Talk:Watts Up With That?/Archive 3

Comments and criticism
I am not too sure what this section is actually about is it about Comments and criticism of WUWT or Comments and criticism that has appeared on WUWT? If is it (as I suspect) the former then  why is Fox’s use of pictures there, its not a comment or a critismism it’s a use. Also the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley material is not a Comment or a criticism of WUWT its Comments and criticism appearing on WUWT.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would appear there is a certain heterogeneity about it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is. This is too piecemeal and disjointed.   Ideally, all of those comments should be interwoven within the text of the rest of the article.  Criticism sections are really not good form.   Minor4th  21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, may articles have a 'reception' section, that's true. But some of it needs rejuggling. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe some proposals here? Let's see if we can't work some of it into the main text.  Also, is there anything else notable about the blog that should be considered for this article?  I have never read the blog and I'm not really familiar with whether it has been otherwise covered or if there's anything else notable that can be said.Minor4th  21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fox and Monckton snippets should be moved into a history section. Actually, I'd incorporate the Involvement in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy and Temperature records project sections as subsections in a history bit as well. It also needs a section on background or founding which is where there can be some notes on Anthony Watts and how/why he set the blog up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments.  Please see my comment above about the GA nomination.   If you are interested in this article in particular, please work with me to try to get the article stable and in good shape for Good Article review.   I am going to look and see what the state of the article was when it was nominated and see if that is a better starting point than where we are now.   I will also be making a new section heading with a plea to stop edit warring so this article can be improved and reviewed under GA criteria. By the way, I agree with you about the background -- good idea and good way to improve this article right off the bat.  <b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I must admit I am sorta curious, I just haven't the foggiest where to find the sourced info. But will try to keep an eye on things and help out where I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, most information on blogs is found, unfortunately, in other blogs. I believe, however, that because of this blog's significant involvement in the Climategate affair, that the books on the incident which should be coming out over the next few months will provide a lot more information about Watts Up that we'll be able to use in this article.  I have one book on order right now which might provide some more detail as soon as it arrives. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:Eventualism. What happens in the future happens in the future. For now, we're stuck writing about this blog without the benefit of all these books coming out. In the interest of heading toward GA, I think merging to Anthony Watts (blogger) will be a great step forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge? There is already enough sourcing in this article to establish its notability.  It's Alexa rank alone does so also, as it gets much higher traffic numbers than the other two major CC blogs, RealClimate and Climate Audit. Cla68 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK is what I'm driving at. I think the two articles go well together and we can always spin-off later. Right now, I don't think that the two article by themselves are very good, but together they might be better. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

GA nom and Peer Review
This article was nominated for Good Article in July 2010. I just checked the state of the article when it was nominated, and it is really not a whole lot different now. I am asking all editors involved in editing this article, please no more edit warring so that we can get the article stable before it is reviewed. In that spirit, although I think the NYT review belongs in the article, I am refraining from adding it back in and ask that other editors also just leave that issue alone for now. I am going to request peer review of this article so we can get some outside input with an eye towards getting the article in shape for GA review. Please be respectful of the peer review process and disengage from reverts and advocacy on this article. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good faith attempt here. I removed the interpretations that had been placed in the sentence about the Heffernan piece and also the unrelated aspersions cast on other blogs made by Heffernan. The statement is at least now neutral and not undue. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it further, and after talking to myself on Cla's talk page, I actually now agree with you that it should be removed because there's no way to present the complete picture within Wiki sourcing guidelines.  I have not reviewed your edits, but on this issue, I think we now agree.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is incredibly magnanimous. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have my moments. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Big group hugs all round XD Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Its looking better. The history section might need some header re-wording but thats a minor issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"This Week's Recommendations"
Color me naive, but how wonderful it would be if editors took the time to actually read the source before making bad edits such as this one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it. If we can't be convinced that she is actually expressing "regret" when she says, "One regret", how can we be sure she's recommending it when she writes "recommendation". At least we can all agree that the sentence in question is what she wrote, correct? Commentary otherwise is irrelevant. Also, there doesn't seem to be much point in including her attacks on atheist blogs. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm....because it clearly states, "This Week's Recommendations"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And she clearly stated "One regret: the Watts blog". The point is that we don't know what sort of "recommendation" it is just as we don't know what sort of "regret" it is. Good for the goose and good for the gander. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be taking this content dispute a little too personally SA. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to be judicious. Either we apply the rules consistently or we don't, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist: Your comment makes no sense since I've already offered 2 compromises above which include her blog comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But, unfortunately, no one on the "other side" liked those compromises though I was willing to work with them. They were shot down before I even had a chance to see them. If the consensus is to just include the sentence from NYT, then I think all we can really do is include the sentence. All other commentary needs to be excised. I'm just trying to be fair here. I actually liked a few of your compromise suggestions. Oh well. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Prety much the comprom8ise was rejected by those who want material in. I wouold also have to say that we do know what her recomoendation was, she says so in her blog entry.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Other issues

 * 1) The lede has information that is not found anywhere else in the article. There are reviews and references to awards in the leded, and they are sourced well, but they are not in the relevant sections of the article.
 * 2) I've removed the NYT for now to workshop that content and let it settle a bit. I have come to agree that we cannot present the entire story about that recommendation and still keep it within sourcing guidelines.   There were several who felt strongly about removing it -- if there are those who feel as strongly about keeping it, let's continue the discussion.
 * 3) Didn't Monbiot retract his commentary about the blog too?  Seems like I remember some talk page discussion related to this.  If that's the case, then we need to look at whether his commentary should stand as written.

Please add to list and check off items as they're addressed. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point, but the weblog awards controversy is a weird one now erupting over at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). I'm not entirely convinced that this article should be independent of Anthony Watts (blogger). Where was the discussion about these two things being separate? I can't find it. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a merge discussion? The article might be easier to write if it's combined -- not sure.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence of a merge discussion, but I think there is a lot of synergy between Watts' blog and his other projects. The ideal way to write articles in Wikipedia is to content fork: that is combine all the information and only fork after it's gotten too big. I think that the content here could easily be put into one section of the Anthony Watts article. If it gets too big, then we can always recreate this article. As it is, however, I think it much more likely to get a combined article to GA-status rather than this one or that one by itself. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging mighe a good idea. Also lets have an awards section and move (or give greater detail of any material not in body but in lead to body.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

not in citation given
From the article:

In 2010, Fox News asked for permission to use exclusive photographs of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster which had been posted on WUWT.

