# Talk:DeSmog

While searching for sources for this article, Academic OneFile listed an article by the Southern Rockies Nature Blogwhich reviewed and gave its opinion on DeSmogBlog.  I did not include this information in the article, because the source is a blog.  Does everyone agree with this, or should the blog's opinion be included in this article?  The blog in question is sourced 14 times in Academic OneFile, but I otherwise couldn't find any other secondary sources which discusses this blog. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mu! Who is Chas Clifton? And why is/what makes his views interesting/relevant? Blogs are reliable to the opinion of their authors (sps), but opinions do need to be relevant  (weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As blogs increase in number as newspapers dwindle in size and circulation, the issue of when and what blogs to use as sources is going to, I predict, become an increasing headache for WP editors, including me.  The fact that Academic OneFile has even started including a sundry list of blog articles in its database is an indicator, IMO, of the growing presence of blogs as information sources. Cla68 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But it still doesn't answer my questions. If blogs are to be included (anywhere) then they must be attributed as opinion, and they must be relevant (as in: quite a bit more than just on-topic) for the context in which they are used. At some point in time we will quite probably have a WP:SPS/N board, which will deal with at least some of the aspects of it. (but then again, it seems the net is already responding somewhat to it, by co-integrating blogs into domains (ie. scienceblogs.com) that are more trustworthy than others - hopefully with an aspect of "you will get the boot, if you are doing sloppy research"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The question is whether the source meets the WP:V standards. As Chas Clifton does not appear to meet the WP:SPS standard of being an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", then his blog would only be suitable as a WP:SELFPUB source about himself or his blog, in a context based primarily on more reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dave, i agree. That was the question that wasn't answered by Cla86 (i thought he might have more data - since he didn't link an article). Questions to answer (in general) when using blogs is: Is it relevant? Does it represent a significant view? Is the author generally thought to be "in the know" on the subject/topic? etc etc. Really questions that should be asked whenever a source is used - but rarely are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find a link to the article on the blog, but I didn't look really hard.  The thing is, the decision as to whether to include the blog's opinion should be separate from what the blog says.  I don't have a problem with not including the blog's opinion, but I think the decision as to which blogs to consider and which ones to omit will be a difficult one throughout the wiki.  Where does the line get drawn? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes. This isn't the JH page, it is the DSB page. Etc. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess, then, we'll need to remove the redirect on his name.  One of the reasons another editor said that this blog was notable was because of the public roles performed by it founder and operator.  A blog is a product of its owner, is it not? Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
WMC believes that the paragraph about the site's founder should not be in the article.  I believe it should be.  Other interested parties please join in the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a paragraph about the founder belongs. ATren (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I also agree.  This goes directly to what makes the blog notable.  Our readers should be aware of who the founder is along with their political affiliations.  --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course a paragraph about the sites founder should be in the article, people like to know who sets these things up after all mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There doesn't seem to be any clear reason for including this, and the heap of pointless redlinks don't help William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that he is the founder, and a paragraph about him is therefore relevant. The red links can be removed if you like. ATren (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Rather a bad rationale. For one: Hoggan is not specifically prolific on the blog, that would be Littlemore (iirc) and secondly: Either the blog is independently notable or it isn't.
If you want biographical material about Hoggan - then make an article, and wikilink to it (the infobox would be the place). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If someone were to nominate this article for Featured consideration someday, and that's not necessarily out of the question, I would expect that there would be information on the site's founder and owner.  The two sources listed, the opening press release and the news article which reported on the new blog, both expound on who he is and what he does.  The owner, in this case especially, has publicly provided a vision and set goals of what he wants his blog to achieve.  Therefore, a brief profile of the founder and owner is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You are ignoring what is staring you into the eyes: The founder has very little to do with the blog (he doesn't write very often). And while you are correct on FA - that would be a situation where the amount of content made it due weight. At the moment it isn't.... its simply material that gives very little information about the blog. (which in case you've missed it, is the overwhelmingly important part). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may add something, however, Kim's conversion of the references into a more adaptable code was extremely helpful and I feel totally in the spirit of a wiki, as in cooperative and collaborative.  I did not thank him/her for it heretofore, but do so now. Cla68 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The page currently displays a citation error.  The following reference needs to be either (a) actually used, (b) removed if it is never going to be used, or (c) moved to the unused comment if it will be:

<ref name="marketwire">{{cite press release | url=http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/James-Hoggan-Associates-Inc-Media-Advisory-1066864.htm | title=James Hoggan & Associates Inc.: Media Advisory | date=October 28, 2009 | publisher=[[Marketwire]] | accessdate=2010-03-09}}</ref>
I would fix it myself but am barred from doing so.  --GoRight (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved to the "Not used yet.." section. It was in the deleted James Hoggan bio section which may come back ? Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it may come back, depending on how the discussion above goes. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added a criticism section after noticing from the Watts Up With That article that such sections apparently should be included in these types of articles.  I noticed that someone feels that criticism sections should be posted high in these types of articles.  Does the same editor or any others think that the same thing should apply here? Cla68 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that attention needs to be drawn to DeSmogBlog's partisan and restrictive comments moderation regime, with access normally granted only to commenters supporting the site's alarmist pro-AGW views. Constructive debate and the refutation of any inaccuracies in blog posts are routinely frustrated. The site has a low volume of comments, and has developed no "blog culture", unlike many other blogs addressing the climate controversy.
I'm not going to barge in with a page-edit yet; just seeing how it flies here first.--Thon Brocket (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have refs? Jprw (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's all right there on the blog. Sorta newbie question (and not meant to be flippant): How do you format "Just look at it, will ya?" as a ref?--Thon Brocket (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll put some stuff together, but just to give for a flavour, here are the current top seven posts at DSB and WUWT, with dates and current number of comments:

...which bespeaks two very different cultures.--Thon Brocket (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm doing something dumb here, like looking in the wrong place for the DSB comments, somebody please flag me up. I hadn't realised just how bad it was until I did the count. WUWT is outperforming DSB 1000 to 1 here. WUWT's live, rough-and-tumble, productive comments culture, against a Lenin's Corpse at DSB. Surely they must receive more than ONE comment in a week? Weird. Evidently DSB have a big problem with undermanning and over-moderation which they're not telling us about; or they have a de-facto policy of not allowing comments, which they're likewise being coy about. The comments pages and links are window-dressing.
Stalinist. Strange. {Sniff}  Smells like ... PR.--Thon Brocket (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't put this in the article unless a reliable secondary source comments on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure. For the moment, I'm just flagging it up here, maybe get some other opinions.--Thon Brocket (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to compare WUWT with a similar blog that features scientists rather than the proles Watts attracts, try Deltoid. But why are these comparisons being made anyway? ► RATEL ◄ 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm making the comparisons to show that DSB apparently has a Potemkin comments section. Right now, Deltoid has 370 comments on the last seven articles, against DSB's one. Even MoJo's BlueMarble has 5, but that's just a flat spot - it gets sporadically lively over there. But, interesting though it is, comparison isn't the point.  Effectively, comments are barred. I'm trying to establish that, and figure out the right way to get it into the article; where it belongs if it's true. --Thon Brocket (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)--Thon Brocket (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"Comments policy
Although its format apparently allows comments, DeSmogBlog does not welcome them. In recent months (May 2010) most posts remain uncommented, and on the rare occasions that comments are posted, the comments are invariably authored by pro-AGW commenters. Adverse comment in response to blog posts is effectively prohibited, and no discussion of blog posts takes place on the site. The reasons for this state of affairs are unclear."
Nutley: I posted the above and you reverted it, citing "good faith" and verifiability. All of it is verifiable simply by looking at recent blog posts on DSB. Which leaves "good faith". Care to expound your reasoning? Is there a problem with pointing out DSB's Potemkin comments policy, and if so what is it?Thon Brocket (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please call me mark, i reverted your good faith addition per wp:v you need a wp:rs to add the content you propose, it`s just the way WP works mate :) read through the links i provided and then look for a source to cover the claim, cheers mark nutley (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The source is DeSmogBlog itself. Any reader can verify what I wrote simply by looking at the blog. It's uncontroversial. They don't allow comments. So I propose to put it back up, citing DSB. How's that?Thon Brocket (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry no, you need an actual source which will verify the content you wish to insert. mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
So if I write on, say, the Uluru article, that Uluru is a large sandstone inselberg - an uncontroversial true statement easily verified by nyone who cares to look at it - I need a source?Thon Brocket (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You need a source for everything, please just read wp:v and wp:rs so you get the gist mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a source - DSB.
WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". The material is fully verifiable. Readers can check that DSB has a no-comments policy by going to the most reliable source conceivable - the blog itself.
WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article."
DSB's site directly supports my contention that has a no-comments policy - by not publishing comments, as can be seen by any visitor.Thon Brocket (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Besides, on the subject of DeSmogBlog comments, DSB isn't just A source, it's THE source. It's the raw data, at origin. I can assemble a few statistics or comparisons, for the look of the thing. But why? The incontestable, verifiable truth is on the DSB site for anyone to check.Thon Brocket (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't really do "raw data". See WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a while since I looked in on the DSB wikipedia page and I wanted to respond to this thread about no comments on DeSmog. We wrote an article explaining our new commenting policies here. Putting it as a criticism of our site makes no sense as we have clearly laid out our reasoning to anyone who visits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgrandia (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence, using the Littlemore Sun article as the source, naming four of the organizations that this blog has "outed."  Before adding them, I checked the blog itself and confirmed that what was reported in the Sun was accurate.  There are at least four posts in the blog "outing" those four organizations.  Should the reference also include links to the blog articles which "outed" those organizations, or is the Littlemore cite sufficient? Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've pulled about as much information as can be pulled from the available sources for this article.  I think all that's left now is to start stubs on some of the redlinks.  I had asked WMC to do that and as far as I know he didn't say no.  I guess I need to go ask him for an update on how that's going.  Any further input on the article, such as to my question above, is, of course, always welcome. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla there are a heap of Monbiot refs in The Guardian -- see my latest edit. Jprw (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good.  Thank you.  I'm also going to add a paragraph summarizing the various press releases the site has issued over the years.  The paragraph may be borderline synthesis so if anyone objects once I post it, please say so.  Once that is completed I plan on nominating this article for GA and while it's in the queue resolving the red links. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks like me and mark nutley are going to take care of the red links.  I'm going to ask WMC if he would improve the Watts Up With That article to GA-level status.  It would be nice if both articles could achieve GA status about the same time. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I just found some more references to ths blog on the National Post [1] [2] site. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla in a very short period you've got the article looking very good -- far superior to WUWT. It would be interesting to see if the latter could also be brought up to scratch. Jprw (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect WUWT to be brought up to an equivalent level very soon.  If not, I will be very disappointed. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK we do not use this word when reporting what someone said. The blog said that these people had few publications and ties to ff industry. We do not say that the blog said that they allegedly had few publications and allegedly had ties. This is superfluous. We are reporting an allegation as it is, no need to double qualify it as such. ► RATEL ◄ 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[3] I made it more clear that the blog is who is saying this.  By the way, I still need to add more material from the National Post references then I think the article will almost be ready for GA review. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification. Jprw (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A search in Infotrac produced several organizations that could be the "Urban Development Institute" that Hoggan apparently belongs to, including the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, The Earth Institute, and several other organizations with similar names (Urban Development Research Institute, Urban Development Institue of Australia, Urban Land Institute, Urban Institute, and Institute for Urban Development) which don't currently have Wikipedia articles.  Since I can't tell which of these organizations the "Urban Development Institute" is referring to, I'm going to remove the redlink and leave it until more information becomes available.  If I find a spare moment, I may just email Hoggan and ask him. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the organization in question is probably this one, but I can't find a secondary RS that speaks to it. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the wikipedia definition of blog, DeSmogBlog does not fit. Its own name may be a misnomer. It's also a registered non-profit, so that's another non-blog sign. I can probably think of more. ► RATEL ◄ 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the reliable secondary sources that I and others have found use the word "blog" to describe this site.  On a related topic, as I review the National Post references, specifically those written by Terence Corcoran, it's becoming very apparent that there is some kind of feud going on between Corcoran and Hoggan [4].  For BLP reasons, I think this will have to be addressed very carefully in the article.  I'm open to suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with you inserting qualifiers there as to the feud, if you have sources for that. On the other matter, I've seen DSB referred to more often as a "website" than a blog. If Hoggan had known how blogs would eventually be seen as somewhat less reliable sources, he may have chosen another name. ► RATEL ◄ 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hoggan himself refers to DSB as a "project" with a mission. That's not what a blog is either. ► RATEL ◄ 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
According to this definition, Hoggan's website is a blog:  "A blog (a contraction of the term "web log")[1] is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order.  Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs." (Wikipedia). Cla68 (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Non-profit with a mission statement? Multiple authors? Database of miscreants? I think not. ► RATEL ◄
The fact that the site refers to itself as a blog is fairly compelling, wouldn't you think?  So far, you haven't quoted any sources to support your argument that it isn't. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Mayhap the name includes "blog" because it makes for a snappy sounding title. Desmogblog.com is catchier than desmog.com. But simply comparing it to the definition of a blog, it doesn't seem to fit well. In the media it is referred to as a "website" or an "award winning website" far more often than a "blog" (for example: "non-profit, pro-action Vancouver-based website DeSmogBlog"[5]). It's a blog and more, perhaps, a blog on steroids. And for some reason, the blog directory at technorati.com does not seem to list desmogblog, unless there's something wrong with the way I'm searching their database. But yes, good sources on this are lacking, and Hoggan does call it a blog as well as (and most often) a "project".► RATEL ◄ 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the way it is currently phrased in the intro ("is a non-profit internet project, styled originally as a blog") is probably fine.  Of course, anyone else is welcome to opine.  On the subject of Hoggan and Corcoran, perhaps we should try to summarize/synthesize what each thinks about the other without using quotes. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 Fine by me. ► RATEL ◄ 02:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
In terms of referring to it as a blog vs internet project, I talked to Kevin Grandia, Director of New Media at DeSmogBlog and was told to refer to it as a project.96.52.16.87 (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Bringing this conversation up to date: (Apologies if I'm not doing this correctly, as I'm new to participating on Wikipedia, and full disclosure that I'm DeSmog's senior editor and trying to make sure this page is accurate and up to date without violating Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines.)
DeSmog has not referred to itself as a "blog" (or functioned as one) for many years, and is now more correctly referred to as a "global news organization" or "global news website." Its URL is desmog.com  (no longer "desmogblog.com") and its logo and internet presence (e.g., social media accounts) are all free of the word "blog." DeSmog operates as a global digital news organization with reporters and researchers spanning North America, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. Today, its operations do not function as a blog either in digital publishing format or journalistic standards and style. It's now run by journalists who have written for a number of news publications, including Reuters, The Atlantic, Vice, The Guardian, BBC, and others. See: https://www.desmog.com/about/ So if the editors here find that compelling, I'm suggesting that the news site's contemporary references no longer refer to it as a "blog." TheRealMidnightGardener (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I updated the lede section accordingly, also added mention of the databaes. I see that @EMSmile copy edited also. Please let us know your thoughts and suggest further updates -- M.boli (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The article currently contains:

In another instance, the blog stated that web television station Climategate TV was funded by the fossile fuel industry.Cited to: Corcoran, Terence, "Terence Corcoran: Weaver’s Web II", National Post, December 9, 2009.
This misrepresents what they source actually states.  Specifically it states:

"By the way, climategate.tv is a subject of great suspicion at desmogblog, where they speculate that climategate.tv is itself actually funded by the fossil fuel industry.
This needs to be corrected but I am currently barred from editing the article.  Would someone please make the necessary adjustments to reflect that the source actually used the word speculated?  This distinction is not trivial.  Thanks.
Also, in reading this particular source it is quite clear that the source believes that these supposed links to fossil fuel funding are ludicrous and this nuance is lost in the current text.  For example, the source points out that there have also been similar break-ins in the Psychology department and so questions why the fossil fuel industry would be funding such break-ins.  Perhaps this should be corrected so that the article actually reflects the tone and substance of the source.  Thoughts?  --GoRight (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I struggled to figure out how to use that source in a way that doesn't appear to be cherry picking criticism of the site.  How should that source be used? Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ratel removed the sentence in question.  After checking the link from Corcoran's column, it appears he was right to do so.  The DeSmogBlog piece on the web tv station doesn't speculate as to who is funding it. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding the Alexa ranking to the lead. After all, we shouldn't include unexplained jargon in articles at all. There's no way for a reader to determine what that number means - does a high Alexa ranking mean that a site is popular, or than it's not popular? And what, in a general sense, does 75,000 mean? Even the Alexa Internet and Alexa Toolbar articles don't appear to answer these questions. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An important part of a website's notability and influence factor is its traffic, which the GA reviewer appears to agree with.  The Alexa ranking is the only verifiable measure of traffic that I'm aware of.  Are there any others? Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The trouble is that Alexa ranking doesn't give you much of an indication of traffic. Alexa stats are really only useful for general purpose websites that draw in a viewer-population that is distributed similar to the distribution in the general populance. Since DeSmogBlog has a viewer population that is specialized, Alexa will give little to no information - and might in fact do the exact opposite (ie. give you a false image of traffic). [the reason for this is the way Alexa collects the stats] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That may be true, but I haven't been able to find any other traffic measure we can use.  Nielsen is by subscription only.  If the readers of this article click on the Alexa link, they will be able to read the criticism of the Alexa rankings that are included in that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The response to: I don't have good data. Is not "include bad data" - but "not to include bad data". Alexa rankings are misleading - simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Noted.  If you feel that strongly about it, you probably should make that clear in the Alexa article so if any readers from here click over to there they will be able to see that information and decide for themselves the credibility of the Alexa ranking.  Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So i take it that you are of the opinion that accuracy and getting things right isn't a factor in wikipedia? I surely hope not.
For your information - this is on the Alexa page, and has always been there. It has (i just checked) gotten worse - since the Alexa toolbar is considered malware by Vista (and spyware/trackware by other vendors of virus software). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with notability. It's a matter of putting information in the lead that's utterly incomprehensible to the average reader. Simple starting point - do bigger numbers mean more traffic or less? And how is the reader supposed to figure that out? Guettarda (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for an independent opinion from the RS Noticeboard.  Also, any other interested editors are welcome to weigh in here on this content dispute. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, there appears to be about 900 uses of Alexa rankings in Wikipedia.  If you two really agree that using Alexa rankings are wrong, then you need to get busy removing it from those other 900 articles.  If not, I think it is justified just on that fact alone to restore it to this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Might it possibly be that you haven't understood my comment? To be valuable the fraction of users, who have installed the Alexa toolbar, visiting the site,  must be in  reasonably corresponding to the fraction of webusers who have installed the toolbar, out of the total webpopulation. If the site is small or specialized, then that fraction is not corresponding to the general webuser population. Thus every single one of those 900 uses may be correct, and this one still be incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, that information is fine for the Alexa article.  Readers here who want more information on how Alexa determines its rankings can click over to that article and decide for themselves the credibility of the information.  Right now, Alexa appears to be the only available, independent source for site traffic rankings, which is why we attribute it in the article.  How are you doing removing the Alexa ranking from the other 900 articles in Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So it is better to present "bad information" rather than "no information"? Let the reader decide. Good editorial practice i must say. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Alexa site says that they cannot provide accurate records for smaller sites. [6] On a scale of 1 to 100,000, with 1 being most reliable and 100,000 least, this sites statistics would appear to be 25% reliable. Even if the math isn't that simple they are close enough to the unreliable end of Alexas spectrum that it would be necessary to verify their statistics. Presenting statictics that the statisticians say will be unreliable doesn't give the reader the best chance of fairly evaluating those statistics. Weakopedia (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed it again[7]. Putting meaningless statistics into an article even with an explanation to the fact that it is meaningless - is ridiculous. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Kim, I was following the advice of the GA reviewer.  Since the only reasoning that you're using is IDON'TLIKEIT, I'm going to readd it. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Per independent advice at the RS Noticeboard thread, I added numbers from Quantcast, which confirm that the Alexa ranking is probably reasonably accurate.  Since we now have two independent traffic tracking sources, with similar numbers, is there still a problem? Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You are still using statistics that has absolutely no meaning. It doesn't matter how much you explain that it doesn't have meaning - in the end: The value is zero.
As for Quantcast - that works much like Alexa, and will have the same problems with small and niche sites. Unless DeSmogBlog is actually counting visitors - these statistics make zero sense. DSM doesn't have advertising, and thus doesn't count "views" externally - which makes every measurement of their trafic indirect and unreliable.
Now will you please stop trying to add information that isn't information? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry? You are the one who aren't actually listening here. Several people by now have asked you not to include it. And the GA reviewer only stated that it would be nice to have if available (and it isn't!) - not that it should have. Are you aware that you now are at 3R? Could you actually stop up and try to gain consensus before doing anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Over at the Quantcast site they list DSB as 'non-Quantified' and they say that 'As a courtesy, Quantcast provides 'rough' audience estimates for non-Quantified digital media properties. These rough estimates are just that - far from perfect.'. Here is a more detailed view of how they collect their data. Also, and I don't know if it applies here, but they specifiy how their data may be used. Weakopedia (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are about 100 articles using Quantcast numbers in addition to the 900 plus using Alexa.  If you two feel that strongly about it, what progress are you making in removing those numbers from those other articles?  If you're making no effort to do so, then you have no case here. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 - cooperation requires that you actually listen to what people say. It depends on the website whether Alexa or Quantcast are good metrics. For DeSmogBlog they are not good metrics - they are in fact more misleading than informing. Alexa and Quantcast usage is not black/white - it depends strongly on context. Now before you were accusing me for not liking the "information" - but it rather feels like you have a pretty bad case of selective hearing, since you are ignoring what everyone here is saying. You are beyondat 3RR - so i suggest that you calm down in your editing, and self-revert. Remove the section, and find a consensus for what can be done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) [as an aside - i've removed Alexa whenever i've come across it on small or niche websites, as an example i noted it on t:WuWT[8]. So there is nothing new here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)]
