Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yilloslime (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 25 April 2010 (→rv why: per policy, of course!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook England This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Internet culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Environment This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tidy up

I've done an intial tidy up. Does anyone have a hard copy of the book? One will no doubt be needed to expand the synopsis and add a few refs. Also, there don't seem to be many crit refs, so those need to be found to give the crit section some balance. This definitely has potential though. Jprw (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the book, refs are in it can be seen on amazon on the back flap of the book. Try as i did i could find no crit`s of the book at all, Cla looked in infotrac and found none either mark nutley (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through the first few pages of Google and also drew a blank. Where's George Monbiot when you need him? Nowtin The Guardian Jprw (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• The references need to be formatted better, with author, publication, publisher, and date published, if available. If its from the web, the retrieval date needs to be noted. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The ref`s have publisher, date retrieved, and publisher. I dunno how to have the author and publication show as well? mark nutley (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Use the citation templates. They will put the information into a standardized format. Cla68 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just done the one for Matt Ridley -- that can serve as a template. Jprw (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There`s a template? mark nutley (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick or just copy the one I used. Jprw (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a few people from the peer review thingy to look over this article in the hopes of getting it up to FA status :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Major problems would include (a) Amazon reviews are pretty meaningless and shouldn't be used in articles, and (b) dust-jacket blurbs are, by their very nature, promotional. The only sources independent of the book are the Ridley and Gilder reviews. And the Gilder review is basically a blog post from a source that has a history of being unreliable. Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt ref

Andrew e-mailed me and let me know the Andrew Bolt ref is actually about "Caspar and the Jesus Paper" not the book, so i have removed it mark nutley (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazon refs

I think we need to get rid of the Amazon refs and reference the book directly. Jprw (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the refs from the back flap? mark nutley (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

All of them -- if you've got the book, use the book. If they're from the back flap, try to use the original sources. Jprw (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I cannot find where this originally appeared. Jprw (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the book was sent to him for review and that was his response. I could always e-mail Andrew to ask if needed mark nutley (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question -- if you're in touch with him why not ask. Jprw (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is as i suspected, it was a pre-publication preview, why did you want to know btw? mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not used to those -- was just interested in the source. Jprw (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazon reviews

Please don't post the results of Amazon reviews unless they are pointed out by some secondary sources as being worth of notice. They are a) anonymous b) not from recognized authors c) easily manipulable (*).

I note that Amazon doesn't seem to have any meaningful editorial control of review quality, so these reviews should count as self-published sources.

(*) They can even be manipulated inadvertently. For example, when someone posts in a sympathetic mailing list about a new listing, and many people in the list independently decide to make a positive review. This means that there will be more reviews than usual, that there will be a higher proportion of favourable reviews, and that the first few reviews will all be highly favourable. Another case, some people will remember back when all reviews were anonymous, and Amazon accidentally displayed the author names for a few hours, and a lot of the very positive reviews turned out to be written by the editors of the books, or by editorial staff from the book publishers. (I am not saying that this happened in this case, it's just examples of the easy manipulability of Amazon reviews.)

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Not sure what Misplaced Pages style is on this, but I would write the book's name as "Title": "Subtitle" rather than Title (Subtitle). I left it for now... does anyone know the Misplaced Pages style on this?--Jp07 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also... who is Phillip Bratby? This is especially important to discuss since there is no article on him. What is the Climategate inquiry? What committee members? What's in Chapter 15? Is this paragraph important enough to be in the introduction? I suggest this be placed in a "Trivia" section at the end of the article if it is not to be omitted.--Jp07 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Background

Which political blog was Andrew Montford looking at?--Jp07 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph One: What does "replication" mean? That is a potentially libelous statement until you clarify that -- it might be interpreted as "plagiarism." That's how I read it because I don't know anything about this. I'm taking it down for now... See the history when you're ready to add it back, clarified. This is kind of important if you don't want to be sued. Also, who is Caspar Ammann, and how do you spell his name? What antics involved in keeping whose paper alive? What science do visitors need to be educated on?

Paragraph Two: What were the first steps in writing his book? --Jp07 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Caspar Ammann is a climatologist, and that is how you spell his name :), The replication is about Ammann`s paper, which he said reproduced Mann`s work. There was a lot of jigary pokery by the IPCC to ensure the paper could be used by them so they could also continue to use Mann`s hockey stick graph. Thats the short version. His results also failed btw as he used the same proxies as Mann had, ie Bristlecone Pine which are no good for reconstructions. mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)(edit conflict)

Speaking of IPCC... who are they? Try to avoid acronyms to enhance clarity.--Jp07 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno what blog he was looking at, i can ask him if needed Same for paragraph two mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

My previous comment on potentially libelous statements also applies to "reproduce" here. Distinguish this from "plagiarism," if applicable, please. If you do discuss instances of court determined plagiarism anywhere in this document, you need to cite a court case or you're risking a court case of your own. You cannot discuss plagiarism at all if a court has not called it plagiarism... unless you want to be sued. I'm going to remove this sentence for now as well. --Jp07 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Same comment applies to "reconstruction." You can fix all of these things by referring to the history, when you get a chance. --Jp07 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The name McIntyre appears without prior reference as to who he is. 202.47.230.22 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC) rbradford 10:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception

George Gilder's quote is a bit large and unwieldy for this article. I suggest you paraphrase it or pick out the most important part... especially with all of the jargon. Here's a hint: newspapers are written at the fifth-grade level. I suggest you write for Misplaced Pages in the same manner. Not necessarily because the readers are incapable of understanding, but if it takes too much work to dissect a piece of writing, most people will skip it. You want it to be easy for the average reader to extract the meaning. To be honest, I just skimmed the quote.--Jp07 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Same thing applies to Booker's quote.--Jp07 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Booker's quote is probably OK. I suggest that you break it up into two sentences, though. Write it like this:

"Blah blah blah ... pauses," Booker said. "Second half of statement blah blah blah."

Then you'll be good. --Jp07 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

General thoughts

OK -- so my copy edit is pretty much complete. I took care of all the minor fixes and did a little bit of restructuring and so forth to make it read better. I tried to identify all of the areas of confusion and omission; you want to try to answer as many of your readers questions as possible. As you proofread your writing, think: What questions could I ask here? Who, what, when, where, why and so what (a.k.a. who cares)? If any of this information is missing, do your best to work it in.

Also... what was the result of the findings? I'm not completely sure. I believe you're indicating that they found that popular opinion on climate change is incorrect and that it isn't that bad. I suggest you explicitly write this out, if that is the case. Try to eliminate any ambiguity there since the findings are arguably the most important part of this article. Honestly, you might ought to consider placing the findings in the first paragraph. See the inverted pyramid for guidance.

And my final note: I didn't check the spellings and capitalization of organizations, technical terms, names, etc. Make sure you look at this; if you get any of this wrong, it damages your credibility. The best way to determine this is to look at how the organization or person spells their own name. If you can't determine this with a reasonable amount of research, just try to make sure you stay consistent with your spelling and capitalization throughout the article.

Nice job, overall! I think you identified an article that was in need of writing and that was not being picked up. If you look at it from a marketing standpoint, that's great. You want to serve those underserved markets! Keep it up.--Jp07 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And by the way... I'll probably forget to come back and fix all of these things that I'm leaving you questions about, so you might want to address those on your own :). If you want another copy edit later, feel free to ask again, but I'm taking 17 hours this semester and I do plenty of research on my own... so I'll probably opt out on that portion, haha.--Jp07 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems?