I looked at the citation and it is just a photo gallery without any reference to their "permission to use exclusive photographs". It does say "Courtesy of Watts Up With That?" and "courtesy of geologist Jimmy Haigh, and Watts Up With That?", but can someone verify that the permission was asked for in some other way?

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case this should be changed too (though I'm not sure what relevacne this has eihter) to
 * In 2010, Fox News used exclusive photographs of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster which had been posted on WUWT.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're on a fishing expedition here. The phrase "courtesy of" is journalistic-speak, meaning permission was requested and given.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  12:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A doubt was raised and we discuse it. So why not (as it appears to have ucasued confusion) use those words? Also was permision asked or were the photos used on an open license with an aknowlegment clause? Here we go [] of course we can't use it its discusing a third party on a blog hsame that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It hasn't caused any confusion. The version you promote will, however, by suggesting that Fox may have used exclusive photos without permission.  And WUWT has no open license policy.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New porposal
 * In 2010, Fox News used exclusive photographs of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster courtesy of WUWT.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If no one else bothered to comment on this (other than Fox News giving credit), isn't it non-notable trivia? Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a good point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't Fox News the predominant television news source in the United States? If they use photographs from this blog, that seems notable to me. Cla68 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If they used an image from Wikipedia, would be add that info to Wikipedia? For that matter, would we list every time a major news outlet has quoted WUWT? Again - would we list every time a major news outlet has quoted Wikipedia? Of course not. Because it's trivia. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure we would, because it would be easy to summarize in a single sentence, "Images from the blog have been used by major news organizations including Fox, CNN, [and whatever]." If I were reading an article on this blog, that would be useful information for me because it tells me something about the blog's role in news reporting and distribution. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The new form is misleading. Fox didn't simply use the photographs; they requested (and were granted) permission to use them.  Further, the fact that a major network made such a request is what makes the entire incident notable.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  00:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that we can assume that the network asked permission since the source doesn't say that. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source does say that.  That's what the phrase "courtesy of" means.  This is Journalism 101, people.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never taken Journalism 101. Can you show me proof that this is the definition of "courtesy of"? It's not how we use the phrase in scientific presentations. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can look up the definition of the phrase here, or read about how a specific image provider uses it here . Or you can ask any journalist what it means.  It means you've been given permission to use the image.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These didn't really do the trick, sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Neuronculture
After carefully rereading WP policy on verifiability, I've come to the conclusion this source cannot be used, especially in a BLP. The touchstone here is verifiability, not truth, to directly quote policy. By Hefferman's own Twitter admission, it is a personal blog without editorial control. That leaves only Hefferman's tweet as a potential source...and that doesn't specify who or what she may be regretting. Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But is can be verified she said it, so it does not fail verifiability. Also it seems that the RSN board seems to think it might be OK as long as wekk make sure its writen to vmake it clear thnis is just heropinion, and where she said it.12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * 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) 13:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 213 (You don't mind if you call you 213, I hope?) your intepretation is precisely correct. While I personally have little doubt they are Hefferman's comments, the fact remains that referencing them is a clear violation of WP verifiability policy.  The only self-published source that can be used for comments about Hefferman is Hefferman herself.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  13:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your interpritatioin is faulty. Is some one says they disagree wiht something they are saying what they think. That person is RS for that view. So the blog entry is RS for the fact she does not endorse something views. She is not saying if those voews are right or wrong, just that she herslef does not endorse then. She is not commenting of whterh or not Watts views are correct. She is not commenting onm Watts but on her views.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very simple. Neuronculture is a personal blog.  It can only be used as a source for opinion's of it's own authors, not the opinions of Hefferman.   Now, excluding Neuronculture, what source do we have that says Hefferman regrets her recommendation in any way?  None.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy does not support that, she made the blog entry, also (as I bleive has been popinted out) there is also the twitter material.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a valid, policy-based reason for exclusion? HINT: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me also add that Heffernan has it within her power, if she so chose, to use the already in place mechanism that the NYT's has available to staff to rectify any "errors, omissions, amplifications or clarifications" in its published works. This is in addition to the Times Public Editor. A simple edit, something done a number of times each day, at the bottom of the article is the norm. 99.144.248.213 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I agree to some extent, I don't think the Neuronculture comments are suitable for the article, but they do mean that adding the original quote from the NYT without any qualification is misleading to the readers. It amounts to deception by half-truth, giving the impression that VH unhesitatingly recommends WUWT, and that is clearly not true. No amount of wiki-lawyering changes that. Both original NYT comment and the Neuronculture 'regret' should be kept out of the article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Undue. Why is this persons single line recommendation of the week (in an article not about the subject of this article) notable enough for inclusion alongside experts and persons of a scientific background? It giving undue weight to the views of some one who goes on to admit that she does not really understand the subject (more or less) or the controversy (oh and by the way we will also be including material that has caused her to backtrack (as a result of pressure) with out including the backtracking so may expose her to the very kinds of attention over this matter (that caused her to backtrack in the first place) when she herself has attempted to distance herself from it, that I think could constitute a BLP violation, and thus forcing her to possibly have to issue another caveat.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I remind you again of basic WP policy. Allow me to quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."   There is no reliable source that expresses Hefferman's regret (and its not even clear in the Neuron source that she regrets her recommendation; it seems much more likely that she simply replied to the blog's angry email, letting him know she regrets how he interpreted it)  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, if you're going to claim a NYT journalist's opinion isn't notable in a section listing opinions about a blog, you're going to have to go through ever climate change article, excising the opinion of Monbiot and other journalists that are regularly accepted as notable. Let's have a little consistency here.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  13:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor is WP:OTHERSTUFF a reason to keep it. Why is her view notable when in one line in an articel not about the blog, but about science blogs in general (and actualy about an issue that this blog was not even part of Pepsigate. Also the issue of any potential embarisment to her by inclusion of this has not been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to stuff in every single thing about a subject. Editorial judgement is required, and bearing in mind that encyclopedias are supposed to inform, it seems to me to be a good idea not to include material that will mislead the reader. Insisting on including VH's NYT comment without any caveat and insisting that her further comments cannot be included looks to me like wikilawyering to tendentious ends. It's dishonest. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The dishonesty here is the endless attempts to remove a relevant, interesting, verifiable fact from the article by an ever-more-ludicrous set of arguments, simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You people have gone from "her twitter remarks are highly relevant" to "her professional work in the New York Times aren't relevant".    The attempts to use non-reliable sources, the blatant distortion of those sources and -- best of all -- a hilarious attempt to invoke WP:UNDUE by an editor who either has never read the policy, or doesn't understand at least half the words in it.   All this, simply because a journalist dared to express a positive opinion?  Talk about McCarthyism.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fell, would you please not personalize all of this? I think most of us agree in either all or none for the NYTimes stuff on this blog. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to the New York Times?
The argument that we're giving undue weight to the New York Times is also bogus. Please remember weight is not a binary 0/1 switch. Rather, weight is something that is proportional. Weight should be assigned based on prominence in third-party reliable sources. So, to say that the New York Times is getting undue weight is to say that other reliable sources, such as the Los Angeles Times or the Washington Post, aren't getting enough coverage. So, can anyone point me to some other articles from other mainstream newspapers that are being excluded from this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry its not the NTY that under question its Ms Hoffoenman.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are there now two publications or authors under discussion here? Is Hoffoenman at the NTY now relevant, is he being introduced as a RS secondary source? Can you link to this?99.144.248.213 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL sorry spelling mistake (I flunked Hogwatrs) I of cource meant Ms Heffernan. Thnak you for pointing out my error.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