Cla, please don't portray this something personal, it isn't. I just quoted you what the website says, nothing else. And remember that Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, no-one if forced to work on any particular group of articles to prove a point. Both the websites you have cited state clearly that their statistics have a greater or lesser degree of unreliability for websites with this much traffic. Presenting their results as fact does not allow the reader the opportunity of knowing how uncertain those facts are. It doesn't seem the best way to present statistics we know to be unreliable and expect the encyclopedia reader to have to research whether that is true or not. Weakopedia (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"...no-one if forced to work on any particular group of articles to prove a point."
Amen.  Cla, your insertion of this element does little to support your rationale for inclusion.
"It doesn't seem the best way to present statistics we know to be unreliable and expect the encyclopedia reader to have to research whether that is true or not."
Given Alexa's caveat (inre the 100,000 mark), perhaps "somewhat unreliable" ("somewhat reliable" below 50,000?) might be more apropos in this case.  However, I'm unclear as to the relevance of introducing the statistic unless it's either to support or rebut some other contention or allegation.
One other interesting point though. Hoggan is quoted as saying...
"...the most frequent hits come from Calgary, Ottawa and Washington, D.C."
...while the Alexa data cites "hits" from India (28.1%) and the US (26.0%) far exceeding those emanating from Canada (3.3%).  I don't know what that implies relative to Hoggan's declaration (and the quote was from 2007), but it IS interesting. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Best guestimate: Indians and USanians are more prone to install the Alexa toolbar. (possibly gets shipped pre-installed by some popular vendor in India and the USA) Thus they count for a significant fraction of those few who do visit the site with the Alexa tool bar installed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Having read up a bit more on both Alexia and Quantcast i do not see how they can be a reliable indicator of a sites hits. With alexia there are two ways to do the stats. Alexia toolbar, you can get 100k hits, but if those people do not have alexia toolbar installed none are counted. The second way is to embed some code from alexia into your index.php, as we have no way of knowing if a site has this code in their index file then this is also worthless, the same problem occurs with quantcast, you need to embed their code in your index file, again as we do not know if a site has this code the result are worthless. The only way to know if quantcast code was in was if actual stats were sshown, not guesstimates. I would not support the use of alexia for a sites stats, and quantcast only if actual stats were returned on a search, and not just estimates mark nutley (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marknutley on this. I commented below in the GA section on that point. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW. either you've badly stated your understanding of Alexa returns or you do not understand their source...
"Alexia toolbar, you can get 100k hits, but if those people do not have alexia toolbar installed none are counted."
Alexa only returns data based on those who have their toolbar installed. Perhaps you want to rephrase that? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Further research indicates that my above comment was based on erroneous information and I am striking it.  | According to Alexa, that doesn't appear to be the case (emphasis mine)...
How are Alexa's traffic rankings determined?
Alexa's traffic rankings are based on the usage patterns of Alexa Toolbar users and data collected from other, diverse sources over a rolling 3 month period...
JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats what i meant
I see no problem with using the Alexa rankings in an article, as cla says, if people want to know how alexa ranks stuff they can go read the alexa article. mark nutley (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, then I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were against using Alexa rankings. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am now, this thread is all messed up mark nutley (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I too can't see the point in including the traffic. Or, indeed, the quote by LS William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no dog in this hunt other than some curiousity (recently developed) as to Alexa and Quantcast statistics.  However, having been introduced to this article and its content via that interest, it is rather surprising that I didn't learn until page 2 of the "Corcoran" source that Jim Hoggan is...
"...chair of the Suzuki Foundation..."
...rather than being apprised of that rather salient relationship within the article itself. I don't know how such relevant background information on Mr. Hoggan can simply be overlooked in this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops...it is included near the bottom...my mistake. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't even like dogs Weakopedia (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Going back to the question of Alexa rankings, these are essentially the Internet equivalent of straw polls, as they are drawn from people utilizing Alexa toolbars, and their accuracy is probably not precise enough for inclusion. DeSmogBlog has ways of including a counter showing its precise site traffic in the blog, if it so desired, and there are other and better measures of site traffic used by larger blogs, such as Nielsen. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Alexa rankings are widely used.  Metrics reported by sites themselves are, like newspaper circulation numbers, utterly inadmissible unless they have been independently audited.  Some people may just not not like the site's ranking, but the fact is both relevant and topical. Fell Gleaming(talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My initial question still stands: what the hell do they mean? "Widely used"? Great. But that still doesn't mean we should be adding uninterpretable information to articles. Does a larger number represent more traffic or less than a smaller number? Is this a relative ranking system, or an absolute one? What does an Alexa ranking of, say, 75,259 mean? How much difference is there in traffic is there between 75,259 and 75,260, or between 75,259 and 7,525.9? If there's no way for the reader to either figure that out from the article, or figure it out from another linked article or source, why are we including the numbers at all? And that, of course, is entirely aside from the concerns raised about the validity of the ranking (if it's classed as spyware, that means that it only measures the behaviour of people who don't run decent anti-virus/anti-spyware, in other words, people who don't understand or maintain their computers...) Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with Alexa either, other than some ramblings that appear to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Fell Gleaming(talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is a longstanding concern about the meaningfulness of Alexa ratings as the numbers get higher. By the way, this discussion seems to be taking place at two points on the page, which is confusing. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record (and in an attempt to refocus this discussion) there is a   WP:RS/N in progress relating to "Alexa rankings" and attendant considerations.  Perhaps coming to some consensus there before tackling their propriety within this article might be advisable.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to comment there as well as here? Someone said that there was a need for "independent" editors, and I'm not sure I qualify. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Most certainly.  While the opinion of "independent editors" can be, quite often, influential, any editor is both encouraged and welcome to contribute to an RS/N. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So far, it looks like five editors, including at least one or two who have not been active in the AGW topic, have concluded that the Alexa and Quantcast information should not be included, vs two that do.  That appears to be a fairly clear consensus to me.  I'll wait a few more hours for any additional input, and if the consensus remains the same, which seems likely, I'll remove the material in question and notify the GA reviewer in the GA section below.  I can't find any traffic information in DeSmogBlog's site itself, so if anyone knows where that is, please link to it. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if you (or anyone) would offer some rationale as to how this improves the article? What is a prospective reader supposed to glean from the addition of this information?  Is it valuable to have a better understanding of a websites "gravitas" related to a subject matter?  I think it certainly could be, but why not make that case if you can? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think it's understood that Alexa and Quantcast are the only independent (as in independent of the website itself's traffic counter) that provide information on a site's traffic for free.  I've heard that Nielsen provides traffic numbers which are more generally accepted as credible, but for a fee.  In my opinion, the traffic count, ranking, and demographic information provided by Alexa and Quantcast are fine to include the article, because the reader can read the articles about those two services and decide for themselves how much credibility to give them.  Even if the ranking is not completely accurate, I think it still provides a general picture as to how much traffic that site is getting, which is information that I would think readers would be interested in.  That's my opinion, but if a larger number of editors, especially independent ones who don't appear to have an emotional investment in this article's content, say otherwise, then that's what we should go with. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if you tallyed my vote but, after some consideration (even for those above the 100,000 ranking) I'm for inclusion with, perhaps a short caveat. I believe they can provide at least an indicy of a websites relative influence (and impact).  I might also add that this is probably a worthwhile discussion to have (as is evidenced by the large number of cites already included in Wikipedia).  Hopefully the RS/N will produce some additional input towards consensus on the Alexa/Quantcast data as WP:RS. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input.  That makes it, by my count, 5-3 for removing the content.  IMO, from what I've observed over a long period of time, trying to add more information to an AGW article often ignites a tremendous battle. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Make that 6-3 for removing the content. Alexa is useless for less trafficked sites, as everyone knows. ► RATEL ◄ 01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary (and especially in combination with Quantcast data), it establishes, as your observation rather clearly suggests, that the website draws relatively little traffic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Errr? No. You can't even argue that. (not even when ignoring the WP:OR inherent in that argument). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No. You can't even argue that.
Errr...I think I just did...and implicit in Ratel's observation appears to be an acknowledgement that the self-declared inability of Alexa to provide "reliable" rankings above the 100,000 level is, itself, a valid indicy of "low traffic" for a particular website. Perhaps he/she might care to expand or clarify his/her observation either here or, perhaps more appropriately, within the RS/N. Likewise, you are welcome (and encouraged) to examine Alexa (or Quantcast) considerations as WP:RS for the provision of "reliable" assertions of fact in that regard. But "inarguable"?  I think not.
As to WP:OR or WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV or WP:WHATEVER, I'll reserve further comment pending some consensus/resolution of  WP:RS considerations which should, of necessity and logically, precede all others. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you did - but that analysis is severely flawed. When you are talking about figures that are unreliable - then you cannot say anything certain one way or another. But to go into your "analysis" it is flawed, since it is quite possible, albeit unlikely, (with the methodology that Alexa uses) to be the most visited website in the world - and have Alexa measure 0 visitors.
The methodology that Alexa and Quantcast (sans subscription) use are indirect measurements, they can never state anything for certain, they can only measure what their users do, and extrapolate that figure with the estimated randomness of their sample of the internet-population (much like Opinion polls). If their sample of the visitor pool isn't statistically significant compared to the total visitor pool - then nothing can be determined. That is the case with specialized topic areas (where the visitor pool isn't random) or where the total amount of visitors is small. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
When you are talking about figures that are unreliable...
But you are non-specific as to the nature of the "figures" to which you refer.  Alexa's self-acknowledged "unreliability" relates to a "ranking" of website traffic beyond the 100,000 level, not the underlying data upon which that website traffic assessment is based.
...since it is quite possible, albeit unlikely, (with the methodology that Alexa uses) to be the most visited website in the world - and have Alexa measure 0 visitors.
Interesting.  To rebut my "analysis", you pose an undemonstrated hypothetical as justification for disregarding Alexa data.  And my "analysis" is flawed? Lordy.
If their sample of the visitor pool isn't statistically significant compared to the total visitor pool - then nothing can be determined.
On the contrary.  Alexa purports to make determinations that a website's low traffic doesn't afford them a capability to provide a reliable "ranking" when that website's traffic data places it above the 100,000 level.  That "low traffic" characterization is arguably relevant and apropos to an article on a website entity. Whether Alexa is WP:RS in that regard is the subject of the RS/N.
I'll defer any further comment here pending the results of the RS/N. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking for myself, my limited font of knowledge on Alexa has been exhausted. I may want to read up on it a bit more. I'm disappointed that more comments didn't come from Wikiproject Blogging. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to see what kind of further input comes on the RSN board. I see that one person just posted a very interesting analysis of services like Alexa. I'm not sure what an "RfC" would accomplish. Isn't the most important thing to include fair and accurate sourcing, based on the strength of arguments, and not to put it up for a vote and count heads? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I should think so, but as this discussion shows, it seems more important to present any data no matter its reliable or accuracy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the traffic content should stay. ATren (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not very informative - why do you think that it should stay, and what is your reply to the very real arguments against inclusion? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As usual, the opinions by AGW "regular" editors on this issue appear to be evenly split.  What tips the balance for me in favor of one side are the opinions by previously uninvolved editors, both here and on the RS Noticeboard, of whom most appear to feel that the information should be removed.  So, I'm going to remove it.  I understand that a general, wiki-wide RfC on Alexa and Quantcast may be posted soon.  We can revisit this decision if that RfC produces a different result. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Say what? I wasn't aware that it was numbers and what labels you put on people that decided any issue? From what i can see - there are no arguments for Alexa/Quantcast reliability, and quite alot of real objections against it. none of which have been addressed by the "opposition" (since we are already in polarizing country). You may try again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Kim, isn't Cla agreeing with removal here? Perhaps you should try again. ATren (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
An argument based on faulty reasoning is a bad argument no matter what it argues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There was also some discussion about whether Alexa can be used as an indicator of "low" site usage. I'd be reluctant to make any such value judgment, myself, based only on my assessment of the numbers.ScottyBerg (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:DeSmogBlog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


### GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria.  If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.


### GA Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Make sure everything in the article is in the Lead (site traffic I think is missing)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
I'm still not entirely comfortable with the large number of opinion sites, but given that the subject is based in the realm of opinion and ideas I'm ok with it.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
I feel this is a strong point of this article on a very contentious subject
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
There are some issues with the article but I feel none of them disqualify it for GA standing.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


### Review
This is a fairly tight little article so I'll forgo the section by section review and give an overall look.

In the lead you state it was "styled originally as a blog", what is it styled like now?  Why put in the word "originally"?  It gives the reader the impression that it is something different than what it originally started as.
Also in the lead it mentions that Jim Hoggan co-founded the blog.  Who was the other founder?
There's no metion of site traffic in the lead.
This sentence in the "Mission" sub-section is not well-written:
"In a February 2007 interview with the Vancouver Sun, he described his anger at what he saw as repeated misinformation being put out on behalf of industry interests to mislead the public about the scientific understanding of global warming caused by human activity, which he referred to as "public relations at its sleaziest"."
It's a run on sentence that doesn't effectively convey what I think you intend.  Consider this rewrite: "In a February 2007 interview with the Vancouver Sun, Hoggan conveys in anger at industry interests who allegedly mislead the public about the scientific understanding of global warming caused by human activity.  He referred to this alleged misrepresentation of the facts as, "public relations at its sleaziest".
I think you need to include the fact that he is alleging misrepresentation.  That will help keep the article a little more balanced.  I think you do a good job with staying out of POV issues.  I would just include that his opinions are that, opinions and allegations.
The "Traffic" section is two one-sentence paragraphs, could this be combined into on paragraph and expanded a bit?  Adding info on the demographics of people who visit the site perhaps if that info is available.  Just a suggestion.
A concern I have is about the credibility of the sourcing.  I count 6 sources that are attributed as opinion pieces.  I would contend that the following references are opinion/editorial pieces: ref 4 about Al Gore and railroad service, and ref 5 is posted on the FP Comment page.  To that there are 3 refs cited to the blog itself.  This equates to 11 out of 18 sources as being either opinion articles or sourced directly from the blog.  Granted the whole premise of the blog is opinions about scientific data, but in the pantheon of credible sources these sources rank towards the bottom.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on the sourcing.  I'm not closed off to promoting the article with the current sourcing but I would like to know what efforts you have made regarding the sourcing and if there is other, less opinion-based sources that could be used.
In reading through some of the sourcing it seems as though many of the sources are speaking about Hoggan, his work with the Suzuki foundation, or his book, with a passing comment about his website.  That's a concern as well.  Again I'd like your thoughts on that.
I think the writing is good, you're format and layout is solid, I think you've covered all the subjects and you've been balanced to give both sides of the argument, which is really good and a strong point of the article.  I'd like to interact with you regarding the sources, which I see as the big hinderance to me passing it right now.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, thank you very much for the comprehensive and helpful review.  I'll try to address all your concerns:
I believe that the editor who added the "originally" text did so because he interpreted the sources to indicate that the site is now more of a non-profit project than just a blog.  I don't necessarily agree with that and am willing and able to change the text if you feel that is necesary.
This isn't a big deal, but it does leave the reader wondering what it is now if it was originally a blog.  I'll leave that to your discretion.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed the wording. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The sources don't state who the other co-founder is.  I don't know what to do about that other than emailing Mr. Hoggan and asking him, which I am willing to do, although I know that is OR.
That is odd, usually if there is a co-founder then both are mentioned.  No need to email the man but I would mention in the article that sources do not indicate who the other founder is.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Done as suggested. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I placed a mention of the site's traffic in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Alexa info from the lead. Not only is it jargon (which shouldn't be in a GA at all), it's also incomprehensible jargon. There's no way to tell from the article (or the Alexa article) what the number means, either in relative or absolute terms. If a reader can't even tell whether a rank of 25,000 means more or less traffic than a rank of 2,500, it's meaningless and doesn't belong in the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was why we included a link to the Alexa article, so that the reader can click over to it if they need more information?  I'll leave it up to the GA reviewer to decide if it should be mentioned in the lede or not. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
To begin with, jargon needs to be explained in the article. What Alexa rank is, and what it means, needs to be clear in the article. But the link doesn't do any good either - the Alexa article is no help. Guettarda (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Then go fix the Alexa article.  I disagree, however, because the Alexa article does explain the concerns that some have about it.  Also, the Alexa rankings are included in the website infobox templates and are used throughout Wikipedia.  I've asked for an independent at the reliable sources noticeboard [9], but again, I'd like to hear the GA reviewers opinion on including Alexa rankings.  I personally don't see the problem.  Alexa is currently the generally accepted standard for independent measure of site traffic. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Then go fix the Alexa article?!! I prefer not to edit topics I don't understand. Inasmuch as I (a) have no idea what Alexa rankings mean, and (b) have no reliable sources handy that explain what Alexa rankings me, I see no value in taking your "advice". And do try to lay off the knee-jerk hostility and rudeness. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
First off, the GA reviewer (myself) has no extra claim to authority over granting or declining GA status than anyone else.  I appreciate Guettarda's comments and I welcome other editors to interject where I may have missed something.  I will make the GA decision but my decision can be rebutted and taken to GA reassessment.  Regarding the use of jargon, I tend to error on the side of explanation wherever possible.  A link is fine but a sentence on what Alexa is and why it's important would be better.  Again balance must be given, we can't bog article's down with explanations of every word that may not be in common English usage.  I welcome discussion on this point.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 03:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Like I said in the discussion above, Alexa appears to be the only freely available, independent source for site traffic currently available.  If Alexa says that it's rankings get progressively less robust as site rankings go lower, then I think it's fine to include a sentence on that in the article.  For that reason, perhaps the ranking shouldn't be mentioned in the lede.  Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I added an explanation on Alexa's ranking accuracy. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding those editor's objections to the Alexa and Quantcast rankings, as those two sources are used in about 1,000 other Wikipedia articles and they're making no effort to remove them from any articles except this one.  Anyway, I'll move on with answering the rest of your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's see...(a) this is the only GAN I'm paying any attention to that uses Alexa ranking, so (b) when you added it to the lead, I looked at it and realised it made no sense to me, which led me to (c) read the Alexa Internet and Alexa Toolbar articles, which were no help. So (d) I removed it from the lead, commented on the article's talk page, and (e) was greeted by a barrage of hostility and rudeness. As for other articles - other crap exists all over Wikipedia. When someone pays me a salary to edit, then I'll start caring about the state of "other" pages. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Alexa and Quantcast info, as the majority of editors appeared to agree that it shouldn't be included. Cla68 (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed the sentence as you suggested. Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Continuing on, I added demographic information as requested. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the demographic information, as it came from Alexa and Quantcast. Cla68 (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources:  I'm fairly confident that this article contains most, if not all, of the available sources that mention this blog.  Besides Google, I checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand.  I believe enough information in the article comes from non-opinion sources like the Vancouver Sun articles to establish the article as not based primarily on editorials or opinion columns.  I used opinion columns to add more detailed information on the site's content, mission, and how it has been mentioned in the media.  Because this is an advocacy blog, and thus is fighting in a war of ideas, I don't think it is unusual that many of the mentions of this blog in reliable sources are in opinion pieces. Cla68 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources and Hoggan:  Hoggan, to a large extent, is this blog.  This blog is an extension of his mission to combat what he apparently feels is dishonesty involved in some of the global warming scepticism.  He is the driving force behind the blog and its public face.  Therefore, many of the media mentions concentrate on him.  We have to use what the sources give us, and the sources make it clear that Hoggan and this blog are joined at the hip.  I believe there is sufficient sourcing, however, to show that there is more to the topic than Hoggan, including the work by the other writers involved with the blog. Cla68 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It`s copied over from here mark nutley (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've reread the article and feel that it is better.  There is still a one-sentence paragraph in the "Mission and audience" sub-section.  Other than that it's a pretty short but concise article that I think is better for the review process.  I'll pass it to GA, keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned by a pattern I notice in which a couple of pro-sceptic editors are responsible for peppering climate related articles (Ian Plimer, Climate change denial and this one — those are just some of the ones I'm monitoring) with references to Monbiot. Some may conclude that it could be part of an effort to paint the anti-sceptic and anti-denialist side as consisting of one left-wing journalist on a crusade. I'm going to be scrutinizing every reference to Monbiot and seeing if it needs inclusion, or can be replaced by something better. ► RATEL ◄ 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think any editors are "pro-sceptic" you need to name them with evidence.  Otherwise, you're casting aspersions which is battlegroundish behavior.  As far as this article is concerned, I didn't leave any columnists out who discussed DeSmogBlog.  Monbiot was the only warmist journalist that I found who discussed the blog.  If you find any others, please feel free to either bring it up here, or add text about it to the article and we can discuss it if anyone disagrees with what you added. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
My concern is more general, not directly related to Monbiot. See below comments on the section. This section seems to be a kind of backdoor way of introducing content from DeSmogBlog into Wikipedia, and my feeling is that this circumvents Wikipedia policies that don't recognize blogs as reliable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that there has been a flurry of reverting over this section, lamentably without discussion. I believe that the section is too long and is problematic from a content standpoint. Blogs are not proper sources, especially on living people, and I don't see that changing by quoting from blogs by columnists and articles in reliably sourced publications. While the article linked may be of some value, I question its use to flesh out this article on a blog. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mission and Audience" may be WP:V problematical.  Per WP:SELFPUB (list emphasis mine)...

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
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:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I'm not clear that the following complies with either the letter or spirit of WP:SELFPUB...

