Talk:James G. Watt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Definitely stubby. Needs to mention his 1996 probation, fine, and community service plea bargain for 41 felonies of perjury and lies related to HUD[1] Kwantus 21:13, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Apocalpse quote[edit]

"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.[2] —wwoods 18:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are putatively accurate transcript selections from this committee hearing at Powerline Blog: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php

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)[reply]
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 [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=28813 WorldNetDaily]. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Glad no one's tried to pin this one on him: "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." It got Bill Moyers in trouble: Bill Moyers Apologizes to James Watt for Apocryphal Quote. "Because those or similar quotes had also appeared through the years in many other publications -- in The Washington Post and TIME, for example... -- I too easily assumed their legitimacy." That is classic. Absolutely classic! <>< tbc 06:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another quote famously attributed to him, and again traced to Bill Moyers. James Watt is supposed to have asserted that conservation doesn't matter because the rapture is coming. see [http://jonchristensen.typepad.com/uneasychair/2005/05/say_watt.html(which may or may not be reliable)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic joke[edit]

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)[reply]

Removing comment about earth being "merely a temporary way station on the road to eternal life". I looked it up at the library and did not find it in the article "Ours is the Earth". I did find it in the Audubon article cited thereafter, however the comment was not a quote from Watt but the article's author's interpretation of Watt's views (which I still believe to be true). I've looked but cannot find an article I once read (Time? Life?) that had an image of Watt on the cover pulling up the ground, trees and all like old carpeting. Underneath were factories etc. Some may question the seeming one sidedness of the additions however I have endeavored to be factual as possible. People also need to remember that Watt got lots of air time, such as in the Washington Post, claiming that Moyers interpretations of Watt's anti-environmental leanings were baseless.

I have placed a bracket around the following inclusion in a quotation in the article: "[see Conservation doesn't enrich Cheney's energy friends]". The use of a bracket (as opposed to parentheses) here lets the reader know that the link is not in the original quotation. I am including the quote to expand upon the comments quoted. There is one bracket at the beginning of the word "see". There needs to be another opposite at the end of the inclusion. "Betacommand" has twice removed the last bracket.


NPOV[edit]

I strongly feel that the last half of the quote section has little to do with the article. It's a collection of externally-linked criticisms on current environmental policy. --12.217.24.137 03:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that it's NPOV (a quote from a POV source can be used), as just irrelevant. There's no connection to Watt except as someone else who didn't care about conservation. KarlM 07:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above contributors should reread the first paragraph of the section titled "Quote Controversy".
If Watt had not made the comments he had about how in error Moyers was about his (Watt's) environmental policies and about what a conservationist he is, and if lots of rightwing blogs had not pounced and made such a case out of it (do a search) - keep in mind Moyers has been a big target for the right wing - I'd agree. But what the section that you refer to is is a factual counterpoint to all that, IOW, some balance. What it is doing is demonstrating just what environmental policies Watt is applauding. Remove that and you remove issue context. Wikipedia should be about providing information.
But those quotes just say that Bush's policies are as bad as Watt's, they don't say what Watt's policies actually were except for some extremely brief snips (drilling in parks etc.). 90% of the quotes are wasted space in this article. The article needs a section actually describing what Watt promoted rather than just saying he's a nutball. KarlM 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this direct Watt quote again: "'Everything Cheney's saying, everything the president's saying - they're saying exactly what we were saying 20 years ago, precisely,' Watt said in an interview with The Denver Post from his winter home in Wickenberg, Ariz. "Twenty years later, it sounds like they've just dusted off the old work".... Watt and national environmental groups rarely agree on anything, but they do agree on the similarity between Bush's energy plans and Watt's goals in the '80s.... As interior secretary for Reagan, Watt supported oil and drilling in wilderness areas and refuges, increased offshore drilling and opposed expansion of national parks". Did you see the word "everything" and "precisely" there? Next you look at what Bush's environmental policies have been and there's your answer. That's what Watt himself is saying (in this obsure newspaper interview he probably thought not too many people woud read) he stood for as Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, not what he trumpeted loudly in response to Moyer's gaffe. "Never has America seen two more intensely controversial and blatantly anti-environmental political appointees than Watt and Gorsuch," said Greg Wetstone, director of advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who served on the Hill during the Reagan era as chief environment council at the House Energy and Commerce Committee" [3]. Another good article here [4].
"Drilling its way out of the country's energy problems", "industrializing millions of acres of previously wild and open land", etc. are not very specific, even aside from being indirect. In addition, it's not clear what is identical between Watt and Bush: just the things Watt talks about, everything that's discussed, literally everything absolutely identical? I seriously doubt it's the latter. It would be better to delete all four paragraphs, leave only "As interior secretary for Reagan, Watt supported oil and drilling in wilderness areas and refuges, increased offshore drilling and opposed expansion of national parks", and expand on that. All the rest adds nothing to that except POV commenting on Bush. It just looks stupid to have so much out-of-place material. KarlM 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Lots of stuff on his environmental policies here,[6] "Reclassifying potential wilderness areas to alter their eligibility into the National Wilderness Preservation System illustrates one method of administrative manipulation of wilderness policy. For example, Secretary of the Interior for the Reagan administration James Watt made no secret that he favored resource utilization and wanted to limit wilderness preservation.[106] Watt attempted to open federal lands to resource exploitation by re-classifying wilderness study areas (WSAs) in interim BLM management.[107] Watt withdrew 90 percent of the WSAs that the BLM was evaluating and quickly ordered new studies on the eligibility of the land for wilderness designation.[108] Though courts ultimately found this action illegal, pro-development administrations still use re-classification of WSAs on a smaller scale to prevent wilderness designation of choice lands.[109]", [7] "In the early 1980s, SMCRA came under direct attack by the government itself, in the person of Interior Department secretary James Watt. Watt not only refused to enforce the law, which coal companies found onerous, but he oversaw attempts to weaken some 100 SMCRA regulations. Federal courts, in lawsuits brought by NWF and other groups, threw out most of Watt's changes." [8] more, [9] a different perspective on the Watt/Moyers issue. I reiterate, if you remove the context of what Bush is doing that Watt says he agrees with "precisely" you are removing pertinent information.

