The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Watts Up With That? was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
The global warming arguments of the IPCC and other institutions reach their conclusions through application of the equivocation fallacy ( http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ ). In this way, naïve citizens are led to false or unproved conclusions from the arguments of others.--Terry Oldberg (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that this is a reliable source on climate, which it is not (it's just a guest post by some layman who has not published any peer-reviewed research on climate change, on a blog of some other layman who has not published any peer-reviewed research on climate change either [1]), what is its relation to the article Watts Up With That??
Sounds like an application of the Red herring fallacy to me. Also sounds like an application of the straw man fallacy. Try to get it into a peer-reviewed publication, and the peer review will tell you what exactly it is wrong with it. If you succeed, you may be able to use it as a source, but not on the WUWT article. Until you do, good bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
what a mess.
Put the wikiqute box where it belongs, fix the cite template parameters, get rid of the official site qualifier (what is the unofficial site? lol)
Done, except for the "Offical site", since that appears to be a common description for External Links here on Wikipedia. I really don't understand what link number 2 given in External Links is about. – Þjarkur(talk) 11:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel obliged to agree with you. Happily, it has recently renamed itself (though the URL is unchanged) which provides a convenient excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't complain. To balance weight, I note that Sou is still keeping the occasional eye on WHUT, most recently with "A portrait of a denier: Sheldon Walker trolls RealClimate". HotWhopper. 24 January 2019. Retrieved 1 April 2019. – but, informative as it is, am not inclined to add it myself. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We still have an external link to another site with a similar name, https://wottsupwiththat.com. I doubt that it deserves free advertising by Wikipedia. Anybody else care? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that "Watts Up With That?" deserves free advertising by WP, perhaps best to delete the external links section. . . dave souza, talk 15:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would violate the WP:EL guideline which says an article "should link to the subject's official site". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got around to removing it. I see that its top entry is "2017/02/04" so the advertisement that it's a "rebuttal" site wasn't very current anyway. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Watts Up With That features material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change" should be changed to "Watts Up With That features material disputing the mainstream scientific approach on climate change".
Since, no matter how hard one may work "for the climate", there isn't consensus among the climate scientists. Using the word "consensus" in this case, greatly undermines the meaning of the word. 78.73.222.152 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[2] "I agree the bias should be removed"? That would run counter to WP:FRINGE. We have to call spades spades. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