This has the usual problems, but to begin: Criticisms of Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, as well as the ensuing hockey stick controversy, are also included in the book. - is that of supposed to be by? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was blatant vandalism disruptive, refrain from doing such things again mark nutley (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I disagree. I've reverted you, of course. Also, please clearly mark your reverts as such William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is vandalismdisruptive and if you do not self revert i will do it for you. I have also left a warning on your talkpage. You have not ref`s for what you added, it is pure POV revert or i will and then file a request against you for your wp:disruptive editing mark nutley (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Last chance: calling good faith edits vandalism is, at least in my view, incivil. Please redact your comments William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing good faith about your edit, it is vandalismdisruptive to insert junk like that into an article. It is painfully obvious what you are doing here, you wish to make the article unstable so it can`t go up for GA status mark nutley (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be displaying a battleground mentality, and you've already been told that the edits are not vandalism. Your continued incivility makes a mockery of your civility parole. To pretend that this book has nothing negative at all to be said about it; and to evade the biases of all the positive reviews; clearly makes this article POV; I've tagged it as such William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And you are still being disruptive, i have looked at all the reviews and there is not one which is a bad review, stop being disruptive mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC: If you know of anything negative to be said about the book that can be properly sourced, feel free to add that. But you can't reasonably claim the book "has been ignored by everyone else " simply on the basis of your assumption that this book *must* be wrong because of the kind of people who like it and/or the kind of things it seems to be saying. It is not POV to summarize the reviews that *are* available. Yes, the people who first chose to read and review the book do tend to be the sort of people who like that sort of book. That will be the case for most books, on most topics. --Blogjack (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right on the "of." My bad. What exactly are the "usual problems," though? And also, I do agree that some sourced negative reception needs to be recognized, but considering that this was only just published in March 2010, I think we will need to wait for a reputable critic to compose a negative reaction. I checked several databases and couldn't find anything ... negative or positive. Give it some time and address it when you can.--Jp07 (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The two additions by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) here by inserting: "he book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." and again "The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." is disruptive. He knows very well that such claims needs very sound and reliable sources to claim. Nsaa (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be disruptive - i'll give no opinion on that. But it is correct, and even skeptics should have realized that by now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually almost nothing in this article is based on "sound and reliable sources", as I pointed out days ago. "True but unsourced" is certainly better than "dubious and unsourced", which is the current state of much of the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This article presents an in-universe climate change denial position, it may be difficult finding sources specifically referring to it and showing the mainstream views of its claims, but it's necessary for NPOV. Carry on. . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In-universe is the correct description. (thank you for that one). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Souza is wrong on his point, the article presents an AGW skeptic (not climate change) position, AGW and climate change are not the same, many (even most) skeptics believe climate change is quite natural, in fact the book suggests there has been more climate change (historically) than the AGW camp believes. Template:Unsigned-unk

That's beside the point. It's written from an "in-universe" perspective which ignores the mainstream. And that's contrary to policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What Guettarda said... As a pointer to this please check WP:UNDUE specifically the paragraph starting with "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint..." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a minority viewpoint; it's an article about a book which takes a minority viewpoint. The article should be about the book, not the viewpoint. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I already answered this question of yours in the next section: We don't - or shouldn't - write articles which can leave readers with the impression that Hogwarts is a real place, even if we are writing an article about "the book". The same applies here. It would be nice if you read the answer to your question before repeating it. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same, but you've said it better. Much as we begin the article about Hogwarts by saying it is fictional, we could solve the POV problems of this article by a disclaimer at the beginning. Fictional (or better: propaganda) would do, but I don't suppose Lar's team would go for that. Has anyone got a better suggestion? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The analogy is false; this article is analogous to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, not to Hogwarts. It's about a book. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah... Since I already addressed just that issue, I can only conclude that you're just being intentionally obtuse. I will treat your future comments accordingly. Guettarda (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsure as to why people are talking about wp:fringe or as has been said above "Fictional" this is neither a minority viewpoint nor fictional, it would also be nice if an editor actually gace a reason for the pov tag other than the somewhat spurious ones so far put forward, thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's non-mainstream. Fiction in an analogy. The answers you seek are in this section; start with Dave's comment on 23:02, 9 April 2010. Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@JAJ: HPatPS begins "is a novel", which implies fictional. I don't think you're suggesting we add "fictional" to this one, so could you clarify what you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda. How do you interpret this as non mainstream, it is a history of the hockey stick, can you tell me how you feel what is essentially a history book can be outside the mainstream? mark nutley (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the title of the book. It's the same as the title of the article. There's enough information there to strongly suggest that it's promoting a non-mainstream view. If you can't recognise that, I can't really help you. The onus is on you to gain at least a basic understanding of topics you want to edit. Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the book before commenting on it, never judge a book by it`s cover. The title is hardly outside the mainstream either is it, and if it is perhaps you could actually explain your reasoning? mark nutley (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so has the POV tag been added because the editor feels that the book itself is POV, and thus this article is also because it doesn't discredit the book? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you mean, does the book have a point of view at variance with mainstream science or reality, then yes indeed it does William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The book does not have a point of view at variance with "mainstream science", it is a book describing something which happened. That`s it. How do you think it is what you say? mark nutley (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the book claim to unravel the graph? Which I would read as find so many faults in it that the graph becomes meaningless, which is contrary to the viewpoint of mainstream science. As the mainstream finds the graph useful (not perfect off course).83.86.0.74 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

I see that the {{POV}} tag has been added by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) without any explanation. As far as I can see the article is well referenced and balanced. I removed the POV tag, and if someone can add a rationale for inclusion please do it here at the discussion page. Nsaa (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

without any explanation - were you to bother reading the section just above you'd have seen where I bothered to give an explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't understand your explanation. Could you possibly explain succinctly exactly what your complaint is? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, you are. See the section above, entitled "Problems?". See my comments there? Read them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag, per the section above. Hopefully Nsaa will find the time to read that section sometime William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

William, I'm afraid I can't even understand your grammar, never mind your supposed explanation. The POV tag was simply nonsense. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like plain English to me. As for the POV tag, read Dave's comment. He takes the time to lay it out quite clearly for those unfamiliar with policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out how "You're right, you are" can be a reply to "I'm afraid I didn't understand your explanation", unless William is suggesting I'm afraid of something? He clearly thinks he's saying something, but I really have no idea what it is. Re Dave Souza, I guess you mean the "in universe" critique? This is interesting, but this article is about the book, not about the underlying issue. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't - or shouldn't - write articles which can leave readers with the impression that Hogwarts is a real place, even if we are writing an article about "the book". The same applies here. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out how "You're right, you are" can be. Sigh. Read your edit comment William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Connolley only says it "has the usual problems" and identifies a typo that has since been fixed, there's no explanation. It looks like vandalism to me, Connolley appears to have a beef with the book itself, he is the one with the POV issue. I would revert the POV tag if I knew how, perhaps someone else would be kind enough. Also is there a way to report Connolleys vandalism, he seems to be all over many 'climate change' related articles, his point of view on this subject might be over-represented on Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.243.130 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no need for this POV tag. Bundsche (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're scibaby and you're banned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a POV tag on an article is no big deal. Let's work our way through resolving it. WMC, what issues need to be resolved before you'll agree to removing the tag? Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know a {{POV}} tag should be followed up with substantial comments on the discussion page. On the POV page we can read "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." and "should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." which is how I interpret WMC inserting of it as. The way forward is to identify problematic areas as done below in the last three treads. Nsaa (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion. It is in the section above this one. MN has done his best to derail it with spurious allegations of vandlaism, but if you ignore him you can still read the discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could reprise the issues you feel remain? I'm sure we would all find that helpful. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Connolly's edits are comparable to those made to the 'evolution' article by people with a religious faith, for the non-believer the evidence is not compelling at all, there are too many holes, both side obviously see views opposite to theirs as not being 'neutral'. Connolley and others argue in many 'climate change' related articles on Misplaced Pages that the AGW skeptic viewpoint is simply invalid because it's a minority view, yet he is a prolific Misplaced Pages contributor always suppressing alternative positions then claiming there's no debate. He routinely disrupts articles opposing his view and lost his Misplaced Pages admin status because of it, he is incapable of neutrality.

The book may expose valid shortcomings in the science behind the production of the 'hockey stick' graph which appears to suppress both the 'Medieval Warm Period' and 'Little Ice Age', the elimination of this historically documented climate variation should of course be based on sound science, if the proxy based science has weaknesses then it and the computer models based on it should be treated with skepticism and thoroughly tested. A genuine scientist would be open to criticism of their methods, it allows the science to improve. MWP/LIA deniers like Connolley seem to either believe there's nothing left to learn, or more likely they have a preconceived view and select data to suit it (ie. not neutral).

The book is a reaction to the failure of the climate science community to adequately test their own work, or allow those skeptical of it to test it. It contains a factual historical record of events leading up to publication of the 'Hockey Stick' by the IPCC. Much of the record was (rather fortuitously) confirmed by the scientists involved when CRU emails were leaked in 2009. Clearly the book will not have a neutral point of view, but this article can.

