Which is more accurate?
Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs the climate change denialism website Watts Up With That?. A former meteorologist, he is president of IntelliWeather Inc. and directs the Surface Stations Project, a volunteer initiative to document the set up and maintenance of weather stations across the United States. (link)
Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American meteorologist (AMS seal holder, certification retired by AMS), president of IntelliWeather Inc., and founder of the Surface Stations Project, a volunteer initiative to document the set up and maintenance of weather stations across the United States. He is editor of the blog Watts Up With That?. (link)
Both are arguably true, but which one better reflects his actual status? All right-thinking people will obviously agree that the top one is better; WUWT is denialism, and AW is primarily known as a blogger, not a meteorologist. Exciting discussion of this very point is available on the talk page.
I notice that neither version mentions him as founder of the Open [sic] Atmospheric Society, which is clearly disrespectful.
Update: the new text survives, but there’s a discussion on the “Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard” (from whence it will be archived after a bit, so try here). My favourite, from an uninvolved:
A quick look at the blog site and I don’t see how it could be described as anything else except a denialist site. Disagree with following the majority of sources, we should follow the best sources and it is hard to go past the nature one.
Uupdate: the onwikiwackos won’t give it up, but aren’t making much progress:
”’Denier”’, as in option 2 and firmly reject option 1 per [[WP:WEASEL]]. Every time, the same answer (and usually the same people asking the question). Watts is a climate change denier, the handful of editors who don’t like that fact just need to learn to live with it. The “skeptics” of climate change are [[pseudoskepticism|pseudoskeptics]], and Watts is a very obvious and thoroughly documented promoter of denialism. The fact that some sources fail to correctly make the distinction is a problem, and it’s one we deal with by blowing away the dust. I can find you a million sources that describe stage psychics as clairvoyant, but they aren’t and we don’t call them clairvoyant. This is the same. The absolute most we should say is that he is a denialist who describes himself as a skeptic, but even that is giving undue weight to a fringe view.