Talk:James G. Watt

message: :"That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have -- to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations. I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns. Whatever it is, we have to manage with a skill to have the resources needed for future generations." -- James Watt, in testimony before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, on Feb. 5, 1981.
TDC cut this, commenting, "after a rather extensive review of the congressional record, I find no evidence that this quote is real)"
As I understand it, committee hearing testimony wouldn't go into the Congressional Record, and hearing records from so far back may not be on-line anywhere (yet). There's evidence, at least, that Watt claims to have made the statement.
—wwoods 18:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two previous powerlineblog references seem hashed. Has powerlineblog been corrupted? Can anyone either put up or shut up? It's important that WP gets this stuff right and doesn't claim or even suggest anything that isn't verifiable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.42.124 (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a published account of the quote, at least in abridged form. It also exists on the Time magazine website. Watt also clarifies and defends his statement in a Washington Post editorial. The whole quote is included in an article at the Weekly Standard, and the transcript can be found at WorldNetDaily. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I was able to track down the correct PowerLine links here (transcript) and here (editorial). Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Apocalpse quote

message: Removed:
:Later in 1983 Watt was made to resign as a result of a controversy that arose because he told an ethnic joke. 
This appears to be a conflation with Earl Butz. The joke was controversial but it didn't immediately precipitate Watt's removal. Ellsworth 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic joke 

message: While no doubt this guy has, issues, this article is very very heavily balanced against this guy, the connections in the last section are complete overkill, it's more than half the article. This page needs serious attention from someone who knows about this person to come in and sort this out fairly. IvoShandor 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholly agree, but answers.com is a mirror of the Wiki, so its likely this article was first. Regardless this page needs serious attention. IvoShandor 06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about James G. Watt. If you want to grind an axe against George W. Bush's environmental policy please do it in your blog or some other forum that is not this article. I have removed the essay and will also remove the dispute tag. Gazpacho 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, why the @#$% did that essay remain in the article for nearly a year? Gazpacho 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No clue. If I hadn't forgotten about it I would have come back and removed it. Damn, it was even on my watchlist. IvoShandor 14:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I wonder, is the incident with the Beach Boys concert given enough weight? Based on works I have read it was one of the major reasons he was forced to resign as that turned the First Lady against him, even Reagan wasn't willing to defend him then. (I also noticed it is unsourced--though it most certainly happened and a source could easily be added, I have a book sitting right in front of me that would work.)IvoShandor (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beach Boys

message: Please check out reference #15. It was clearly added in error. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.115.35 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to the page in the article it was sourced from. Rolling Stone is reliable for that bit of information, its pretty much common knowledge that Watt was indicted amongst the politicos of the world. This article might be a better source though than a partisan opinion piece by RFK, Jr.--IvoShandor (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No problem, I just wasn't sure what you meant, glad I could at least try to help. --IvoShandor (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check reference #15. 