There is a general POV problem with climate science related articles on Misplaced Pages, Connolley and other followers of the AGW religion are responsible. This is still a very active area of research, there is still much to learn, there is extensive debate and the science is not settled. Misplaced Pages has been hijacked by the WMP/LIA deniers who seek to further discredit any work that goes against their faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.36.245 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Try rephrasing that without the personal comments. Focus on content, not contributors. Guettarda (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This adds to the POV problems William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a point of view, see This section please mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion relates the story of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph

Another POV problem is over The Hockey Stick Illusion relates the story of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. But this is an error: the graph isn't Mann's. It is however true that the skeptics usually say it is. So either this needs correcting to "MBH" or it needs correcting to "What the author calls M but is actually MBH". I'm not sure which is appropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Both, I think: " the graph...published in...which the author calls..." It's our responsibilty to give adequate context so that readers know what we're talking about without having to click through the link, but without recounting the entire article that lies on the other end of the hyperlink. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that we should describe the paper by naming all the editors in it as it has been done now by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs). Although it may be propper to only use his name in som circumstances. For example Michael Mann was the lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report on the paleoclimate chapter (Montford,p.39 and p.310). Where he was in the position to review his own work (sic) and writing the final chapter promoting his own hockey stick graph. McIntyre has said that this would be entirely illegal outside of a banana republic according to this book.(Montford,p.310). In the Wegman report we have a graph (see figure 5.3 replicated in the book in figure 9.2 (Montford,p.254)) and some discussion about how "independent" the reconstructions are seen from a social network view and how Mann is in the center of this community of paleoclimatists. I.e. Using Mann alone may be appropriate in the context of the Hockey stick graph.

Source

• Montford, Andrew (2010). The Hockey Stick Illusion; Climategate and the Corruption of Science. Stacey International. p. 482. ISBN 1906768358.

So on this point we do not need to uphold the POV tag. I will suggest that WMC and others that says the article has a WP:NPOV issue keep on with this kind of comments, and not as we have seen in the two discussions above. Nsaa (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Mountford really say For example Michael Mann was the lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report on the paleoclimate chapter (Montford,p.39 and p.310)? If so, the book is worse than I thought. The TAR doesn't *have* a palaeo chapter . Mann was *a* lead author of chapter 2, but not a coordinating lead author. AR4 has a paaleo chapter but Mann wasn't a lead author. What has Mountford been smoking? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please strike your above comments as they violate wp:blp. Thank you. I will check the book again and let you know what he has written ok mark nutley (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 2 has two paleoclimate sections, so I see no problem in describing this as the paleoclimate chapter (i.e., the chapter which discusses paleoclimate) in a semi-popular text. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How very generous of you; but even given that generosity you still have the problem that Mann is *a* lead author, not *the* lead author. This is all of a piece with the usual personalisation; indeed I've only just corrected the usual "Mann's hockey stick" stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem at all; I'm just pointing out the facts. The phrasing "the lead author" rather than "a lead author" is certainly loose, but this is a semi-popular book. Do you happen to know how the lead authors divided up responsibility for this chapter? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A rather than The was my main point; if this was in the article it would be a problem; as it is, it is just a convenient example of AM's carelessness. No I don't know how the stuff was divvied up, sorry; I was never involved with that stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bratby

Who is Phillip Bratby, and why do we care about his opinion? Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Its basically a self-published source, since everyone was invited to comment on the inquiry. And i can't see what his relevance is either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph has now been removed by Guettarda (talk · contribs). As long as this is true (self published on the site parliament.uk "Memorandum submitted by Phillip Bratby (CRU 17)". Archived from the original on 2010-04-11. ) I aggree with this removal, and we have solved another WP:NPOV issue. Great! Nsaa (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Gilder quote

The Gilder quote appears to be self-published - it doesn't appear to have had even cursory attention from an editor (Columbo or Colombo? "Hockey Stick" or "hockey stick"?) and I'm not sure what sort of expertise Gilder is supposed to have on the topic. But even more than that, it's basically one long quote that doesn't make sense. "Columbo figure"? Is the average reader supposed to have a clue what that means? And why is that 90-word sentence quoted in entirety? It's almost incomprehensible in the original context. Reproduced here, devoid of context (or critical commentary, in violation of WP:NFCC), it's meaningless. Yeah, it's one of the few comments on the book. But it's self-published, it comes from a source (the DI) known to be unreliable, and Gilder is not an expert on any of this. So, again, what's the point of it? Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Glider and Calder quotes probably both need to come out. Calder's quote is from the book itself via Amazon. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gilder quote is out by Guettarda (talk · contribs) and it looks fine. I think if this should be used we need to pinpoint that its published on the policy think tank Discovery Institutes page (as we do now ). I don't see that its self published. Can you indicate why (that no one has removed the typos, it doesn't indicate that it's not published under editorial control as you indicate by stating its self published)? Columbo TV series was great, and even know it's cool to watch it sometimes – an interesting comparison ;-) Nsaa (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just rewrote the full quote and added an explanation and link for the Columbo stuff. Nsaa (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For context on Gilder, since not all may be familiar with him: his Telecosm2007 (his conference) introduction extolled Arthur Robinson, OISM Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and Noah Robinson's talk "The Global Warming Myth". It may be instructive to watch the first 2 minutes (Gilder's intro to Robinson) of video .

Gilder is a long-time Forbes Magazine Board Member , owner Steve Forbes has very clear views "Fantasy Fears" and quoted "Mary Ellen Gilder, a medical school student at Albany Medical College (and daughter of noted technologist and FORBES newsletter partner, George Gilder)" to disprove global warming, Al Gore, etc. It was first posted at OISM although it has since since been propagated elsewhere by Gilder and others. JohnMashey (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Calder

Kim has again slapped a rs tag on this, with the edit comment Blurbs on book covers are not reliable - typically written by someone asked to write a positive review However unless i see a reliable source saying calder was asked to give a good review then i suggest this tag be removed. Calder is a notable person and i doubt he would give a good review if he did not think the book was indeed well written. mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Book pre-reviews are generally not reliable. They are typically written by people who are asked to write a positive review. Exceptions to this is rare - in fact the only one i can remember where it wasn't the case, is Heinleins praise of the The Mote in God's Eye, which he refused to write unless they made significant changes (Heinleins praise was one of the toughest things to get)... it was so rare for Pournelle and Niven that they wrote about it.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, were is your wp:rs which states Calder was asked to write a positive review? If you do not have one please remove the tag. mark nutley (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it is up to you to convince us that it is a reliable source. Book covers and blurbs are generally not reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No kim, you slapped a tag on it, it is for you to prove the tag is needed, please do so. It is alos you who are saying reviews on book covers are not reliable not I, so again please show me a reliable source stating they are not, thank you mark nutley (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark it would really be nice, if you'd once in a while would take note of the fact, that editors who have been here a while, have a more extensive experience with what a reliable source is, and how tags are supposed to be used. (that of course doesn't mean that they are correct - but it should give thought) For your information this regularly comes up at WP:RSN and generally blurbs are considered unreliable. They are alway selected from "friendly" sources (have you ever seen a critical blurb?)- they are often quoted out of context, even when they are quoted from a real review. Here is one such discussion on RS/N, which touches upon several of the problems with Amazon reviews and blubs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this link Kim, very helpful. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I don't think the Calder quote should be in the article either. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Could a compromise be to say that the quote is On the book cover ... or something like that? Then we clearly say that this comment is accepted by the autor of the book as a selling point. (in this regard the comment could be negative, iff the publisher sees it as big selling point(?). is this compromise workable? Nsaa (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Comments off book covers or book jackets, as far as I know, have not ever been considered as acceptably reliably sourced in Misplaced Pages. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