her view is notable as she is a well known critic and columnist, and her opinion was published in a widely read source. Given that WUWT is a blog meant to be accessible to laymen, the opinion of a well known critic is perhaps more notable than any other source. Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is she were a scientist or commentaor on the enviroamnt I would agree, she is not. She is a media commentator who goes on to admit she does not unnderstand many of the issues involvded. Moreover its a one line comment in an artciel about a largley unreted subject (IE is about pepsi gate and not climate change).Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) This is not a scientific paper, but a blog intended to be interesting and accessible to laymen. Her opinion makes clear that it is.  As for her claiming to "understand the issues involved", do you have a reliable source that states that?   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it being in as long as her caveat from the blog (her own personal opinion and no fact about a third party) is included too. To include the NYT and not the subsequent comment is too far a deviation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we have her blog entry where she says that “I’m a stranger to the debates on science blogs” and “I didn’t even know about denialism” So she admits she did  not understand what her endoresemtn meant, ior what the isseus invoilolved are. It will also be the case that her caveat will  not be allowed in its current form.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To get from her blog comments to what you're claiming requires synthesis. Unfortunately, that's not allowed.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can say she regrets her endorsement however, that (a) isn't synthesis (b) is her opinion and doesn't cover any facts about a third party. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its also not synthasis to say that she is a stranger to the bedate and that she does ot know what denialism is (after all she has never heard of it. So seits that she does not understand the issues becasue she has never heard ther are any issues.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it follows, "c" - it has no secondary RS attesting as to its notability, it is not itself reliably sourced and it has no use here. Perhaps at the Heffernan Bio? 99.144.248.213 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heffernan's alleged comments in an unvetted public comment section do nothing to Un-verify the professional, reliably sourced, notable and published work of the NYT. A retraction or clarification is well within her power and is a common occurrence at the NYT for all manner of trivial to substantive issues. Our place is not to second guess the publisher or editors, or even in this case the author who has yet to amend in any way the displayed work at the NYT. If you feel this incident is notable in Re:Heffernan, use the bio. It has no notability here re:NYT and its published work regarding the article's subject. The reporters alleged lamentations regarding its reception are at best a personal footnote, one I doubt very much would even be found reliably sourced or notable enough for mention at her wiki:bio. 99.144.248.213 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that any one had said it un-verifed what she wrote (and I fail, to see how you get that idea). Nor is the fact she has not retracted it on the NYT's site relevant, she may well assume that she has now exlpained her actiosn and bleives the matter dead (which is why I say this may be a BLP viol,ation wwe are opein g up a debate that she had attmepted to close wiht her statment).Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suppositions, assumptions and leaps of logical faith start, finish and in the end still amount to simple WP:OR. Please revisit our foundation level principle regarding WP:Verify. It is clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."   .99.144.248.213 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When have I sdaid that none of what she wrtoe is unture, it is in fact you who are trying to claim she has not said something. I have never queationed that she wrote this article in th NYT, just why her view is relevant. I also ppoint out that she has said " I'm extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological" She has appoligised for what she has said. How is that not trying to draw a line under this and stop the accusations she supports its views?. If we publish this it makes it look like she never appolissed for saying something, how is that not a BPL violation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From your "position" on the matter: "Nor is the fact... relevant. she may well assume ... she may well bleives ... she had attmepted... I sdaid that none of what she wrtoe is unture " You appear to be highly involved in a bout of WP:OR.99.144.248.213 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will again ask when have I said that she has not writen something? Also I would ask that you do not alter what I have writen to make itr seem like I have writen something I have not. ewven if I have engadged in OR in making assumtions about why she issued her appology that does not indicate I have said she never wrote the NYT articel or that I have attempted to un-verify it (whatever that is supposed to mean).Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Amongst others, and just in the post above. You stated that facts were not relevant, and then you gave relevance to your personal interpretation of what you felt were her assumptions, beliefs and her goal that she was "attempting". 99.144.248.213 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask you one more time not to misrepresent what I say, nor to edit my comments to alter their meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I'm still waiting for your list of sources from other mainstream newspapers that are being excluded from this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly said I am not questioning the NYT I am questioning why her views relevant. If she were an environmental writer then I would have no objection, she is not. How many otehr media commoontators are represented in the articel?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I only address that which you write, and I can only address it as it is written. If it fails to effectively communicate the concepts, thoughts or message that you intended the problem lies within one of us. No one will ever be %100 successful with all readers, it's incumbent upon you to communicate as clearly and effectively as you can, nothing more can be done. My apologies if I failed you as the reader.99.144.248.213 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you can provide the Diff where I say "that facts were not relevant".Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was actually a pretty interesting stretch, you said, "Nor is the fact she has not retracted it on the NYT's site relevant" which was a unique and original way to argue that the continued existence of a reliably sourced and notable publication somehow does not, in and of self, have greater hold on reality than a retraction that does not exist. 99.144.248.213 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant that she has not withdrawn an endorsement as she has not retracted the endorsment she had made a public apology elsewhere. What she has done is to issue a public apology that her endorsement was seen as an endorsement of the blogs views (which she explicitly says is not the case). If we ignore that public apology then we are ignoring her views and wishes (and it is perfectly logical to assume that the apology was an attempt to draw a line under the issue). That is a BLP violation. Thank you for acknowledging that I have never said facts are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

