, that tradition came late to some of the social sciences), and some books are indeed peer reviewed. But that's quibbling around the edges - WP:RS says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (emphasis mine), so they are in the same general category of highly reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The book is wrongly described as being "peer reviewed", it is not. There is no evidence to suggest it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's quibbling around the edges...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Aside from the fact that you've ignored Stephan's point about the wording of WP:RS, which says that books from "well-regarded academic presses" (which Columbia surely is), you have presented no evidence or argument that this book is not peer-reviewed. Books published with university presses typically are peer-reviewed; here's a page about the review process at Duke U. Press. Here's a general article about the review process at university presses which takes it as a given that manuscripts submitted to university presses will be sent to anonymous reviewers: William Germano, "Surviving the Review Process," Journal of Scholarly Publishing 33 (2001) 53–69. This article was reprinted as a chapter of Getting it Published: a Guide for Scholars and Anyone Serious about Books (U. Chicago, 2008)--Germano is an authority on academic publishing, so if he treats peer review as the norm for academic books, I can't see why we'd do anything different. So I'd say there's no reason to assume that this book isn't peer-reviewed unless we have evidence that standard practice wasn't followed in this case.
 * As Stephen has pointed out, however, whether this book is peer-reviewed or not is quibbling. It's a high-quality source nonetheless. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that the ref doesn't say that the subject is a denier. It says he is the former meteorologist behind the argument that many deniers use about surface station reliability. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an errant reading of the text:
 * In a related argument, deniers say that the U.S. historical temperature record is unreliable because... The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts..."
 * He is being described as the leading denier motivating that claim. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what the quote explicitly says. Sorry. "The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts" That doesn't say he is a denier, that says he is the foundation upon which deniers base their arguments. Which, given his creation of the surface stations project, is entirely accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire context of the section on WUWT in that chapter contradicts your assertion, which is basically a misrepresentation of the text.
 * In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStationsorg... By early June 2009, thanks to a grass roots network of volunteers, SurfaceStations.org had examined about 70%...enough to find out if there is anything to Watts's claim." -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not lose track of the central issue. "Deniar" is specifically cited as a word to watch, and states that it should only be used if widely used by reliable sources. Has anyone presented any evidence which demonstrates that this term is widely used by reliable sources? If so, let's hear it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not "the central issue", so stop trying to wikilawyer and game the system when consensus is clearly against you. WP:WTW is obviously flawed, and the guideline does not override policy.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course, it's the central issue; in fact, it's the only issue. But I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted - if only partially -- that the edit you favor goes against Wikipedia guidelines.  That's progress I suppose.  But contrary to what you imply, there is no conflict between WP:WTW and WP:NPOV.  They say essentially the same thing: what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic?  You have repeatedly argued against the majority viewpoint in favor of the minority/WP:FRINGE.  That's where we stand.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No amount of spin is going to change the consensus on this, because more than one editor has already broken down the semantics of "skeptic" in this context, and the dictionary definition of denialist has also been provided, derailing the misguided attempt to equate the use of denial in "climate change denial" with "Holocaust denial", etc. The recourse to "FRINGE" to support the forced interpretations of the definitions and use of these terms in RS is indicative of the fact that you don't understand that policy, either.
 * -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Huh? Why would spin even be required when the sources speak for themselves?  Again, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't use the term 'denier'.  Your argument is based on cherry-picking a handful of sources while ignoring the vast majority.
 * Now, let's try to stick the issue: Do you acknowledge that that vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't use this term?  Yes or no?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing over using "terms" "skeptic" or "denier" is not going to get us anywhere. We need to be describing what Watts thinks, believes, and does rather than trying to find the right way to label him or his blog. Right now, the lede of the article does not describe what his perspective is at all; a reader coming to this article would not be informed as to what his notoriety is actually for. This needs to change. jps (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a wikilink to climate change denial.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Who keeps on removing the fact that he's a climate denier? Stupid removing it: he is one of the most prominent climate deniers out there. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any why have I not even heard of this person? He is a prominent climate denier - but only within the realm of the Great Battle against Pseudoscience. - A1candidate  23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could read the lengthy discussions above. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann's opinion of the blog (in lede)
Mann's opinion of the blog is perhaps notable, but it is clear from the (near) edit warring that there is no consensus whatsoever that it be in the lede. If it is to be included, I suggest that it should be in the section on Watt's blog. The lede summarizes the important parts of a biography subject's life that occur in the body of the article. The opinion of one of Watt's intellectual opponents about his blog is not a seminal part of Watt's life, nor does it summarize the material below. It just doesn't. It is interesting enough to include in the paragraph on the blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It does, in fact, summarize the entire debate also encompassing "climate change skeptic", as per the link to the climate change denial article in the sentence.