More wp:or

Given we have refs which say this book covers the history of the hockey stick graph we have had WMC and now KDP inserting a wp:pov using wp:or tp say that it only covers "Some", with no refs as usual to back this ludicrous claim. So lets get this over with, KDM an WMC were is your ref`s for the content you are trying to insert mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit history before you froth over. And where are the refs for your claim? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that diff makes no sense to what i wrote above. Both yourself and KDP have inserted wp:or with your claims. My refs are the refs in the article all of which say in one form or another the book covers the history of the hockey stick. You are the one inserting a POV into the article, as you as usual do not have a ref to support your text. mark nutley (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief, was there something about source: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/questions+for+aposclimategateapos+boss+facing+mps/3566117 that you failed to understand? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good grief indeed, you are putting "The book covers some of the history of the "hockey stick graph" Your ref actually says a book covering some of the events leading up to so-called Climategate This is of course already covered in the article The last few chapters of the book deal with the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. As i said, you are engaging in wp:or And who the hell put Climatic Research Unit email controversy It`s called Climategate, that`ll have to be changed mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're pushing a fringe viewpoint with a pov section title – that's unacceptable in any article, and particularly unacceptable in a BLP. Don't do it. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave what the hell are you on about? What POV section title? What BLP? This is an article about a book mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's called Climatic Research Unit email controversy, get used to it. The fringe pov claims haven't stood up to independent analysis. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No it`s called "Climategate" get used to it. Given that is in the title of the book and all. As i said that`ll have to be changed mark nutley (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

Moved from my talk page - Guettarda (talk)

This is not in further reading, bookers book is. This is a Bibilography Bell, Stewart. The Martyr's Oath: The Apprenticeship of a Homegrown Terrorist. Mississauga, ON: Wiley, 2005. Further reading is totally different mate mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, it still doesn't belong here. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does, thats what a bibiography is for, why do you think it does not need one? mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A bibliography in what sense? Not, I assume, in the sense of being a list of works by an author. And if it's in the Lit. cited sense, well, (a) there's already a reference section, and (b) it isn't cited, and shouldn't be, since this is an article about the book itself. Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC`s tags

Are pointless, All the stuff he tagged is in the matt ridley ref, perhaps he should read the articles the refs link to instead of just tagging everything, if someone would be kind enough to remove those tags i`d be grateful, unless of course WMC would care to? mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I usually find it's simpler just to add references. I've done most of them now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed all the tags except for one (the specify tag) which I don't understand; not sure if this was one of WMC's. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats Guettarda`s i assume he means specify what the crits by Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre are mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - the sentence, as phrased, isn't clear what McK and McI have criticised. I asssume it's MBH, but the sentence is a bit ambiguous and I'd rather not fix it without knowing what the source really says. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll leave that bit to you. Let me know if you need any help with references etc. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

El Rego isn't an RS for any personal info (or anything else, come to that). So ref 3 has to go. is also used as a ref for him being a science publisher, but only says "works in..." in a postscript; this is a poor ref. The Courier ref conveniently avoids an online source. A search for Montford at its site turns up nowt William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed The Register. I can't see the problem with the THES as a reference, and there's nothing wrong with using newspaper stories that aren't online. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that non-online sources can be used. However, is it at all odd that Montford doesn't show up anywhere in there archives? Who verified this reference? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy which I have just checked - revealing that I had misremembered the date - so thanks for making me check! Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"sceptic accountant" is what the granuiad calls him. Perhaps he is, indeed, sceptical of accountancy. Who knows? Perhaps this points to the source not being so great. But don't diddle it around to fit your preconceptions William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me which version reads better, this one - "In 2005 Andrew Montford, a British accountant, science publisher and author of the Bishop Hill Blog, who is sceptical of man made climate change." Or this one "In 2005 Andrew Montford, a British sceptic accountant, science publisher and author of the Bishop Hill Blog", I personally think the first reads better. The second just looks silly mark nutley (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first one is better. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, then when my revert comes around at around one today i can fix that plus change WMC`s change of climategate to Climatic Research Unit email controversy., which is also just silly as the book has climategate in the title mark nutley (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

However, the one I've used is *the one in the source*. I wonder if either of you has any respect for the source? Cla at least I would have expected better from William M. Connolley (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment WMC. Yes, Mark, make sure the sentence doesn't contain anything that the reference doesn't. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As you ca nsee from my text above it does not add anything, just moves it around a bit for readability, thanks mark nutley (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored your text but moved the references around to answer WMC's concerns. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we now ref several claims to a newspaper that only you have seen and which doesn't show up in that papers archives William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that The Courier has a circulation of around 80,000; it therefore seems unlikely that I am the only person who has seen this particular article. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I could check ProQuest NewsStand but I trust Mr. Jones. If you don't have access to that database, WMC, I guess you could make a trip down to your local library. Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a copy of it on Montford's blog. Not in Lexis, not in ProQuest, so it's hard to verify independently. It needs independent verification, of course, but I'm guessing that's the source being used here. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan has verified it above, plus it`s on his blog. What further verification do we need? Is it legal to scan a page and upload it so we can see it? mark nutley (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have glanced at the blog copy and it looks like a broadly accurate transcript, though I certainly haven't checked word by word. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. I've looked at the blog text and there are problems with the paraphrase we're using. The blog says With a background in accountancy and a business knocking scientific papers and books into shape for publishers. This is not the same as being an accountant. It is not the same as being a "science publisher" (there are other obvious inaccuracies such as His work resulted in the Hockey Stick being discredited as an accurate temperature record. but since no-one is suggesting using that text we don't have to care too much) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And to follow that up - it is clear that the info in the courier is provided by M himself - we're not pretending it was indep research by the paper, are we? So there is no indep source for this at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

William, if you have any detailed knowledge of the Courier's fact-checking processes I'm sure we would be delighted to have you share it. Absent this your comment is just speculation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the reverse is just *your* speculation. And I notice you've totally ignored the accountant problem I raised William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense; I'm just treating a newspaper as a reliable source until evidence to the contrary is presented. I'm surprised you feel this is controversial. Re the accountant "problem", I have no problem with the original phrasing, but I'm entirely relaxed about other people who do have a problem with it proposing a solution. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the obvious here, A background in means he has worked in those fields. It does not say he no longer works in those fields, We also have several sources saying he is a science publisher and has worked as an accountant. I fail to see any issues here whatsoever. mark nutley (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it, i had to rollback to Cla`s last edit though as WMC had broken a ref and i could not find were. It has all been reworded like WMC has suggested above mark nutley (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate"

I note that MN is still pushing his bizarre "this is what all the sources call it" unmarked reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear that it is the book that is calling it by that name. Cla68 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

pov tag

Can we lose it now? There is simply no crits of this book to be found mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Please engage with the problems in the "problems?" section William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets start over here, what is the first problem you see with the article? mark nutley (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

{EC}Which specific problems remain outstanding? Perhaps I can help resolve them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about we begin by you *reading* the problem? section. Then you could answer your own question! William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That`s all very messy, and i actually see no problems up there which have not been addressed please post what you think are the problems so we can sort it out, thank you mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which issues have been fixed and which ones haven't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be helpful if those who believe problems remain could actually state clearly what they are rather than making vague allusions to other sections. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it might be helpful if there was some indication that the editors asking the questions weren't aware of the section he's talking about. But given that you've participated in the discussion in that section, your comment rings rather hollow. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I really am doing by best to understand that section. The complaints I can find are as follows (1) a vague allusion to the "usual problems"; (2) a comment about the use of "by" rather than "of"; (3) some complaints about references; (4) a complaint about POV. I guess it is (4) that WMC is referring to but for the avoidance of doubt I will also deal with (1)-(3). (1) is too vague to answer. (2) is purely grammatical and has been dealt with. (3) there has been an extensive debate about citations with copious addition of tags, and their subsequent removal, and as far as I can tell there is no longer any problem. Finally I turn to (4); the problem here is that the complaint seems to be about the POV of the book, not the POV of the article; Cla68's question as to whether some authors believe that "the POV tag" has "been added because the editor feels that the book itself is POV, and thus this article is also because it doesn't discredit the book?" being the key one. Since this article is about the book the only thing we can possibly do is write about the book. WMC seemed to want to add some sort of disclaimer at the start, but he made no suggestion about what form this disclaimer might take (or rather he suggested one form and then immediately rejected it). If WMC would suggest a possible disclaimer, or indicate in some other way how he thinks the supposed POV problem could be fixed then we might actually get somewhere, and I find his apparent unwillingness to do so a trifle mystifying. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant part of WP:UNDUE that comes into play:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

This is also what is alluded whenever people are saying that it is written "in-universe". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What specific changes do you recommend, KDP? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kim. As I'm sure you recall, my answer to that was that article is not about a minority viewpoint, it's about a book which takes a minority viewpoint, and so WP:UNDUE does not directly come into play, although we should indeed see what aspects of this and related policies are indeed relevant. (I would suggest in particular the sections Characterizing opinions of people's work, Attributing and specifying biased statements, and Making necessary assumptions.) To give an analogy, this article is similar to The Great Global Warming Swindle, not to Global warming conspiracy theory or Climate change denial.