Aws per concerns, am attempting to tie in Bush's actions with Watts.

NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

This article is an exact replica of the James G. Watt page on www.answers.com I believe an independent article is needed for Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwinter2006 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As an aside, why the @#$% did that essay remain in the article for nearly a year? Gazpacho 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm not a particular fan of Watt but I agree that this is a seriously biased article. For example, a long list of Watt's policies is given that supposedly had a negative affect on the environment, but his reasoning or justification for these policies are never given in this article. There are two sides to every story. TimMagic (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Factual Context[edit]

Replaced the following slanted commentary:
A 1990 book by Austin Miles quoted Watt as saying, in no particular context, "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."[1] Environmental commentator Glenn Scherer erroneously placed this remark in Watt's testimony to Congress.[2] Although Grist magazine retracted and apologized for Scherer's attribution, it was widely repeated by Bill Moyers[3] and others on the American left. Watt admits that his Christian faith informs his attitude toward the environment but has denied both the attribution and the associated characterizations of his policy.[4] Moyers also publicly apologized for the misattribution after a telephone conversation.[5]

with the well cited and researched context that stood the test of time previously. To offer only the above is most definitely biased and incomplete. There's another side to the story, and it is supported with the facts. 4.246.202.229 03:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bush Cheney Bush Cheney Bush Bush Bush"... look at the heading on the article, please. Anything you want to say about the Bush administration is for your blog, not this article. If you want to add information about Watt's policies as secretary, then add that (under an appropriately named section) and leave out the paragraphs of irrelevant material. Gazpacho 07:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two paragraphs about Bush's environmental policies as you are right that this is an article about Watt. However I have left the links in as there is a clear correspondence between Watt's policies and Bush's. One is the fulfillment of the other. Even Watt says so. 4.246.202.70 11:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not remove all of the passages about Bush's policies. The only paragraph that might belong in this article is the one beginning "Watt came to the U.S. Department", but you need to write your own wording, not rip it directly from a copyrighted source, and put it somewhere other than the quotation section, and do not remove my rewrite of the quotation section. It took me some time to format those citations. Gazpacho 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, number one, your "rewrite" is a mess with formatting errors and double copy and pasting of information. Number two, what I wrote is valid, cited information that has been here for a long time. You are the one who removed it (and for reasons other than you now state). I compromised by removing two paragraphs about Bush's environmental policies - which you stated was your objection. Looks to me like you just want to censor information that you don't want others to know. 4.246.200.18 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for a compromise, I'm looking for adherence to Wikipedia's policies on original research, citing sources, and copyright. An essay that argues for a particular opinion, particularly one that is tangential to an article, is original research. Stick to the base facts that are relevant to the article.