 * Mann is not an "intellectual opponent" of Watts, because Watts is not in the same league as Mann. Mann is a highly regarded academic climate scientist published by a high-regarded academic press, whereas Watts hosts FRINGE theory on a blog with significant backing from corporate interests opposed to government regulation of carbon emissions.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no POV in that. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a POV. It's called the neutral POV. Climate denialism is driven by vested interest, the scientific consensus is driven by the data. Global warming is the inevitable conclusion from the observed facts, which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts it as fact and almost the entire relevant professional community accepts that it's primarily driven by human activity. It's as scientifically controversial as gravity, thermodynamics or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
 * Mann's statement is appropriate and properly attributed to a leading credentialled expert in the field. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, get off the WP:SOAPBOX. Secondly, it's not Wikipedia's job to trash people who's views go against either the mainstream consensus, or your personal views, hence the WP:NPOV policy. So please stop trying to label the subject of the article with a pejorative political term ("climate change denier") in Wikipedia's voice, and forcing WP:UNDUE credence to the subject's critics. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is Wikipedia's job to document the world as it is, and not as people blinded by dogma would wish it to be. That's why we reflect evolution, anthropogenic climate change and the laws of thermodynamics as fact. Pointing out that denialism is not skepticism, is not trashing anybody. Watts is a climate denialist, that's a simple statement of fact. He's not a skeptic: he credulously accepts discredited and conflicted material and refuses to change his view in response to evidence that he is wrong. He's not merely a contrarian, because he actively sets out to produce data to support the commercially-driven agenda of his friends at the Heartland Institute. He is an active denialist. So that's what we say. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a "fact", it is your opinion. "Climate denialist" is a political label. He disagrees with you. He is effective at getting his message across to a suspicious public. Tough. Wikipedia is not a place to right WP:GREATWRONGS or for exposing "The Truth" and Watts is as entitled as any man to have his work and views explained fairly and impartially without WP:UNDUE weight being given to his critics. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand the assertion that "Climate denial" is a political label. If instead he was described as denying man-made climate change, would that be better? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a political label because it's clearly a term invented by advocates of political action on climate change to smear political opponents. The term "denier" implies willful malevolence on his part, which is not Wikipedia's place to comment on given the politics involved. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the word deny has any such connotations of willful malevolence. I honestly am puzzled that you appear to place such strong emotional weight on this term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The beauty of working on an encyclopedia is we don't have to believe, we can check! From Denialism: In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Sounds pretty negative to me - what do you think does "PeterTheNorth chooses to deny reality" sound WP:NPOV to you? 104.156.240.168 (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, "Denialism" is different from "denial", which is "the action of declaring something to be untrue". And, of course, compound words and phrases do take on new meanings over time, so looking at the components can lead us to the etymological fallacy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We could get into an etymological debate but that sounds like a lot of WP:OR to me. Best to just go with what we say about it: Journalists and newspapers ... have described climate change denial as a form of denialism. Seems pretty clear cut. To Capitalismojo's point, seems like we're rehashing a debate that's already been settled re "deniers"... 104.156.240.157 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but this article is about a pundit that is described by scientists as hosting pseudoscience FRINGE material on a commercial blog in order to deny that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is correct. That is why only a small minority of activist editors see a BLP violation.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether you, Peter, believe it (malevolence of the term) or not Wikipedia has guidelines for labeling people "deniers" WP:WTW. It is a controversial term and an attack. This is a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are words to watch, not words to quarantine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is not a magic talisman to ward off reality-based criticism of cranks and charlatans. I know this: I wrote the standard OTRS guidance to biography subjects. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that BLP policy is not a "magic talisman". I find it solid and understandable. There are no refs calling the subject of this biography a crank or a charlatan. That statement is, in fact, a BLP violation. I suggest you remove it. Given your understanding of BLP issues, you will recall that talk pages are subject to BLP policy as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As regards using controversial terms to denigrate people in BLPs, there is a policy against that. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is "denial" a problem in the lead, but not in the body?
I'm a bit confused. Some editors here claim that including Mann's characterization of "Watts Up with That?" as "the leading climate change denial blog" as a BLP violation. Yet these same editors appear to have no problem including this characterization in the body of the article, based on recent reversions like. This seems inconsistent to me: why would something be a BLP violation in the lead, but not elsewhere?

In case it's not clear, I think Mann's characterization (or something similar) should be in the lead, because the article needs to clearly communicate that Watt's blog rejects the scientific consensus on global warming and that this rejection is not based on scientific grounds. I think the idea that including Mann's opinion is a BLP violation is patent nonsense. I don't see a genuine argument to the contrary; simply asserting that "denier" is a "word to watch" and therefore this is a BLP violation is basically saying Mann's opinion isn't nice so we shouldn't include it. That's ridiculous. I'd love to see a real justification instead of this fake one. And I'd really like to know why the lead is being treated differently than the body... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . From the perspective of an independent & uninvolved editor, with no particular view on the subject of the article, there are a number of reasons why information might be acceptable in the body of an article but not the lede. Per, WP:LEAD, the lede should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies & significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The material as introduced doesn't really summarise anything from the body of the article.
 * For WP:BLP, I agree that we have sourced the information, so are likely compliant with WP:BLPSOURCES, but likely still have issues with (at least) WP:BLPSTYLE - Criticism and praise should be included ... so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. One person's viewpoint in the lede seems disproportionate.
 * This highlights that there are also WP:NPOV (WP:DUE) issues with the text as it currently is. We neither explain who Mann is, nor why his opinion is important, far less if it is indicative of a more general opinion on Watts. If Mann's opinion is a mainstream view of Watts, we should be able to find other examples, include them in the body, and summarise in the lede. If fringe, then...
 * Finally from a stylistic perspective, it sticks out like dog's proverbials; a third of the lede is taken up with one person's opinion of Watt's blog.
 * Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently you haven't read the sprawling discussion regarding the material at issue, because the above comment is missing the context.
 * It's easy enough to cite Mann's qualifications for criticizing a pundit blog hosting FRINGE pseudoscience like Watts' WUWT.
 * The fact that Mann's single statement summarizes the mainstream view is also readily apparent, particularly given the Wikilink to climate change denial.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ryk72: thanks for some sensible input. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)