Contributors to the site assist in researching organizations that the site's staff believe are phony, grassroots organizations, or astroturf groups sponsored directly or indirectly by industries seeking to thwart climate change-related legislation. Organizations alleged by the blog to be astroturfs include Friends of Science, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Global Climate Coalition, and International Climate Science Coalition.
Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Good observations. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How are these "sources on themselves"? The sentence is sourced to an article in the Vancouver Sun, and a blog post in the Financial Post which is critical of the site. While the latter source is a little on the weak side, it's not coming from DSB. Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Because they originate from the blog. The blog is the source of the allegation that these other blogs are "astroturf." ScottyBerg (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps even more troubling, from the same Vancouver Sun cite [10]...
"For the past two years, I have been researching and writing for something called the DeSmogBlog, a project dedicated to identifying and exposing what we call 'the PR pollution clouding climate science.'"
JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm less concerned with that than I am by the blog being used as a source on third parties. That's the problem with this article in general. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps so but, even assuming the content to be legitimate per WP:V, failure to identify the source as a principal in the blog borders on the unconscionable.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that is a very good point. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with a secondary source using the blog as a source. DSB is widely used as a credible source. Nothing to worry about there. Guettarda (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Even controversial statements about third parties? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the text makes it clear that it is the blog that is claiming that those organizations as astroturfs.  Since the claims were repeated in the Sun and Post, I thought it was ok to include them in the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is precisely the problem: that the blog's controversial claims on third parties are stated in this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting.  You see no WP:RS or WP:UNDUE difficulties in utilizing a single source written by a Desmogblog principal as an anchor to host Desmogblog allegations.  Even more interesting, the purported "second" source does not "support" the content, in fact rebuts it, yet nothing from Foster's rebuttal itself is offered in balance. And you see no mis-representation of sourcing or POV there? JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there have been a couple of complaints that this article doesn't contain enough criticism or contrary opinion of DeSmogBlog's claims, so perhaps a couple of sentences on Foster's criticism of the blog could be added to the "notable media mentions" section. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also be interested in your view as to why this troublesome content shouldn't be tagged per Template:Primary sources.  The tag reads as follows (emphasis mine)...
This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.
JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with JakeInJoisey on this, and concur with his finding that the second footnote (currently footnote 7) makes no mention of the DeSmogBlog and does not support the statement footnoted. I agree about the tagging too.
You know, the problems with this article are not unusual. I've been going through Wiki blog articles for assessment purposes and have been stunned by the poor quality of most of them. Most rely heavily on self-referenced sourcing and a few have no secondary sources whatsoever. Apparently there was a spate of articles about blogs a few years ago, some written by IPs, and they have just sat there untended ever since. I'm surprised that this article, which has gotten so much attention and even a GA review, has such striking issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The source in footnote 7 is obviously referring to DeSmogBlog.  Very little of the article is sourced to DeSmogBlog.  Almost all of it is sourced to newspaper articles and newspaper opinion columns. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a passing reference to Hoggan being "...responsible for a website that specializes in smearing climate skeptics. . . " and that's it. A "website," not a blog. Assuming he's referring to DeSmogBlog and not some other site, that is just a passing reference, and does not describe the blog as identifying various astroturfing sites. I think that for controversial and derogatory statements like this you need better sourcing. I agree with the tagging referred to below. Removal would be better, actually. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this section as lacking reliable third-party sourcing, particularly for the content referenced by footnote 6.  While I'm doubtful that this content can be properly supported as written given the WP:RS considerations and the source author's "affiliation with the subject", comments are solicited. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not right to include serious and potentially defamatory allegations about third parties expressed by a blog, just because it is an article about the blog. I happen to believe those websites probably are astroturfing sites, but that doesn't change my opinion on the need for proper and independent sourcing for such serious charges, wherever made within Wikipedia. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Phil England writes in The Ecologist that the strength of the book is the rigour of the research and the detailed focus on key incidents. He points out, however, that the climate change chapter is a only 50 pages long, and recommends several other books for readers who want to get a broader picture of this aspect: Jim Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up, George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning and Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On and Boiling Point. England also points out that there is little coverage about the millions of dollars Exxon Mobil has put into funding a plethora of groups actively involved in promoting climate change denial and doubt.[11]
99.181.141.119 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the relevance of that quote to this article?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious ... the authors of the book (Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway) Merchants of Doubt recommend to readers "... who want to get a broader picture of this aspect: Jim Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up, ...", as it names James Hoggan and the 2009 book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming?  99.35.12.88 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does DeSmogBlog appear in that reference?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Double-click on Jim Hoggan ...  97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see the relationship, but not relevance.  If one were to create a separate article about Hoggan, it might fit there if not undue weight, but even a sentence about it would be undue weight in this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There was an article just on him, and it was merged into this one.  99.119.128.88 (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said, even a sentence from that source would be undue weight unless we further expand other information about Jim.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole 'deniergate' section and the changes to the lead made in the same edit fail NPOV. 'Deniergate' is not a neutral & commonly-accepted term. There are plenty of problems with phrasing: 'confirmed suspicions', 'achieved worldwide recognition and acclaim', 'many revelations', 'outspoken critic' are all loaded or emotive terms, or carry implications which should (if true) be made explicit and sourced. Not sourced from DeSmogBlog itself, either.
This info should go into the article, but neither the 'deniergate' version or a previous editor's 'fakegate' version come close to encyclopedic, neutral language. 
Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
	 	
−	
Many thanks for addressing these concerns Squiddy, and I ask for your forbearance with any clumsiness in my editing, I have to confess to being a relative wikipedia newbie. However, I have to take issue with your assertion that "Deniergate" is "not a neutral & commonly-accepted term". It is a highly fitting and deserved riposte to "climategate" of which the HI was and remains an enthusiastic promoter. Surely, what's good for good for the goose for the gander? Less frivolously, "#deniergate" is a very widely accepted hashtag on Twitter, and the term has been picked up in many of the Mainstream Media articles and virtually all of blogs that have commented on the matters in hand. I readily accept that the term "scandal" may at this stage in the debate be a little incendiary, and have modified this to "controversy" accordingly. With the greatest respect, it is my firm conviction that any arguments attempting to disqualify use of the term "deniergate" are bereft of reasonable rationale.
Moving onto the matter of "confirmed suspicions". I struggle to see what is unacceptable with this. It is beyond contention that widespread suspicions have been held and articulated about the probability that HI has been funded by fossil fuel industry interests. With Charles Koch and Murray Energy Corporation, inter alia, revealed as HI donors, the contention that these beliefs have now been confirmed as facts by the revelation of the HI fundraising strategy document is beyond dispute.
I really am bewildered by the objection to "many revelations", in over 100 pages of indisputably genuine leaked internal HI documents there are simply heaps of them.
The "outspoken critic" reference is a direct quote from the gentleman's page as referred to, so again it is hard to imagine how this criticism can be substantiated.
I note that in the time it has taken me to compose this response , another user "Atlan" has withdrawn my edits. I look forward to continuing the discussion, but down here in Australia it is past my bedtime.
With the greatest respect and kind regards, and in earnest hope of a mutually acceptable resolution,
Shambala2011 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "achieved worldwide recognition and acclaim" - there can be no doubt this controversy has received worldwide attention. I accept that "acclaim" may lack encyclopaedic neutrality, and I'm very happy to see this expunged.

As it stands, even if the phrasing becomes entirely neutral, way too much of it is referenced by DeSmogBlog itself. Alternate sources need to be found as well.--Atlan (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thought it was being called Fake Gate. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) Here's a first draft of a somewhat less POV version; I've left the DeSmogBlog sources in, but they should really be replaced by third party ones:
In February 2012, DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents from the Heartland Institute.  During the resulting controversy the blog was referenced in media outlets including The Guardian , the New York Times and the BBC. 
The leaked documents indicated support by the Heartland Institute for prominent climate science deniers including Fred Singer and Robert Carter, funding of $88,000 to a proposed new website to be run by Anthony Watts's blog Watts Up With That raising doubt about weather stations, and funding of $100,000 to a low level Department of Energy bureaucrat with a Ph.D to create school curriculum material aimed at raising doubt about the science of climate change. There were indications that the Heartland Institute is funded by coal industry interests such as the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Murray Energy Corporation.

Further revisions (and a suggestion for a section heading) would be appreciated. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
And a further revision:
In February 2012, DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents from the Heartland Institute were leaked to DeSMogBlog, detailing its funding and strategic plans. The documents revealed that, whilst much of the Institute's funding comes from a single anonymous donor, over $1.1million was provided by major corporations, including Microsoft, Altria, Glaxo Smith Kline, Reynolds America,  and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.   Anthony Watts, owner of the anti-climate change blog Watts Up With That, was to receive up to $90,000 from the Institute, and plans were revealed to create an anti-climate-change public school curriculum.. The documents also indicated that the Heartland Institute was a major source of funding for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. The Institute issued a statement claiming that the documents had been faked or tampered with..
This does away entirely with the DeSmogBlog references. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it is important to include the DeSmogBlog references so that readers have the opportunity to access the primary sources themselves, and form their own opinions as to their veracity and significance.
It is simply wrong to say that "DeSmogBlog leaked a number of internal documents" - to the best of my understanding, the documents were linked by a person or persons unknown to 15 recipients, although whether these included any editors or contibutors to DeSmogBlog I'm uncertain. DeSmogBlog, along with other then reported on these leaked documents and let the rest of the world know about them, but they emphatically did not do the act of leaking the documents, That was done by the source, and distinction is extremely significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shambala2011 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC) 