Furthermore, could you indicate what "formatting errors" and "double copy and pasting" you're referring to? I don't see it. Gazpacho 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content says "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed."
About the formatting errors look at your version I was refering to [10]. The section beginning "| term_end=November 8, 1983 |" placed in the middle of the article. Below that you will find four paragraphs which exactly match the first four paragraphs, double copy and pasting.4.246.200.18 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw the query on the helpdesk and dropped by. I haven't looked over the whole history, but from what it looks like the Bush stuff isn't really relevant here, unless you can find a quote that says Bush was inspired or influenced by Watt. Just because someone later had similar policies doesn't merit mention here. Also, the stuff below the "quotation controversy" section needs to be integrated into the article where it discusses his policies. Finally, you need a source that says he never really said that quote rather than just introducing it as a fact -- maybe that author's apology would be sufficient. I'll try to work a bit on the article to fix these things. Also, much of the extensive quoting I think is unnecessary because it could be paraphrased and merged into the policies section. Calliopejen1 23:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping in. I would encourage though that before you start removing/rewriting lots of content that you read the page first [11] (including the talk page) and go to the links. I think you will find that it's all germain. And btw to Gazpacho, the information I've posted is not OR since it's all over the web. 4.246.200.18 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to pull the sources back in, with some expository writing, as I have time. Of course you can do it before me. I just don't like seeing half the article looking somewhat like an encyclopedia and the other half full of pasted-together quotes in italics. Gazpacho 01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if there was a good was to really pare it down while keeping it I guess Calliopejen1 did it. But one reason that I use quotes is that if the site the info came from goes defunct you can still google the words and find a reference. I am bit concerned about losing this info in that case. I will add a bit more myself. 4.246.206.16 01:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the line "Although Grist retracted and apologized for Scherer's attribution, it was widely repeated by Bill Moyers" as incorrect. Moyers speech was made, as the link shows, on December 1, 2004 [12]. Grist, which Moyer's relied on for his info (and which in turn got it from the book by Miles), had not corrected their article until February 4, 2005 at which time they responsibly stated "Grist regrets this reporting error and is aggressively looking into the accuracy of this quotation" [13]. Moyers promptly apologized on February 9th. By the 11th Grist had been unable to substantiate it and said so. That didn't stop rightwing blogs from making hay out of it though. Rather than deception this episode demonstrates that Grist and Moyers were acting in good faith. 4.246.206.16 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Cattlemen's Association quote Calliopejen1. 4.246.203.78 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Removing the words "left wing" from the sentence "Left-Wing Environmental groups concur that Bush's policies are similar to Watt's." It is an attempt at a slur and it is not completely accurate as at least one Republican environmental group (Rep America) says the same thing [14]. 63.196.193.209 04:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Boys[edit]

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)[reply]

Please check reference #15.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The error was not the Rolling Stone article but a strange line of text in the paragraph with a reference of "Awesomeness" at #15. The text had nothing to do with Watt. The line and reference have since been removed so the problem is gone. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.115.35 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Exxon Secrets[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [15] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(ec) Exxonsecrets is being used appropriately here. It's sourcing a statement that is clearly identified as Greenpeace's opinion. Greenpeace is a highly notable environmental organization, so it's opinions on people like Watt--or in this case, an organization affiliated with him--are fodder for an article like this. I'm not saying that the sentence in question needs to be in here--that's editorial decision that the usual editors of this page will have to grapple with--I'm just saying that the sentence and it's source can't be automatically ruled out on the grounds of WP:RS or WP:BLP. Oh, and exxonsecrets--or at least the pages being cited on WP--is most definitely not a "publicly editable". Sure, there's a wiki part of the website, but the page that's cited in this article is not part of the wiki. Yilloslime TC 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine. I have added it to the Mountain States Legal Foundation's page instead.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing where BLP says that we can't use exxonsecrets. Yilloslime TC 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(edit conflict)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Department of Interior Emblem[edit]

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)[reply]

unacceptable source[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

apocalyptic views[edit]

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)[reply]

Questionable quotation[edit]

"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)[reply]

Death[edit]

Death and date of death added without verifiable source. 174.240.20.173 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for but could not find a reliable source. As far as I can tell, Watt is still alive. Therefore, I reverted the edits specifying his death date.
If another editor has a reliable source for Watt's death, he/she/they should feel free to make appropriate edits including that source.
Shortsword (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_G._Watt&oldid=1208291111"