![]() | A news item involving James G. Watt was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2023. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
Removed:
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)
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.
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)
Aws per concerns, am attempting to tie in Bush's actions with Watts.
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)
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'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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good work on the Cattlemen's Association quote Calliopejen1. 4.246.203.78 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
From Exxonsecrets.org
“ | ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem. | ” |
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)
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)
(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 T C 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Death and date of death added without verifiable source. 174.240.20.173 ( talk) 01:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving James G. Watt was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2023. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
Removed:
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)
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.
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)
Aws per concerns, am attempting to tie in Bush's actions with Watts.
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)
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'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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good work on the Cattlemen's Association quote Calliopejen1. 4.246.203.78 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
From Exxonsecrets.org
“ | ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem. | ” |
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)
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)
(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 T C 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
Death and date of death added without verifiable source. 174.240.20.173 ( talk) 01:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)