message: From Exxonsecrets.org 
If we accept that Greenpeace is a notable organization with noteworthy opinions then exxonsecrets is a valid source for them. Unomi (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a violation of BLP to include allegations from a partisan source such as Greenpeace. To illustrate, let's say Exxon had a blog which opined on environmentalists, would criticism from those sources be acceptable in environmentalists' articles? No, it wouldn't, and neither should Greenpeace criticism be in this BLP. You have reverted despite BLP concerns; that is inappropriate and I suggest you revert back until this is settled. ATren (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Unomi. I see no problem leaving ExxonSecrets in. It's obviously opinion, and it's not even criticizing Watt himself -- only his group. On a side note, I'm sure that Exxon runs plenty of advocacy groups that criticize environmentalists, and I'm sure that plenty of their opinions are cited on Wikipedia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP clearly states such advocacy groups who`s fact checking leaves a lot to be desired can`t be used in a blp, self published sources are also not allowed under blp rules. @ Athene why not show me some of those groups which are cited as refs in WP. mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see consensus here, so until then, I think it should be left intact. Rather than have me prove something totally off-topic, why don't you show me how Greenpeace's references "leave something to be desired". Objectively, of course. Seems like the burden of proof of unreliability is on you.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, this was posted on the blp notice board I would point out that one of the sources appears to be a publicly editable (login required but anyone can create an account) wiki. This would almost definitely not be acceptable as a RS for any article. It's also not likely suitable as an EL for an actual BLP IMHO  Also under wp:blp Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.
Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections There ya go mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was "publicly editable", that would obviously settle this discussion. However, I don't see the public login area mentioned on the BLP noticeboard. Can you point me to the public login area that allows anyone to edit the Exxonsecrets pages? Since Greenpeace is a well-established, long running, international NGO, they don't seem like an immediately unreasonable source to me. They may be controversial, but that doesn't necessarily mean their statements are invalid (or dubious). As they say in U.S. courts, there is always room for "possible or imaginary doubt", but what is reasonable?Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: So would you allow an Exxon-supported blog to be used as a source criticizing an environmentalist? ATren (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, as long as it's clearly identified as the opinion of Exxon (or its affiliate organization). There are appropriately cited opinions all over Wikipedia. For example, if someone added to Al Gore's page, "In a public statement, Exxon called Al Gore's statements categorically false", and the quote cited an Exxon press release, would you try to remove it? In my mind, that would be noteworthy. To be in accordance with WP policy, we don't have to prove that Exxon's statement is true (that would violate WP:OR). We only have to prove that Exxon said it . Notability wouldn't be an issue either, since we can all agree that Exxon (like Greenpeace) is a notable organization.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you people incapable of reading? wp:blp clearly states such an organization is not acceptable as a source for a blp. Thats it, end of. You can`t play fast and lose with blp`s mark nutley (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I have added it to the Mountain States Legal Foundation's page instead.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing where BLP says that we can't use exxonsecrets. Yilloslime TC 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why Mark Nutley is making so many different arguments when, in my view, the real issue is whether a negative reference to an organization associated with James G. Watt should be included on his page. Mark's argument should be that the place to include criticism of the organization is on the organization's page, and that its inclusion here violates BLP as an attempt at guilt by association.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I`m not making different arguments look at wp:blp Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims It also fails for use in a blp under wp:sps what is so difficult about this to understand? mark nutley (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it fails under SPS. If it was SPS, it would be something like including "James G. Watt is the greatest," sourced to James G. Watt's blog, in the article. Merely because Greenpeace publishes an opinion, it doesn't mean that it's an illegal self-published source. I don't think your claim that Greenpeace is unreliable holds water, either. As I said, they are a well-established, long running, international NGO, and your opinion that they're "unreliable" does not change that.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: At any rate, I can agree that it shouldn't be here. I just think that the only valid reasoning to remove it would be WP:Coatrack, not the various other reasons you mentioned which, in my opinion, are a stretch.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Erm, it`s not greenpeace though is it, it`s a sub organization they set up. Now greenpeace is not a reliable source either as they are piss poor at actually fact checking. exxonsecrets is just as bad, there is no editorial control. Even their disclaimer says they don`t update articles and they rely on people to e-mail them about broken links and other stuff. If they have to rely on the public to update those articles then they are no way reliable mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a second website that they set up, and it's clearly run by Greenpeace. Look at the main page. It's not like they're hiding their affiliation. Your opinion that they are "piss poor" does not prove that they are "piss poor". Also, every responsible newspaper in the world relies the public to provide factual corrections. I guess you'd better get busy and start removing all citations to everything, everywhere.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: FWIW in my view ATren and Nutley are spot on to remove the Greenpeace comment, which I hope now stays out since it clearly did not belong. Aside Greenpeace being a POV campaigning organisation (and I kind of agree on the reputation for reliability but its beside the point), the more relevant argument is an obvious WP:COATRACK violation if an article on Watt is being used to air criticism about a law firm he founded. Also this does not make due weight in the absence of a lot of third party coverage of Greenpeace's view of the law firm and even if there was it should only be in this article if it was a sufficiently notable part of Watt's life which also seems to fail. So 0/3 on hurdles to get in. --BozMo talk 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm late to this but I don't read BLP as forbidding sources such as Greenpeace. If Greenpeace were to publish something that says that Watt is a !@#$%^& then you could not add it to a Wiki entry as "Watt is a !@#$%^ (ref number)" - but I think that you could say "Greenpeace is opposed to Watt's policies and has publicly accused him of being a !@#$%^ (ref number)".  That fact (that Greenpeace thinks Watt is a !@#$%^) is wiki-worthy; the opinion (that he is a !@#$%^) is not. Cross Reference (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exxon Secrets 

message: Wasn't one of Watt's controversies about wanting to change the direction the bison was facing?  He wanted to have the bison facing to the right instead of the left, didn't he? Jtyroler (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Interior Emblem 

message: I have removed a source that was an unpublished memoir by someone else. Since it is a source for several important actions during his tenure, a replacement sources are needed. Possible some of the other sources included will cover the material.  DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: unacceptable source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James G. Watt. 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/20130117074349/http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Wayne_Newton.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Wayne_Newton.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bartleby.com/63/56/556.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James G. Watt. 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/20100205031655/http://newsmeat.com/ to http://www.newsmeat.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James G. Watt. 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://archive.is/20121208175611/http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/4171 to http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/4171
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415204122/http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=1082 to http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=1082
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220400/http://www.entertainment-news.org/breaking/19722/bill-moyers-apologizes-to-james-watt-for-apocryphal-quote.html to http://www.entertainment-news.org/breaking/19722/bill-moyers-apologizes-to-james-watt-for-apocryphal-quote.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "however many generations" quote seems to have been James G. Watt's public position, but several times during the 1980s he was reported to have made private remarks implying that there was little reason to enforce environmental regulations, since the Second Coming would occur fairly soon anyway.  Whether he ever said such things or not, that was a widespread perception at the time, and should be included in the article.  (Note that this is completely different from the bogus "last tree" thing.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: apocalyptic views

message: "We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber." This is presented as a James Watt quotation within the article. However, it is presented without a date, a source, an occasion, or a larger context, from a source that is at best tendentious (mediatransparency.org, an ancestor of Media Matters). It is certainly a second-hand quote, since we have no idea when or where Watt said (or wrote) this, or in what context. I believe Wikipedia policy is that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." At a minimum, this quotation needs a clearer, more detailed provenance.
NicholasNotabene (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable quotation