She has not "made a public apology". That's the most tendentious interpretation I've heard yet. Had she truly any regrets or reservations about her endorsement, the NYT has a very clear-cut policy for issuing retractions or updates in such a case. Since she's chosen to not take any public action, it seems clear she still stands by her remarks 100%. Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk 00:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP, re " it has no secondary RS attesting as to its notability" - applies to articles, so not relevant here. Fact is, she said it and our rules as per WP:TWITTER allow it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Using comments ascribed to her personally from a blog user-comments section to usurp The New York Times is prohibited:

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) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Again, WP:WEIGHT is about relative proportion. In order for you to argue that the New York Times is getting undue weight, you need to provide a list of articles from other major newspapers which are being excluded from this article. Can you please provide this list? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I say again this is not about the NYT, its about one colonist, the only non environment columnist being used for a one line quote from an article not about the subject of this article. I am not arguing the NYT is getting undue weight I am arguing the views of one colonist is. Her views are being put alongside persons who have knowledge of or work in the field of CC. When she is the only media commentator in the article. Why is her endorsement notable?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven: OK, then show me what other columnists are being excluded from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does her view carry as much weight as an environment columnist? That is my point. Hers is the only view that does not represent those of someone with an interest in the field but are being given as much weight as those who work (or have knowledge) of the field. That is what I mean, she is not an expert in climate change, or even an amateur. But her own admission she knows nothing about climate change blogs. This is a media commentator making a comment (as she goes on to say) about user friendliness of its science. As such putting her in the same place as specialist in the field is undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC).
 * WUWT is not an environmental blog, period. Unless you understand what you're writing about, you're not going to be able to contribute productively.   Your argument is like claiming a NYT movie critic's opinion on a movie is worthless, if that movie contains what you perceive to be some environmental message. Ludicrous.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  17:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven: You're just not getting it. WP:WEIGHT is about proportion.  In order for you to argue that it's undue weight, you have to provide the sources you think deserve more weight.  So far, you have not provided a single source.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She is being given as much weight as sources already in the article out of proportion to the importance of her comments. In fact she receives twice as much coverage as writers on the subject of science. This is out of proportion given not only the ‘length’ of her review (on line, others who have written whole articles receive less coverage). The fact that its was a reviews of its user friendliness not its science and the fact she goes on to issue an apology about being ms-understood as to her intentions with regards the recommendation means it should receive less attention then those who work in the fields the blog covers. Either that or she is separated out .Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven: OK, then which sources do you think should be given more room? BTW, she did not apologize.  She said that she regrets that other people misunderstood her recommendation as being ideological.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * George Monbiot and Leo Hickman combined receives about the same amount of coverage (two lines, even though they actually have interests in the field). Matt Ridley receives about the same amount as here, despite having a background in science. OK so she said she was sorry her views had been m is-understood (or to be exact “and I’m extremely sorry the recommendation seemed ideological.”) that reads like some one trying to draw a line under the issue by saying sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa Slater, you have the entire concept of undue weight wrong. It's not about sources of opinions, it's about the opinions' themselves. In other words, if the majority of notable critics think WUWT is a steaming pile of doggie doo, then it out be WP:UNDUE to include only those who disagree. To make an undue argument requires showing that the opinion being expressed is given undue weight, not that the person expressing the opinion is. I am therefore removing the undue tag as inappropriate. Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * “Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.” So it does not only cover the 'opinions themselves, because its not just about opinions ( I would also request you do not shout). I would say that she recives for more wieght then her views deserve. Given her importance to the subject (a science blog). By all means if we have a section on media reponse include her. But her views on this page (qouted in full, thats how little there is) at this time have far more coverage then they deserveSlatersteven (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Come Slater, this isn't rocket science. Undue applies to any aspect of the subject of the article.  Not an aspect of some source about the subject. If you think other critics opinions are being left out, then cite them here.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How are her views significant to the subject of the artciel? Her views are an aspect of the article, they are not seperate from it. As such her views have to be represented in prportion to their relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure if you're intentionally being opaque or not, but I'll try one more time. You're focusing on the "her" in her views.  For an undue argument to be sound, however, you must focus on the "view" itself, not the source of the view.  In other words, are we giving too much weight to the viewpoint that WUWT is a blog that's "accessible but credible"?  The source of that comment CANNOT be used to make an undue argument (though it can be used to invoke notability or reliability claims).  Do you understand now?   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  18:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall seek clarififacation of this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven: Well, I took a look at the Monbiot article and the only thing it says about this blog is: "this source is highly partisan and untrustworthy". That's it.  I'm not sure how you can expand that.  But there might be room for expansion with the other two articles.  Can you please make some suggestions?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bit Iffy about the Monbiot source, its really about someone else and its a prety throw away line. this might also be left out I think.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the NYTimes material in the article anymore. So, is it ok to remove the UNDUE tag? Cla68 (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm still not sure about Mr Monbiot but he at least he is writeing aboiut how the site is used, (and appears to ahve never even partialy backtracked on his view).Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot
Questions are raised about the Monbiot quote. As was pointed out the Monbiot article's mention of WUWT was a glancing blow in an article that is not about the blog. Also if you will search this page for Monbiot, you will see a previous discussion of Monbiot's possible retraction of this bit -- apparently Monbiot's statement was based on a factual bit of info posted on WUWT that Monbiot said was wrong. He later corrected himself and acknowledged that it was he, Monbiot, who was wrong. That kind of takes the wind out of the sails of Monbiot's criticism of WUWT - the correction I believe is at the very top of his article. Anyway, I'll leave it to others to decide what this means in terms of this article, but wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. Sorry for not linking the section where prior discussion took place -- I'm editing from my phone and kind of limited. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a case for its removal then..Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Monbiot article is here: . The main subject of the article is Christopher Booker, and the whole of the final para reads:

"Instead he [Booker] more or less cut and pasted his claims from the Watts Up With That blog, without checking them first. He does this again and again: in most weeks his column contains a claim first published on Watts Up With That, which falls apart on the briefest examination. He must know that this source is highly partisan and untrustworthy, but he uses it as if it is the only known repository of scientific knowledge about the state of the planet. Isn't it time the editor of the Sunday Telegraph took him aside for a quiet word?"
 * The retraction at the top is about a single calculation where Monbiot gets two different average ice extents muddled (1979-2000 and 1979-2009). Because of the sentence 'He does this again and again: in most weeks his column contains a claim first published on Watts Up With That, which falls apart on the briefest examination' it is clear that his opinion of WUWT is not based on a single calculation, so the update at the top of Monbiot's article about a single mis-calculation does not count as a retraction of his overall opinion of WUWT. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do I bother?
this edit by AQFK is factually incorrect. And if I take off my rose tinted glasses appears to be a direct retaliation to my own edit. Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I misunderstood the discussion. I've self-reverted.  Can you explain how it's factually incorrect?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you say someone stated something later when you are referencing the same article? Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The section I quoted says "5.12pm update". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you think that wikipedia should have a running commentary at that scale then? Please look at the whole article and the context of the article and think about it. Polargeo (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As with Ms Heffernan above if some one goes on to partialy or fully retract or caveat an articel we have to mention that. Or we leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)]
 * No we don't have to mention it because wikipedia is not the news. We just have to show the current understanding and any arguments along the way are only important if they have historical significance to the subject. We don't have to and should not report every journalistic missunderstanding unless significant in that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over Heffernan's recommendation
FellGleaming is trying to edit war in the additions of an IP against a consensus that exists on this article. Please stop right now, including editors who are reverting these edits. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We've gone over this many times. There is no consensus to remove the NYT material, and editors who persist in removing it against consensus are indeed edit warring.  Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So now the article is protected please reach consensus rather than edit warring dubious additions into the article along with the IP 99.144.248.213. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – a number of editors seem to be conflating "regret" with "retract". They aren't the same thing. The evidence appears persuasive that Ms. Heffernan regrets her original recommendation, but I've seen no evidence presented that she retracts her original recommendation. Her statement of regret qualifies her original recommendation, and substantially enough that it should be mentioned (assuming the Tweet qualifies as RS, and I think it does). It isn't even clear to me that a retracted statement means that neither the original nor the retraction deserve mention, but that isn't at issue here. What we have is a recommendation and a subsequent qualification. As a thought experiment, if you think an expression of regret means that the original incident can be ignored, try going to the Tiger Woods article and removing the section about his recent infidelities, on the basis that there is a RS where he expresses regret.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but doesn't her tweet merely say the word "regrets" in a vacuum? She's not clear on who, when, where, how, or what she even regrets doing.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Five. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Her tweet was short (duh) "Posted some clarification (and regret!) on David Dobbs's blog:" and then a link to a longer comment reported upthread.--  SPhilbrick  T  22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And what is this in my soup? MastCell Talk 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the initial characterization of her expressed "regret" was that it was in relation to the quagmire of the greater Climate debate. Perhaps each editor can produce his personal favorite WP:OR "explanation" and then we can put it to a popular vote. Lord, and those angels on the pin, surely knows that The New York Times is wrong about the Truth on this one. No doubt it's only a matter of time before someone makes them see the light. 99.144.248.213 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all or none for Heffernan's comments. Her later caveat must be included if we mention her recommendation.  We have to accept it even though it was from her twitter account.  Otherwise, we can't include her comments at all. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we revisit my compromise proposal?:
 * "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." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we to assume that Heffernan therefore does endorse the views of all other media she suggests unles she states otherwise?99.144.248.213 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the compromise wording by AQFK. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not. Either include her "regret" along with the original recommendation, or include neither. She's used "regret" twice (at least) in reference to her original recommendation. So maybe, just maybe, she really means it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't assume that we know what she meant or didn't meant. AQFK's wording doesn't assume anything, just states what she said. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on, man, how many times does she have to say "regret" for you to take her at her word? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I read her comment, and I don't think she makes it clear what she actually regrets. That she recommended the blog?  That it has a political opinion she wasn't aware of?  That some readers took issue with her recommendation?  That some readers take issue with the blog's stance? Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She pretty clearly regrets endorsing the blog. I think interpreting much more into it might be tricky but at a minimum she does to me pretty clearly regret it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) How about we dodge that trap by simply stating that "Heffernan later expressed 'regret' with regard to her original review," linking to her post, and letting the reader decide where her "regret" lies? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine. The only other alternative would be to reproduce her statement in its entirety which would probably be too long. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond absurd. This recommendation is at most borderline noteworthy anyway, isn't it? One short sentence would be the maximum you can say about this without completely shattering encyclopedic brevity. Now the journalist who made the recommendation has admitted that she merely did so based on a superficial impression, and regrets having done so. This makes the recommendation less noteworthy, not more, and the correct solution is leaving it out altogether, not giving it even more weight by including a complete discussion of all aspects of this recommendation.

This discussion is an example for Wikipedia's propensity to blow little things out of all proportion in article space simply because we have an internal conflict about them. Hans Adler 01:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We probably need to do a straw poll to allow us to gauge at a glance how all the editors here feel about it. I'll start one below. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said repeatedly I believe this does not rely warrant inclusion. I may be wrong about Undue bit O am sure I have read somewhere that single line quotes in article about other subjects should not be given much shift.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Heffernan exact words
"One 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." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions on Watts Up With That?
The article Watts Up With That? is now subject to a 1 revert rule pursuant to General sanctions/Climate change probation. No editor may make more than one revert within a 24 hour period without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. -Selket Talk 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Booker noted"
When the page is unprotected, "Booker noted" should be changed to "Booker stated" per WP:W2W. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems uncontroversial enough to use the template. -Atmoz (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection
I have reduced the protection level to semi. All editors are expected to follow 1RR as per above. Expect edit waring to be dealt with harshly. --Selket Talk 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Poll
What are editors' opinions on including Heffernan's NYTimes mention/recommendation of this blog as detailed in the discussions above?