I have found looking at that article very helpful. It starts off with an opening sentence which might be considered a disclaimer of the kind WMC was suggesting. After a brief introduction in then summarizes the claims of the film, making clear that these are the claims of the film, but otherwise without comment on their veracity. Then there is a set of responses to the film, some positive, some negative, including the Ofcom investigation. Finally there are some brief technicalities (awards, distribution, etc.). I personally have no problem with this approach, though others may disagree, and the article has no POV tag, so most people seem to have accepted this approach.

With the exception on the opening sentence the current form of this article broadly follows the same pattern (there are no negative comments, but so far nobody has found any in reliable sources; this is unfortunate but I'm not sure what can be done about it). So would people be happy if some suitable opening sentence could be agreed on? If so it would be helpful if either WMC or Kim could make an initial suggestion about what form it might take. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is just the trouble that we do not have critical responses - because the book has basically been ignored by the mainstream. This is not an excuse for not presenting deviations from mainstream. This is similar to the situation in many pseudoscience areas , where the "science" isn't taken seriously. Despite this, all such articles have such a presentation - WP:NPOV demands it. Btw. your argument that we cannot write such a thing, because of lack of material, is something that people editing such articles invariably use - but to no avail. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, we all agree that the lack of critical responses is unfortunate, and we all agree that this lack reflects the fact that no such critical responses exist in reliable sources. We probably even agree on why this is the case, though that is just speculation on everybody's part. The real question is what can be done to fix this problem, and this is where I am having trouble understanding your statements above. If I may echo AQFK's request, what specific changes do you recommend? You say, "all such articles have such a presentation", so what "presentation" should this article have? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets just say that we have an example just below here (Mark's). Mark apparently got this impression from reading the article - and that is exactly the situation/impression that we (per NPOV) cannot present/give. We are dealing with a book that is highly polarized and thus we must present it as such. We can't give the impression that it is a "history" book that presents an authoritative and unbiased view of the situation. It is unfortunate that we do not have 2ndry sources to describe it - but per policy we must describe that this is a minority viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Which policy says that because you think it is a highly polarized book means we should ignore the reliable sources which say this is a history of the hockey stick? Per policy we use what the sources say, not make something up so as to suit a particular viewpoint. I got no impressions from reading this article, i wrote the article. I have also read the book, and i can assure you it actually covers everything. Even the "Other Side" as it were, you know, all their excuses for their behaviour. Now as we have no wp:rs saying A- this book is not accurate. B- this book is highly polarized. then your idea of putting in unsourced information to try and ensure the book is? What exactly do you want to put in here? mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, as far as I recall Mark created this article, which makes it difficult to ascribe his views to his reading of the current version. More generally, I have repeatedly agreed with you that some sort of indication that this book reflects a minority viewpoint would be highly appropriate. What I am still trying to determine is what form such an indication should take, and in particular what your opinion is on that question. As indicated previously I personally suspect that we can make a start by modifying the initial sentence. I am sensitive to Mark's concern that any changes should be reliably sourced, but that shouldn't be too difficult if we are careful about wording. For example, we could perhaps describe Montford as a climate change sceptic, something for which we already have reliable sources. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It already says he is an AGW sceptic, so unless we make something up then it has to say as is, and the POV tag can go mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes; I was suggesting moving this to the first sentence. Since you seem happy with this idea I will do so. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And with that done i suggest the tag be removed so we can get this article ready for GA status mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about removing the tag, but wanted to give Kim a bit more time to respond before removing it. Kim, for the avoidance of doubt I disagree with most of Mark's comments below, but I also consider them irrelevant given the number of caveats and disclaimers in the current text (mostly Cla68's work as far as I recall). I also believe his hopes of good article status are, to say the least, optimistic, but once again this doesn't affect the fundamental point about removing the tag. If you have any further objections I would of course be delighted to hear them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

the book does not take a minority pov, it charts the history of mann et al`s mbh98 work. Unless kim is saying that MBH98 is a minority viewpoint then his argument is highly flawed mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mark, but that is not correct. The book presents Montford's view on the history - not the history. And Montford's views are highly polarized focusing on the minority viewpoint - and basically skimming over the majority one. Its written (from the parts i've read) - more as a conspiracy novel than a history book. . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim you are incorrect, it is a history book. And this article is about a book, not montford. I think you will find your opinions here on what parts you read do not matter. Just the facts. The facts are, this book charts the history of mbh98, that is not taking a minority viewpoint, it is just a perspective of history. Save your minority arguments for articles which deal with the "science" not for history books mark nutley (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The facts are, this book charts the history of mbh98, that is not taking a minority viewpoint - nooo, none of those are facts, they are bald assertions on your part, and implausible ones at that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We have reliable sources saying this charts the history of the hockey stick, might we see your ref`s to say otherwise please? You can`t just keep saying no to removing the tag, you actually have to give a reason mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and list the sources here, Mark, along with what they say about the book's account of the history of the graph, and we can go from there. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

{{od]]

Ok, here are what the sources say.

• It is the biography of a graph
• A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team"

That says rather more about your (lack of) understanding of RS than about the book William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content not me please. As i asked above, were are your refs stating this is not a history of the hockey stick? AS you have none i shall remove the pov tag. mark nutley (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that either the synopsis is wrong or the book isn't just describing history. In the synopsis this is stated: "the book traces the history of what it claims is the slow unraveling of that same graph.", now this means to me that the books holds a point of view on how scientific the '98 article by MBH is, a negative one contrary to the mainstream point of view. So if this indeed not what the book states, we need to correct the synopsis to more accurately describe the book.

Unrelated to the earlier point, but I would be careful using the as a source on scientific topics. They support intelligent design as just another scientific explanation, while wikipedia afaik does not.83.86.0.74 (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis reads like that as it was insisted upon by some editors that as there are no actual critiques of the book then that would be the more wp:npov of putting it, for that read adding crits without any actual referances. Ridiculous i know. mark nutley (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here`s something of note, from Dr Judith Curry "I have seen no mention on Real Climate of Andrew Montford’s (Bishop Hill) book “The Hockey Stick Illusion.” If Montford’s arguments and evidence are baseless, then you should refute them. They deserve an answer, whether or not his arguments are valid. And stating that you have refuted these issues before isn’t adequate; the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative. This clinch`s it, if she says it`s a complete narrative then thats what it is mark nutley (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Real Climate is not a reliable source for this. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is, i have seen RC used as a source as the people who run the site are "Experts in their field" so this source is just fine. In fact kim just reinserted it into an article Hockey stick controversy mark nutley (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim's reference was to an opening post on RealClimate, not to a comment. I assume his argument is that there is some certainty over the identity of the poster in this case, while there is none in the case of a commentator. This sort of thing is borderline but can be acceptable under the policy; it comes down to a judgment call in each case, and if you think Kim is making bad calls you should challenge him. But blog comments are quite different.

If Judith were to start her own blog and post these comments there then you might have a case; for a comment on another blog you simply don't. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If Gavin Schmidt has taken the time to respond to her post i doubt there is any question over her identity. If there were the comment would not have appeared on that site as they excercise full moderation. Perhaps one for the reliable sources noticeboard? Until we have an answer to this I`ll refrain from putting it back into the article. But i think it can be used here as proof that the book is a full account of the hockey stick mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RC posts are RS> Comment threads aren't, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RC posts may be acceptable as reliable sources, but as with any self-published sources must be used with care. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Again no sources to say this is not a factual account of the hockey stick, as such i shall now remove the pov tag mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of blog comments

In this edit, since undone by me, Marknutley references a blog comment - not even a blog posting, to assert that the purported "author" of that blog comment said something. I suggest that a blog comment is not a reliable source, even for it's own content, and I suggest that a blog comment is not notable without independent third party sources of unquestionable reliability commenting on it. I further suggest that those of you who have denialist credibility in Marknutley's eyes inform him that his continued use of blatently unreliable sources presents a serious problem with his continued editing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some blogs clearly mark comments by the blog author(s). Anything other than that clearly fails verifiability. RealClimate, for example, does not require login. And, of course, I agree that blog comments are even less notable than blog content. Guettarda (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My comments were posted just before this section was created in this edit. I'm not sure if your offensive use of terms like "denialist credibility" is meant to include me, but for the avoidance of doubt I have told Mark repeatedly and clearly that he is completely wrong on this issue. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk)

I don't mean to use denialist credibility as a offensive term. Allow me to state for the record that I don't consider denialist a slur at all, and I apologize if anyone took it as such. As someone who spent a great deal of time with proudly revisionist historians (not holocaust deniers) and unabadishly heterodox economists, I understand that people have phrases they like to be called. I'll try my hardest to use those phrases in the future. Do you know what phrase I should be using?