Very good point, I've adjusted the draft accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the argument that primary sources should be included: this is not appropriate under Wikipedia policy on original research. Most especially, interpretation of primary sources, which is what you are suggesting, is not permitted. Anyone wanting to view the DeSmogBlog entries can visit the DeSmogBlog website, which is linked to in both the infobox and External Links sections of the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
	- I'll give this some consideration, but it seems improper to me as a former secondary school history teacher, students of all kinds should be encouraged to refer to primary sources. I'm sure these historically significant	 posts will soon be overtaken on DeSmogBlog by other worth contributions, and see no reason why this article should not direct future readers directly to the source and save them the trouble of further searching. Please correct me if I am wrong about this o in breach of specific wikipedia policy provisions? Shambala2011 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) 	
−	
I have major reservations with the revised version:
- there is no reason to fail to reference the Guardian articles, when I have time I would like to add the New Scientist, Nature, ABC Drum and no doubt other reputable 3rd party articles on this unfolding story.
- "Alan" Watts is incorrect, the blogger's name is "Anthony Watts". Even those who vehemently disagree with everything he says know this...
- There are a lot more than "indications" that HI is funded by Koch and MEC, there is categorical proof in the fundraising plan on the previously cited, and I am left to question the motives behind removing these references. This is a fundamental point in the debate surrounding deniergate, it is an easily verifiable and highly significant fact and deserves to be included.
- There are much more than "indications" that the HI is a source of funds of the NIPCC, it is now clearly thier project, and they are directly funding the 'lead authors' and 'contributors'
- The HI has only claimed one document has been faked, the others are indisputably genuine. Debate continues as to whether anything in the allegedly faked 'strategy' document is untrue, but having closely researched the primary sources and secondary commentary, I don't believe there is anything in this document that can't be substantiated.
Shambala2011 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call on my Alan Watts goof - I've been reading too many Taoist articles today, clearly. I've fixed it. You are free to reword this however you like; I have made attempts to address the issues raised by Squiddy and Atlan, but this is by no means intended to be a final version. Oh, and for the record I have no inherent "motives" to question, beyond trying to get this article to comply with the relevent policies. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your prompt responses Yunshui, would love to continue but really must get some sleep, will look at this again soon Shambala2011 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposed version, except I'd prefer to see the phrasing from the first version about the curriculum material. The meaning appears to be the same, but 'plans were revealed to create school curriculum material aimed at raising doubt about the science of climate change' reads better than 'plans were revealed to create an anti-climate-change public school curriculum' to my eye.
Also in the first version there was mention of Fred Singer. Did you remove that because it was sourced to DeSmog? If so there is a more recent Guardian article [12] here which could be used as a source for that info. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 06:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a few issues with the proposed text. "Fake but accurate" just won't do. needs a mention, and anti-climate change really? A blog is anti climate change? It is not possible to be anti climate change. It should also be mentioned that the donations from Koch were earmarked for health spending also sourced from [13] Also Watts was not to receive money from HI, a pledge was made to help find funding for a project and only 44k was in fact pledged The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance. When I first read this on the Guardian I was appalled by the sloppy journalism, I am just as appalled to see it continuing here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I have brought this to the NPOV board, [14] I am of the opinion that as the sources did not perform due diligence they are not reliable for sourcing regarding this. This page is not on my watchlist and I will check infrequently here, should you wish to discuss leave a message on my talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The current infobox is inappropriate. It should be infobox website. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on DeSmogBlog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100106120209/http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1664300 to http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1664300
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This page is full of outdated content that violates RELTIME in any case,  and is promotiona and repetitiously so.  It should not be GA.  I don't engage with that process but have tagged this talk page so people who do, will review it. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The article does need an update, for example it has a lot of recent hits on google news The latest information from the article appears to be early 2012. I am not seeing anything overly promotional or repetitious. Not enough to disqualify it from being a Good Article. Will ping @Cla68: as they are the main contributor and GA nominator. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay Cla68 is indefinitely blocked so no help coming from there. I will look to update it myself. AIRcorn (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I looked through the google news hits and most were from DeSmog sites in other countries or cross-posts from their blog. Not finding much to update with and not really that interested in digging too deep. I think it still meets our Good Article standards as is (they are not really that strict). AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DeSmogBlog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124024752/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=d48ae53b-cb6e-4aa4-9f36-fc392e4521d3 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=d48ae53b-cb6e-4aa4-9f36-fc392e4521d3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Add a section on DeSmog's UK operations:
In September 2014, DeSmog launched a sister news site DeSmog UK (DeSmog.co.uk) to focus on energy and climate issues in the UK. Since then, DeSmog’s UK operations have fallen under the remit of DeSmog UK Ltd, a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee (company number 11042361). In April 2021, the content of DeSmog.co.uk was merged with DeSmog.com to create a global investigative outlet. While operating as DeSmog UK, in 2021, DeSmog won the “Best Specialist News Site” category in The Drum Online Media Awards (unfortunately The Drum's 2021 archive of past winners is not working correctly, only listing 2022 winners) and has been nominated for the award’s “Best Investigation” or "Best Specialist News Site" categories three times. The awards information could go under the "Awards" section but I mention it here as further evidence of the significance of the site's UK arm.

References supporting the possible change: :

TheRealMidnightGardener (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

These changes seem fine to me. I'd say it's OK for you to go ahead and make them yourself. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Founder and Staff" section lists Ross Gelbspan and Richard Littlemore as "frequent contributors." This is long out of date.:
Both are former contributors. Gelbspan has not written for the site since 2010 and Littlemore hasn’t written for the site since 2020, with only three articles published since 2012, all on the same Canadian libel court case involving Tim Ball. In 2022, frequent contributors include Geoff Dembicki, Adam Barnett, Stella Levantesi, and Nick Cunningham. Recommend updating the page to "Ross Gelbspan and Richard Littlemore were frequent contributors" and/or adding current contributors as of 2022.:
References supporting the possible change:

TheRealMidnightGardener (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

These changes seem fine to me. I'd say it's OK for you to go ahead and make them yourself. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I updated the section. Of the four people listed here, only one was on the staff list at DeSmog. There are other reporters and writers on the site who are not among these four. None of them had Wikipedia articles. Lacking any principled way to know which writers are notable enough to list in this article, I simply didn't list any. -- M.boli (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

was introduced by an IP in this edit. This, as well as "what it sees as" are fake insertions that are not based on the sources given.
In my edit summary [15], I wrote "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that regards DeSmog as a RS" - actually I wanted to delete the "that regards DeSmog as a RS" because I checked on WP:RSP and could not find it, but I pressed the wrong key. The rest of the summary stands. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This section is completely incoherent and likely out of date.  The use of Megan McArdle here is even stranger than I can imagine, as she's connected to the Koch network, and by extension, Heartland themselves.  She's not a reliable source here. The connections are way too numerous to detail: McArdle studied at the Institute for Humane Studies, which is funded by the Kochs.  She's given talks at the infamous Mercatus Center at George Mason University, she was the MC at Koch’s 50th Anniversary gala celebration, she married Koch activist Peter Suderman, and she defended the use of formaldehyde, and was against the EPA classifying it as a known carcinogen; the Kochs are known to manufacture formaldehyde as part of their business.  And in case that small detail isn't enough, DeSmog just published an article today that showed the Kochs gave $9.6 million to Project 2025 groups connected to Heartland in the last four years.  Citing McArdle here is like citing the Grinch about how Santa Claus steals children's cookies. That's the tip of a large Koch iceberg.  She doesn't seem like she even meets the basic requirements of a reliable sources here, as she's too close and connected to the subject. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking further into this, the section is written erroneously.  There is no evidence the material is "fake", other than Koch-supporters like McArdle and Judith Curry who are known for their climate denial.  Further, Peter Gleick, who is cited in the section, maintains the documents are real, which is not included in the section, and gives the false impression that Gleick is apologizing for them as a "hoax", which he is not.  The entire section should be deleted at this point, as its an egregious form of misinformation. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I've decided to just remove McArdle as an unreliable source and keep the rest, adding that Gleick says the documents are real. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Note, the Pacific Institute also investigated and found no evidence of a forgery, coming to the same conclusion as Gleick. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Final version here. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and removed the unsourced rewrite added here.[16] Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)