 * All or none. Either include her recommendation and subsequent caveat, or nothing.  If we decide to include both, then of her caveat/regret, I support either AQFK or SBHB's suggested compromises detailed above. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no "subsequent caveat". Your declaration of fact is actually a gross mischaracterization which seeks to present as settled what is in fact the locus of contention here. The New York Times has a published report, referenced and cited on the article main page. Someone purporting to be the author allegedly made a vague expression of "regret" for apparently becoming involved in the climate debate quagmire in the un-vetted and public comment section of some third-party blog.


 * The New York Times is the master of its work and its staff reporters frequently, daily even, update all manner of published work with corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and the like. None have occurred here. In this our foundation level principle holds: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


 * For the random blog comments we have the work of the notice board, which on this issue found that:


 * Using comments ascribed to her personally from a blog user-comments section to usurp The New York Times is prohibited:
 * 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.99.141.241.60 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None, or failing that, all. If we have good grounds for understanding that the recommendation was regretted, it's simpler that we just leave it out. It would be dishonest to include it without acknowledging her subsequent comments. RS is a policy, not a law of nature, and there are times when there is a genuine choice to make on how we best apply the policy to make a good encyclopedia. Her "regret" is about her own writing - which was about a third party. The situation not crystal clear, and must be a judgement call by the editing community.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it exactly that you feel the alleged author regretted? Does this vague "regret" (found in the unsecured public comments section of a third-party blog) now really contain the force and power necessary to delete from our encyclopedic history the still displayed, published and existing work of The New York Times? Is this precedent you seek to create, or is there policy that guides your action? 99.141.241.60 (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP: Her comments have been reproduced above. They're pretty clear (I don't know what could be considered "vague" about them). They provide sufficient grounds for believing that her recommendation does not represent her opinion, as it was based on being insufficiently aware of WUWT. As such, her recommendation becomes less notable, as she is less of an expert than the NYT piece made out. Policy on newspapers as RS is quite clear that news organisations are not immune from problems, and that cases such as these should be dealt with on a case by case basis. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't important to explaining what the blog is. The fact that the endorsement appears to have been withdrawn (or at least regretted) makes it even less important. It certainly isn't worth this controversy. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All or none - in the interests of comprehensiveness, I favour all slightly over none, but as per TWS above, if it isn't endorsed at the end of the day, then the encyclopedic value of the orignal endorsement is negligible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None. She made a recommendation, then (apparently & credibly) withdrew it. Seems clearcut to me. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None. She quickly published a comment saying she regretted that part of her article. Doubts have been raised as to whether the 'regret' comment is in an RS, but it would be misleading to include only the recommendation - therefore including neither seems best to me. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None I wonder why some one who admits to knowing nothing about this type of blog should have her views represented. If we have to haqve her views (and I agree it adds nothing to our understanding of this blog) we also have to have her explanation o9f what she did and did not endorse.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None Similar to Squiddy's reasoning. While the twitter post may or may not be a reliable source, the blog comment almost certainly isn't as WP:V explicitly states "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."  However, the twitter post and blog comment raise enough issues about the original NYT citation such that this particular article should not be considered a Reliable Source, even if they themselves do not rise to a level of reliable source. If it must be all the link should be to twitter and not to the blog comment. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then, it appears a handful of people will gather here, "Vote" and presto - airbrush from the canvas of history a The New York Times article which never happened. And why? Because someone posted a comment on a blog public area expressing a sense of vague regret regarding being caught up in the Climate debate. Actually that's not really why, the real reasons are politics. To too many here it's a Black and White world and History serves a political purpose to educate the unwashed masses. Not even a Wikipedia foundation level principle is given lip-service, just ignored. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AGF, I would ask you to stop attacks on other edds.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP, you are welcome to discuss the matter on the reliable sources noticeboard (or indeed the conflict of interest noticeboard) to get an outside view if you believe that editors are not editing in good faith. That said, you might also first want to familiarise yourself with the foundation level principles of Wikipedia, as consensus-building is part of the pillar of civility.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * GF has nothing to do with it. And the matter has been brought, already, to seemingly every noticeboard by user:slatersteven. It was one of those findings regarding policy I've already quoted above.99.141.241.60 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I firsted raised the issue on the RSN notice board because it was suggested that her blog entry was not RS, and there was a dispute over this. I took it to the Content noticeboard ‎because some one on the RSN noice board ssugested that was the best place for the discusion. I then rasied it on the NPOV board because I may have mis-understood a policy and sought clarification, and sofar no one there has susgeted my interpritation is in correct.. I don’t recall raiseing the issue elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add this seems to be a single purpose account.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the basis for this false accusation? Is it just another attempt to clear the field of all those who fail to "see the light" as you may think you might?99.141.241.60 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well youvhave edited no other page so far.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IP 99.141.241.60 and IP 99.144.248.213 are obviously the same person: fifteen miles apart outside Chicago, both with a new edit history, both have the Watts article as their exclusive or nearly exclusive focus, and even more specifically, a particular passage at dispute within that article. This isn't a new user, either. New users don't write edit summaries like the third one x.213 wrote after blanking a section entitled "Primer on Islam" that characterized the religion as not supporting violence, at Bernard Lewis: "removed entire section as Original Research and selective interpretation of text - section refs text, not a notable RS secondary source". These two IPs are obviously the socks of some established user who's passionate about the Watts article. If I were to guess I'd say it's probably someone who's trying to skirt 3RR rules re the disputed passage. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is the case (and you reasoning is convincing) then it shuold be reported, but unless it can be demonstrated who they are a sock of it will be a bit pointless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Chicago's a big place. I'm sure lots of editors are from the area, including myself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ohiostandard's judgement on socks is just as flawed as his interpretation of reverts. These two IPs may very well be the same person.  That doesn't make them socks -- quite the opposite.  By definition, an IP editor doesn't have a fixed account.  If you look at the edit history for 213, it stopped before 60 make their first edit.  Conclusion:  Someone has a dynamic IP and it changed.  Unless this person is actively trying to represent themselves as two people to build false consensus (which I see no evidence of) there is no sock puppetry here.   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of reverts was upheld as correct; yours was incorrect according to the admin who clarified the matter at 3RRNB recently. If you missed that you might like to review it before you revert again, or else request a second opinion if you disagree with the admin who replied there. Thank you for pointing out that the two IPs didn't overlap in the timing of their edits. That was helpful, despite the unpleasant way you chose to convey the information. The larger question you raise about the quality of my judgment about socking, however, remains an open one at this point. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, so lets ask 60 are you 13 (if your a freeman feel free to slam you fist on the table).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Of course those are my edits, I don't see any possible way they - and my interwoven arguments, style and voice - could possibly be construed as anything but. I also added the line itself after reading it in my hardcopy of the Sunday New York Times.(1) I've also, as a number of eyes on this page are aware, edited our shared project as an IP since early 2001. You may find reams of discussion on this elsewhere.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP has said that these two IP's are the same person. As there is no attempt to decive there is no reason to assume sockpupetry. I have susgesteds that to avoid confusion i the future he should be come an account and not a number.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It happened. The second event in no way cancels out The New York Times publication. The second event, a vague regret regarding touching the climate debate third rail is not even notable in and of itself. But the one thing we do not do is erase history to suit our political "narrative". Well, at least it's supposed to be the one thing we're not supposed to do.99.141.241.60 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * None per encyclopedic brevity, which requires simple omission of unclear information that isn't particularly important. In the worst case all would be possible as a compromise.  But presenting only one side is impossible by WP:NPOV. Hans Adler 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "It happened." So what? It's not like our article lacks praise for WUWT -- or that people will stop visiting there (or here) if we leave this out.