In the context of this discussion I think the phrase "credibility with Marknutley" is perfectly adequate. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, believe it or not you have credibility with me. I made an assumption, you have pointed out i was wrong. I`m going to follow your advice and ensure i do not use blog comments again mark nutley (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored POV tag

Guettarda, I would be grateful if you could identify which issues you feel remain. Given the complexity of the sections above it would be helpful to have a clear list, rather than a "see above" comment. As usual it would also be particularly helpful if you could suggest how your concerns might be resolved. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As per my edit summary I did not say "see above", as you have claimed. I said the "in universe" issues have not been resolved. It's rather tiresome to deal with your misrepresentation over and over and over again. Guettarda (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel misrepresented; I was trying to ask if you could identify which particular "in universe" issues you believe remain, and how you believe these could be resolved. The edit you refer to below is of some help, but I would be grateful, for example, if you could indicate which if any parts of the text "describe the minority view" without making clear that this is a minority view. As I have said in previous sections I think the caveats and disclaimers already included cover this objection, but since you don't agree I am sure you will be able to point to some specifics. I believe this would help us make progress. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If this was the first time you'd engaged in this sort of behaviour I'd be more than willing to assume good faith. But we are long past that stage. I'm willing to let the past be the past. But you need to stop making these false claims. Simple honesty isn't too much to ask of contributors. Note: "I am sorry if you feel misrepresented" (classic notpology) when, in fact, if you look over this page, I never said "see above" or anything of the sort. When you make words up and put them in other people's mouths, the normal thing to do would be to apologise and strike the comment. You see, first you need to stop. Then you need to establish your ability to communicate in an honest fashion. If you can demonstrate your ability to do that, then I'm willing to extend the assumption of good faith. Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am of course prepared to accept your statement that you believe my comment above misrepresents you, and have therefore struck out the section which I believe you are objecting to; if you would like more struck out then just let me know. Please rest assured that I will attempt to always assume good faith in all my dealings with you. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per MN's comment on my talk page, see Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So were back to that again, this is not a minority view, it is a factual account of the hockey stick`s history. How many times does that need to be said? mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero; because it is wrong. Your bald assertion that it is a factual account of the hockey stick`s history is obviously meaningless. Why are you bothering to repeat it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not meaningless as i have shown refs to prove it. You on the other hand have provided nothing but opinon, either provide refs to support what you say or the tag goes mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, seee my comment of 09:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem - it's written as if it were a factual account. That's what the whole "in universe" problem is about. That's one of the problems with writing from primary sources. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all very fascinating, but could we get back to what's actually in the article? There seem to be two phrases we might be arguing about. One is in the lead where the article says "The book states that it covers the history of the "hockey stick graph"". The other is in the synopsis where the article says "In its seventeen chapters, The Hockey Stick Illusion relates the story of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes's "hockey stick graph"." Are we agreed that the sentence in the lead has enough caveats? If so, are we arguing about the second sentence, or about something else entirely? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda, we have secondary sources saying this is an accurate account of the hockey stick. The primary source being the book, the refs being secondary sources. @WMC please provide a diff or write what your issues is, i do not intend to search the page for a comment. As i have said, we have ref`s saying It is the biography of a graph A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team" and judith curry has said have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative now we have yet to see a source from any editor which says otherwise. Why not? we just get vague complaints about "in universe problems" and whatever WMC is alluding to mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't they used in the article then? The synopsis, for example, is entirely unsourced. And I can't find any mention of Curry among the refs. Of course, it's not just whether something can be supported, it's also how and by whom. But it's not much use to say sources exist if they aren't being used. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok the synopsis is a brief account of the book, so it is of coursed unsourced, the source is the book. For refs which say this is an account of the hockey stick here are two which are used as refs in the article It is the biography of a graph,A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team" Judith curry posted her comments on RC, so they can`t be used as a ref. I think however they can be used in this discussion to show that this book is a factual account of the HS mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, lets get this sorted, we have notable refs stating this is a factual account of the hockey stick. We have none to say otherwise, it`s put up or shut up time. mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i know everyone has been online and no refs having been provided, i`ll remove the tag mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

the synopsis is a brief account of the book, so it is of coursed unsourced - "Of course"? Do you not see that as a problem? Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" was never going to be a very successful strategy. In its seventeen chapters, The Hockey Stick Illusion relates the story of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes's "hockey stick graph". is as bad as it ever was William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is that "Bad"? That is what the book is about mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're just not reading things. Go ask Cla or someone who can William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you meant by "Bad" It is a factual statement as has been described by the refs i provided above. You on the other hand have provided no refs, just your point of view and vague assertions about "stuff being bad" please either be clear in your meaning, and provide refs to back your claims mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Refs for what?

Refs to state that this is not a factual history of the hockey stick. We have refs to say it is, none to say it is not. mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I ordered one from Amazon US, but it hung in "Temporarily out of stock", and Amazon Canada said "usually ships in 2-4 weeks". I happen to have an Amazon UK account as well, so I finally gave up and ordered it from there, and am told ~April 29. I'd guess that relatively few people in USA/Canada have it, unless they ordered it almost instantly from Amazon.uk or someone sent them one. The latter reputedly happens, i.e., some entity buys a bunch to give out to people likley to comment favorably.

Speaking from the side of the pond more relevant to this story, a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition for this to be a "full and factual account" would be "full and factual" explanations of the roles in the creation of the Wegman Report of:

1998 GCSCT meeting; American Petroleum Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute; Myron Ebell, Jeff Kueter, William O'Keefe, James Inhofe, Aloysius Hogan, Joe Barton, Ed Whitfield, Jerry Coffey, Peter Spencer, Antonio Regalado, William Perhach(for starters, there are more).

Presumably, a full and factural account would explain why the Wegman Report seems to contain ~10 pages of unattributed text (plagiarism) from 3 separate books and 2 Wikedia pages. It would explain why (paleo-expert) Ray Bradley's classic text was "adjusted" by non-experts to weaken or even reverse his conclusions. It would explain why some distinguished statisticians would be motivated to do that, or if handed to them by someone else, would have done such a poor job of review in a high-profile report that spent 10 pages attacking paleoclimate peer review. It would explain the surprising number of "grey literature" references. It would explain some fairly strange testimony and many other puzzles.

This whole hockey stick "controversy" would have been gone long ago except for the whole Wegman episode. People still cite Wegman to this day, including McIntyre to Parliament recently.

So, I haven't read the book yet, although not for lack of effort ... but maybe someone who has read it, can assure me that all these are at least covered (even if to explain them away) because if not, the book *cannot* be a full account. Factuality can be assessed later. In the long term, I speculate that the history of this page will make a nice case study.JohnMashey (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying again...

For starters, we need to bear in mind an important part of the WP:NPOV policy

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

It seems pretty safe to say that Montford is espousing a minority viewpoint here. Whether you agree with him or not, the "hockey stick" has been examined by various panels as have the CRU email messages. And it's safe to say that the Montford's take lies outside of the mainstream view of the science. There's nothing in this article that makes it clear to readers that they are reading about fringe views and conspiracy theories. As long as this isn't apparently, it's going to fail NPOV.

