Talk:Anthony Watts

From SourceWatch
Revision as of 01:12, 10 November 2011 by Scribe (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Qualifications

from "TrialSize": "Documenting Facts - From SourceWatch's "Ground Rules": "Every assertion should have a source. Avoid using sources that are unreliable, unverifiable or unestablished." Removed section that asked whether or not Anthony Watts graduated from Purdue. The original entry was created by user Ahaynes who linked to her own blog on Google's Blogger. This is an unreliable and unestablished source.


to "TrialSize", I've restored the information. If you find it unreliable, could you please call or email Anthony and get the information yourself? Thanks much. Anna Haynes 20:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


to "Anna":

Wow. The bias and gatekeeping here at SourceWatch is telling. Users are allowed to violate SourceWatch's ground rules, including the admonition not to use "sources that are unreliable, unverifiable or unestablished." Your own personal blog is not reliable and is not established. Anyone can set up a blog and make up a story. If you found a media news article from an established and reliable source, then great! Use it! But what you've done violates SourceWatch's policy. But whatever. Keep up the smear tactics. --User:TrialSize 21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


Dear TrialSize: I have to intercede here to point out the revolution in new media and to note that the suggestion that all blogs are unreliable, unverifiable, or unestablished is simply incorrect. And, it would be incorrect to conclude that citation to Anna's blog is in violation of SW policy. If you are genuinely interested in following policy then perhaps you will abide by the policy against deleting material. If you would like to improve articles and add citations, I would welcome your contributions. But your ad hominen attack on Anna ("smear tactics") is out of bounds. Just because an article presents information that you do not like does not make it incorrect or unreliable. Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy, publisher of SourceWatch


Lisa:

I never asserted that "all blogs are unreliable, unverifiable, or unestablished"; that's a straw man argument. Anna's blog is not reliable because she created the post simply for the purpose of undermining the subject's credibility. Her blog is also unestablished as she is not an authoritative source.

As for my "ad hominen [sic] attack on Anna, I described her methods and did not attack her character. Please examine the Wikipedia article on "smear campaign" which states: "A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character.... A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility." And that's goal of questioning whether or not Anthony Watts has a college degree: to undermine his credibility. So this was not an ad hominem against Anna.

I have been blocked for an "edit war", which is pretty ridiculous since I only made two edits. A real edit war would have consisted of several edits and refersions, and I would continue to do so using different user names and IP addresses.


(the above is from "ClockBot", aka "TrialSize")

To Lisa - thank you for your intervention. It's much nicer to be able to focus my efforts elsewhere on SourceWatch rather than have to safeguard this page. Anna Haynes 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Removing the list of qualifications he doesn't have, as that list should be a lot longer (for everybody), as there are a lot of qualifications, and most people only have a few. Justjoshin


SW: Heartland Institute publication - add external link

The Heartland Institute published Anthony's 28 page Report "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" in 2009.

http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html

It is also available from Anthony's own blog.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Qualifications redux

re How to characterize Watts's views - I'm replacing "AGW denier" with "climate contrarian" - which still conveys the reality, albeit in a less charged manner. Anna Haynes 17:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. Ahaynes, do not remove Talk page material. This is not your personal Talk page. Talk pages get archived.
  2. I've reverted your recent changes. Climate Denialism is a real phenomenon, and "contrarian" is merely a euphemism. It's also a term rarely used. Scribe 05:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)