 * Get over it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It happened, and its a quite notable and specific ref from what is almost the very definition of a reliable source, America's newspaper of record. We're recording the history of the blog (one I'll note that I have never read beyond a link that was on this page in relation to this issue). It's incumbent on us to record this incident. Should the vague secondary incident of regret itself become notable then we should consider inclusion of it on her Wiki:bio as a notable professional incident. At this time we simply have the de facto notability of The New York Times and the textook application of WP:Verify: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."   .99.141.241.60 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both should be included. It is frankly stunning that some argue a recommendation of a blog by a NYT journalist doesn't qualify as noteworthy. The subsequent regret is a relevant qualifier, but it is not a retraction (although several act as it it is a retraction). The main question is whether the the expression of regret, posted on a blog, qualifies as a RS. I'm persuaded that it is.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One or both. The New York Times is one of the most prestigious and respected newspapers in the world, the winner of 104 Pulitzer Prizes for excellence in journalism.  I see no valid reason to exclude such a prestigious publication from our articles.  However, if editors also want some mention of the subsequent qualifications issued by this journalist, that's fine with me, too.  We should all be willing to compromise.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some people are confusing what Newspaper of Record means. It means that it is an official outlet for government announcements, and that it is expected to be factually accurate (i.e., without any evidence to the contrary, on wikipedia we presume it factually reliable). However, what we are dealing with here is an opinion by a TV critic on the best science websites, expressed in one third of one sentence, which she later regretted. That is, we're not looking at the NYT in its Newspaper of Record mode. We wouldn't (I hope) ever use her endorsement of the Scientific American website as the voice of an expert. The NYT piece here is interesting primarily because WUWT had reached that level of exposure.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The pointing out of the reputation of The New York Times in its unofficial and connotative position as the newspaper of record merely underscores the notability of the mention by the Times. Also note that the mention was not by a "TV critic", it is as a mention in The New York Times Magazine by a media columnist ("a weekly column about Internet culture") - discussing a blog which purports to be not a professional resource but a conduit to the public. Her credentials to make the recommendation, as media analyst discussing a public media outlet are - impeccable. Our opinions as to the veracity of her judgement are irrelevant.    .99.141.241.60 (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Using our opinions without evidence to judge her veracity would be OR. However, she herself admits she has no expertise in this scientific area, and as such her opinions are not suitable for providing an assessment of the site's scientific quality or integrity. (And she is, by the way, primarily notable as a TV critic. If you want to expand that to media critic, fine, but it's splitting hairs, really.) I agree that WUWT's appearance in the NYT is interesting, but then so is her later confession that she had no idea what WUWT actually contained, and why she regretted recommending it. I would prefer to leave the whole thing out on grounds of lacking notability as well as avoiding the chance of misrepresenting Heffernan's views. She's still alive, so we should be careful.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Her column in The New York Times Magazine is called "The Medium", described as "a weekly column about Internet culture". You misrepresent her professionally and you mis-characterize her writings, and you have painted a false picture in which you ascribe to her all-manner of things not-quite-true.  .99.141.241.60 (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that I find it absurd for you to suggest that a BLP violation could ever occur when we directly quote her professionally edited and published remarks from her own column in The New York Times. Just absurd.99.141.241.60 (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an abstract example: Person A wrote "X". "X" is rather controversial. Person A subsequently realises that "X" was written on the basis of ignorance, and withdraws her support for (controversial) statement "X", although through a different channel. Wikipedia would be breaking its policy on BLP to say without qualification, that A thinks "X". It doesn't matter what our own rules are on sourcing - although comments written by Heffernan about her own views are generally acceptable even in self-published sources. BLP involves taking extra care.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Convoluted conjecture, assumptions on top of suppositions. Absurd. She wrote what she wrote - At any time she can bring to bear the mechanism in daily use at the NYT to amend, withdraw, or clarify her written work. Your personal take on, and reading of, what you "feel" is possibly her internal thoughts is nonsense. Go read WP:Verify and its basic, simple and easy to understand foundation level principle: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."   .99.141.241.60 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing absurd about policy: WP:SELFPUB indicates that the fact she regretted recommending the site is reliably sourced. She's writing about herself. What we can't do in the article is explain in much detail why (i.e. she now considers the site to be ideologically driven) as that would be commenting on a third party from a self-published source. We have a choice between reflecting the fact that WUWT was included in a short list of science website recommendations at the end of an article by a non-scientist media critic, but the author later regretted doing so because she had not looked at it closely enough, and was unaware of the disputes it was involved in - or just passing over it as something not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I favour the latter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out that retractions are for statements of fact, not opinion. (I'd love to see such a retraction. "Last week one of our columnists mistakenly identified WUWT as an objective website good for learning about climate science. She would like to make it clear that this was a mistake, and in fact..."). They could start doing it for fashion recommended in the same magazine. ("Two years ago we recommended that A-line skirts were making a comeback and were a must-buy for avid clubbers. We now realise..."). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 99.*, you are quoting policy, but apparently you don't understand it. The sentence talks about the threshold for including something. If some claim has no reliable source, we can't publish it. On the other hand, there is no end to the reliably sourced claims that we don't publish because it wouldn't make sense for one reason or another. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a rubbish heap. In correctly written articles we pre-digest the information for our readers, and only offer them what is most relevant.
 * There is no threshold for not including something, i.e. nobody has to jump through formal hoops before a consensus can decide that something is simply not relevant enough. The very word "threshold" implies this, but apparently it's too subtle, since you are not the only editor I have seen get this wrong and wikilawyer for irrelevant or dubious banalities that support their own POV, based only on this misunderstood sentence. Hans Adler 04:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only misunderstood sentence is the one attributed to her in the un-vetted public comments section of a third-party blog. Her professional, edited and published comments are crystal-clear. I strongly take issue with your baseless bad faith attack on my edits that I am somehow "not the only editor you've seen", followed by numerous slanders. If you have issue with an argument I've presented. Address the argument. If you find you cannot articulate a response and need to stoop to ad-hominem attacks, reconsider your position as your failure should be telling you something.99.141.241.60 (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Just because something is part of a "professional, edited and published" text it doesn't become gospel and we have no obligation to mention it. Stop arguing this formal point on which you can't win because Wikipedia simply doesn't work that way. Hans Adler 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one denies that The New York Times mention is notable and should have, in and of itself, be mentioned. The ENTIRE debate is whether or not her subsequent comments are either themselves notable and deserve inclusion or whether they consist of a retraction that "cancels" out the history of their existence. Stop the straw-man re-framing of the debate into things-that-simply-are-not-true.   .99.141.241.60 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an applaing mis-representation of many edds views. Almost from the off (about my third comment) I have asked why her recomendation is even notable. It is also an applaing mis-represetntation of the debate. I would ask you to not mis-represetn my views again.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You argued that her comments should not be in the lede. Although not explicit one could have reasonably inferred this as a limited objection (one I agree with) referring to placement - not inclusion. My apologies if I misunderstood you.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No I asked why she should be in the lead, I then go on to make it clear that I do not believe her views have a place in the article in subsequent posts. You cannot take one comment out of context of a whole discussion and use that to prove you were right. From my third comment I have questioned this woman’s notability (re her views on this blog), from about my fourth I have said that she is not a science writer but a TV media pundit so its hard to see what value her views have on the page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * None. I've thought long and hard about whether to vote for "all", but I really don't think it's appropriate because she actually didn't offer a review but rather a passing recommendation that she later stated she regretted. Focusing on this is actually holding Heffernan's feet to the flame for no reason and strikes me as a borderline WP:BLP issue with respect to Heffernan. If she comments further on Watts Up With That? we can always revisit the issue. But for now, the half-sentence in the New York Times and the paragraph of regret on another person's blog does not seem to me to be an editorial sound inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Result
So far there have been eight votes for none, three for both or none, one for both, and one for the recommendation but not the caveat. It appears that we have consensus not to include this material in the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Should the "U" in "Urban heat island transect project" be capitalized?
Sorry for being anal, but should the "U" in "Urban heat island transect project" be capitalized? I'm not familiar with this project and honestly don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not, since there's no sign that there's a formal experiment by that name. (I'd guess it's Marknutley's text; he tends to capitalize things randomly.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've read in a few grammar guides, English speakers, especially Americans (I'm American) often overcapitalize words and phrases. If it isn't an obviously formal name, lower case is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an American too, but I try to Avoid doing such Things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Weather presenter or radio meteorologist?
I am going to revert this edit. In the context of broadcast media, "weather presenter" and "meteorologist" are synonymous. The difference is that one suggests that the person has a weather-related academic agree, while the other is more neutral and leaves the question completely open. In the present context the difference is crucial.