In addition, of course, the synopsis is unsourced. That's a problem. Two of the four reviews also come from dubious sources - Booker, who's ability to report on science has been questioned, and Gilder, who co-founded and remains associated with a creationist think-tank. Again, it should be evident to the reader that praise is coming from the fringe. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a minority viewpoint, it is a factual account of the history of the hockey stick. Even Dr Judith Curry agrees with that assessment. And again, this is not about the "science" it is the telling of the events about a past event. This is a blatant attempt to insert a POV to try and make the book appear fringe, and as such not accurate. If you can provide some ref`s to show that this book is not accurate, or fringe, then you can continue with this line, until then you can`t. We have ref`s to say it is accurate, none saying it is not. mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See my discussion under "Restored POV tag". You've read the book, I haven't, yet. Please tell us if it discusses the topics I mentioned and perhaps summarize. If it fails to address these, it will be seen as an "instantly-obsolete" "history" book. So, does it address them or not? Does it ascribe any serious credibility to the Wegman Report and process that led to it?JohnMashey (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This may take some time :) Chapter 9 Senator Barton Takes An Interest- He writes to MBH asking loads of questions, i assume you know what they were. Then the reaction, with all manner of people yelling at barton for asking mann questions. the manns reply to barton, saying his code is his ip and he won`t give it up. then the nas panel is covered. loads of stuff from that, it seems to cover the lot. Next up is the wegman report, can you tell me what exactly it is from this section you want to know? mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you didn't mention the campaign by Myron Ebell et al to recruit and nurture this, via Cooler Heads, CEI, and GMI, in meetings 2001-2005, that led to the Barton/Whitfield letters? Did it explain why Ebell had the letters before some addressees could be guaranteed to have them? Which of the names I mentioned earlier are in the book?

Did it mention the way Barton bypassed the NAS offer and used Jerry Coffey to contact Wegman? Did it talk about Coffey's views on climate science? Did it mention that Wegman and co got much of their reading material through Barton staffer Peter Spencer? (Surely, an expert, unbiased source on paleoclimate?)

Did it mention the seeming plagiarism of Bradley(1999), including changing his text to discredit tree-rings? To add "confounding factors" numerous times, when Bradley's text explains how those factors are dealt with? How about the seeming plagiarism of Wasserman&Faust(1994), deNooy, Mrvar, and Batagelj(2005), and two Misplaced Pages articles?

This doesn't have to take much time: which of the following are mentioned in the book:

1998 GCSCT meeting; American Petroleum Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), Fraser Institute; Myron Ebell, Jeff Kueter, William O'Keefe, James Inhofe*, Aloysius Hogan, Joe Barton**, Ed Whitfield*, Jerry Coffey, Peter Spencer, Antonio Regalado, William Perhach, and I'd add the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife.

The *'d ones seem likely. How about the rest? Presumably the book has an Index and they can be looked up quickly.JohnMashey (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

JohnMashey (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Look yourself Here Just thought of that :), dunno if the index actually covers everything in the book. What does the CEI the API and the CHC have to do with this btw? mark nutley (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was useful. Editors can peruse Front Flap, Back Flap, ToC and Excerpt to form an opinion whether or not this is a minority view. The absence of various relevant names from the Index makes it unlikely this book is a "full and factual" account. The whole hockey-stick "controversy" is one step of a 20-year climate anti-science effort, using the same methods (from 1954) and some of the same people as the previous tobacco campaign. The whole thing was *manufactured*, but some key details have only come to light recently. All that is laid out in the 185-page Report], which has many pointers to transcripts of meetings, FOI emails, and files people shouldn't have left around. V1.0 was March 15, but there is more coming soon, because Canadian blogger Deep Climate keeps finding things... For this discussion, see Figure 2.1 for context, then read Section 5, A.10, and A.12. Online, the easiest way is to have two copies open, using one for the mainline narrative and one jumping around in the Appendices. Although some has only been found in last week, the seeming-plagiarism count looks to be about 10 pages of 90, although the most egregious cases are already out there.JohnMashey (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The intro sez, that M&M have comprehensively discredited the hockey stick. That is, obviously, not the mainstream (science) viewpoint. So I don't see how the book can be considered other than fringe (I notice I get more refs in the index than that James Annan. Perhaps I should buy a copy :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the index say? "William Connolley...writes for RealClimate". Is Montford saying you still do? Is that why all these people land here with their hair on fire spouting that line (as "proof" that there's something wrong with you being here) Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What intro are you looking at? The intro I see doesn't say anything about M&M comprehensively discrediting the hockey stick. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The blurb perhaps - I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Front flap: "...the tireless scrutiny by Steve McIntyre, Professor Ross McKitrick and others which has completely discredited it". Also from the back flap: "The book also covers the leak of the email archives of the Climate Research Unit which led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones, and indicated the degree to which climate scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have hidden and manipulated data to support their claims". Sounds like he's not only pushing a fringe view of the hockey stick, but also that he's pushing the (thoroughly discredited) spin on the email. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even more obvious is page 27-30 (search for Huang) which is the good old-fashioned sceptical conspiracy theory. The book runs the narrative "The MWP was inconvenient and thus it was made to disappear", rather a strong contrast to the mainstream view, which is that as more and more data-sets became available so that the spatial and temporal resolution increased, the MWP faded as a single global event. (it amuses me every time i read this - since the sceptics haven't realized that a warm MWP => high climate sensitivity => IPCC's projection are underestimating future warming). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to the book, Kim? Or are you getting a slightly different excerpt than I am? (Mine ends at page 24). Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Search for Huang - that will place you on pg 29 with the possibility to go back :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it only works if you've purchased something from amazon.co.uk, so I'm out of luck. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mailed the 4 pages to you --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

JohnMashey, thank you for the link to Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony What a fascinating and disturbing history. Before reading it, I didn't understand the scale and sophistication of this attack on science. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Walter. You may find Deep Climate's newest post relevant to this topic as well, as it bears on the most well-known attack on credibility of the paleoclimate community]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMashey (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So now it`s anti-science to ask questions and write a book about a controversy? It is anti science to not ask questions. This is a factual account of the controversy, tell me does A History of the World in the 20th Century cover every single part? Does Churchhill`s A History of the English-Speaking Peoples actually cover every single aspect? Lets keep on topic and keep the anti science junk for blog posts, it does not belong here mark nutley (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So in your opinion it is factual that the MWP was "disappeared" by fraudulent science? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion. Why do you ask? mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked because you stated that the book was factual and hadn't any conflict with how the mainstream science (and others) see the issue. Since that is your opinion - then it explains why you think that it is so. Unfortunately you are letting your personal point of view interfere here - Since mainstream science does not see it this way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

This RFC was interrupted, another shall have to be done mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The neutrality of this RFC is disputed, as well as the improper moving of comments by the RFC creator. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. This RFC is due to an ongoing dispute over the neutrality of this article. Several editors say it should be written from a minority or wp:fringe viewpoint as the author is a sceptic of AGW. Others say that this book is a factual account of the Hockey stick controversy There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account of the history of the hockey stick. It is the biography of a graph A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team" And Dr Judith A. Curry has posted a comment on Real Climate saying,the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative I seek input from other editors to look through the article to judge if the article already meets wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments from uninvolved users What exactly is this RfC asking? Is it simply whether the article, in its current state, warrants a {{pov}} tag? Yilloslime C 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) One of the articles cited in the RFC is a publication of the Discovery Institute, an anti-science, "intelligent design" organization. Praise from such an organization would suggest to a fair-minded reader that this is fringe or agenda-driven material. That such a source is cited may imply that this editor is unable to evaluate the quality of sources for this and similar articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Reductio ad Discovery Institutum? Really?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) That is rather a point of view, it is a review of the book by George Gilder the question is, is this an accurate account of the hockey stick? The ref`s say it is. The other question is, should there be a POV tag on this article as it currently stands? I believe it already meets wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comments from involved users Just as before: you really are too close to this to write a neutral RFC. Find someone you trust, and ask them to look at this *before* you post it. Hint: Several editors say it should be written from a minority or wp:fringe viewpoint is not a position I've heard anyone advocate; and There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account rather begs the question William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I have undone your change and moved your comment to the correct section. As to your points, KDP says this should be written in a minority viewpoint in-universe and again we must describe that this is a minority viewpoint Guettarda in universe and from WMC edit comment, in-universe That is several editors as stated in the RFC. The ref`s speak for themselves. This RFC is written in a neutral manner and covers both sides of the debate, please do not interfere with this process again mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Mark the next time you try to describe what i say, would you at least attempt to describe what i say correctly? This isn't even remotely close to what i've said. +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ Redo from scratch +++ --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Kim you did write what i have written above, are you now saying you do not think this article should reflect a minority viewpoint? mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I have never said that "this should be written in a minority viewpoint". Please do not misrepresent what i say - if you have trouble understanding my argument: Then ask - do not assume. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I can't tell what this RfC is really asking for. The RfC needs to provide specifics as to what the issue is and what has been proposed to resolve it. Discussion on the POV tag was ongoing and hadn't reached a deadlock yet, as far as I could see, so I'm not sure if it was time for an RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC) It has reached deadlock, i keep asking for refs which say this book is not a factual account of the hockey stick, none are ever provided. We have editors saying this article has to be written t oshow it is a miniority viewpoint, thus inserting their POV into the article. I want uninvolved editors to read the article and decide if it is already wp:npov If those who wish to say this is a minority viewpoint do not have refs to back what they are saying then i say this article is already wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I'm with Cla on this. The discussion has been difficult recently, and there are some early signs of deadlock (possibly due as much to mutual incomprehension as to genuine disagreement), but we're not there yet. Furthermore MN is too involved (and probably too inexperienced) to write a useful RFC. I agree with WMC (below) that Cla would be a good person to write an RFC should this eventually prove necessary, and that this RFC should be withdrawn, though I think discussions of sanctions against MN are inappropriate at this stage. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I think that it is regrettable that MN has learnt nothing from his previous experiences. This RFC is not written in a neutral manner and so is unacceptable. I had hoped that MN might ask one of his friends to rewrite it but an unexpected problem has arisen: the RFC is incomprehensible to Cla, who would be an obvious candidate. I think this RFC should be withdrawn for the moment until some sense can be made of it. Given that this is MN's second inappropriate RFC in a row, and hos existing ban on bringing complaints, perhaps a further santions (against RFC's) would be in order? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I'd like to go on record here by noting that WMC is currently following Mark's comments around to other forums and appears to be trying to bait him, including the comment above, into an emotional reaction. If it doesn't stop soon, I'll be filing an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) That looks like trying to bait me, old fruit. MM is spammng requests for "advice", so don't you think it would be a good idea to offer him some? Perhaps you could be explicit here: do you think MN has phrased this RFC in a neutral manner? Do you agree with MN that There was nothing wrong with this RFC? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lede

