Talk:James G. Watt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

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)

Contents

[edit] Apocalpse quote

"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

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)

[edit] Ethnic joke

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)

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.


[edit] NPOV

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)

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)
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)
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)
[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.

[edit] NPOV

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

[edit] Replacing Factual Context

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

[edit] Beach Boys

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)