We shouldn't suggest that Watts has a degree in meteorology while there are indications to the contrary: Obviously this information from blogs and wikis is not reliably sourced, so we cannot use it for explicit statements. But the information is plausible, and the fact that it has been out for a while and we still have no information about Anthony Watts' academic background, if any, gives reason for extreme caution about implying he has an academic degree. Hans Adler 10:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In his blog, he calls himself a "former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun." To me, this does not sound like understatements. If he had a relevant degree, I would be very surprised that he doesn't mention it here.
 * Others have obviously been asking themselves the same question: "Neither the Wikipedia nor SourceWatch page on climate inactivist blogger Anthony Watts mentions his academic background, which leads one to wonder if he has a degree at all, much less in a relevant field. // So I asked. First I emailed him, at his company address, but got no reply; then I phoned the company, ITWorks, and asked Lisa, the nice woman at the other end of the line. She went off to find out, but returned empty-handed, saying he wasn't willing to provide that information."
 * Indeed, SouceWatch doesn't help: "Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university) with a status of 'retired'. [...] Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified", but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its 'AMS Certified' designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists, and Watts posesses neither certification."
 * Fred Pearce, in his book, calls Watts a "Radio meteorologist." I don't know if Watts is really a meteorologist or not, I just go with what the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Broadcast meteorologist is the correct term, methinks. Yes, one can get a degree in that subject, but I don't think it's a protected term. If we say he is a former broadcast meteorologist and then link to the appropriate article which describes that no specific training nor degree is required in the US to have this title, would that be okay with you? "Weather presenter" is more-or-less a neologism as far as I can tell. "Weather reporter" may be a bit more common as a term. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also did some digging and asked my friend who is a broadcast meteorologist what this is all about. Apparently "broadcast meteorologist" IS a protected term. I just happen to live in large cities my whole life where they only hire television personalities with the Broadcast Meteorology degrees to report the weather. If they didn't have such a degree, they would be called "weather reporter". Fascinating stuff. I've come around to your side, Hans, but I think the term we should use is "weather reporter" since that's what's normally used in the US and that's where he's from. ScienceApologist (talk) 6:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

I apologise for having started two very similar discussions on separate talk pages. May I suggest that we centralise this at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)? Otherwise it's going to get a bit confusing. Hans Adler 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll hat this one and put in a redirect. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)