It currently reads;

The Hockey Stick Illusion (subtitle Climategate and the Corruption of Science) is a book written by Andrew Montford, who is skeptical of man made climate change. Stacey International published the book in 2010.

The book states that it covers the history of the "hockey stick graph", the first version of which was published by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes in 1998, from then to its prominent use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Criticisms of the graph and the methods used by its creators by Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, as well as the ensuing hockey stick controversy, are also included in the book.

I'd like to change it to;

The Hockey Stick Illusion (subtitle Climategate and the Corruption of Science) is a book written by Andrew Montford, who is skeptical of man made climate change. Stacey International published the book in 2010.

The book covers the history of the "hockey stick graph", from its first publication in 1998 to its prominent use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It discusses criticisms of the graph and the methods used by its creators, as well as the ensuing hockey stick controversy.

I think the use of "states" in the first line of the second paragraph is unnecessary as the article is about the book anyway. I think the mention of MBH in the lede is unnecessary as they're mentioned in the text of the article. I use the same logic in removing the specific reference to MM, although I note that McKitrick is not mentioned in the article itself and maybe this should be remedied.

The first sentence mentions that Montford is skeptical of man made GW, which should provide even a casual reader with some context. Is that OK? Thepm (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timg156 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite's version

Many thanks to Hipocrite for his bold edit, which gives us something to work from. I've corrected a typo. Beyond that I have three comments/questions:

1) In the background section the phrase "nothing to help people get up to speed on the skeptical perspective of the science" reads as a paraphrase of a quotation - did Montford use a phrase that could be paraphrased as "skeptical perspective"?

2) The figure looks clunky because of its similarity to the book cover. This is a purely aesthetic comment!

3) I like having the "Main article: Hockey stick controversy" link but I'm less sure about the following two sentences, and in particular having this in its own section. My preference would be to move the link to the top of the synopsis section, and delete these sentences, but I suspect that view may prove controversial.

Regards, and thanks again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, since I did no research on who said what when, I can promise you it's not a paraphrase of a quotation. Regarding 3, I think the key point in keeping the two sentences is to provide the mainstream perspective on the science (IE, that it's sound) in opposition to the fringe perspective presented by the book. If there's a better way to integrate it, I'm all ears. I don't think your post above is a request to self-revert, so I haven't, but if I understood wrong, please correct me. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not a request to self-revert; indeed I think some of your changes are excellent. More later when I have checked a few things. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bold edit to show more clearly what I mean. Will self revert on any request. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty well indifferent, so I leave it to the aggreived parties to express their thoughts. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that Bishop Hill (blog) and Andrew Montford be merged here. AM seems to have no notability outside the book or blog. The blog seems barely notable, and the book too, but maybe all three added together are. Note: MN has proposed the blog for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Misplaced Pages:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Nsaa (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

support

1. as proposer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
2. support - all 3 articles (book, author, blog) are basically drawing from the same material - which is already exceptionally weak. And what sparse reference there is to (author/blog), are side-remarks in various article that aren't about the (author/blog). The only reason for instance that Montford is getting interviewed (for <2 minutes in the BBC) is that the book has made him an interesting sceptical subject on the Hockey-stick and CRU debacle. None of these are notable in and by themselves, and together they barely are.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
   • Comment Kim neglects to mention the other interviews, such as A Live debate in The Times Channel 4 Environmental writer and blogger Andrew Montford looks at some of the questions the University of East Anglia's climate boss could face from MPs over the climate data row. The Times Andrew Montford, a climate-change sceptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog There are more, if this is in the wrong place please move it. mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
3. support I can't imagine that these articles, considered separately, have any lasting encyclopedic value. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
4. support this constellation of closely related topics seems best handled in one article. Yilloslime _C 06:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose

1. mark nutley (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Both are notable enough for there own articles
2. Strongly object the book is very well sourced and stand on it's own. The same can we say about Bishop Hill (blog). The article about Andrew Montford describes the person (and all the wp:blp issues that follow), with small section about each of the topic he is best known for, the blog and the book, with articles outlining these two widely different things. Nsaa (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Some merging might be a good idea but I am not convinced this is the right proposal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
4. oppose. The book would appear to be notable (certainly by wikipedia standards) in its own right whether or not you agree with it. I would probably support a proposal to merge the blog with the person.Thepm (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I think there are enough sources to support having the blog article separate from this one. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose no need to merge anything, I think, but certainly not all three into one. ATren (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Book and person/blog are different subjects. Would support merger between Montford and blog. Slowjoe17 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose Agree book and person are entirely separate.--Martin Audley (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose Book and person are entirely separate. --Cable-tv of our forefather's (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose The book is logically distinct from blog and person and the attempt to shoehorn too much author/blog info into the current version is making a mess of the current article. Let an article about the book be focused on the book. --Blogjack (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose Book and person are entirely separate. Timg156 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose Both are notable. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

More on Background

A lot of background material leading up to the writing of the book was just removed. I can't see why we shouldn't cover the background. Roger Pielke , Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado is quoted saying about the book: "I've seen no single better reference than the engaging narrative by Andrew Montford.". Nsaa (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A parenthesised comment on a blog. Hmmm. And all other references are either to blogs or to an Op-Ed - which can't be used for factual information. There is a good reason it was removed. Perhaps a revisit of WP:RS is in order? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Nsaa's statement where he defends

as having anything to do with a book - please, illuminate us. Hipocrite (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be background information. If it's sourced reliably, it's ok to include it. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is background information which i had added, and hipocrite reverted it out, It should of course go back in mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

references

I've indicated an oppose to the merge above on the basis that the book appeared to be fairly notable in its own right. Having said that, I've since gone through the references in more detail. Most of them seem to be about Montford or, more commonly, Bishop Hill. So then I've gone looking for an RS that discusses the book specifically, or discusses the impact that the book has had on the debate (yes, I know I should have done that first). There don't seem to be any. Unfortunately I spend far too much time on my day job and so maybe I just haven't been looking in the right place? Apart from blog sources, are there any references to indicate that the book (not Montford or Bishop Hill) is particularly notable? Thepm (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are pretty much correct. That is why I said that the material for all 3 articles is exceptionally weak. The book has basically been ignored by everyone but the regular sceptics and op-ed writers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The strongest references are probably the two by Matt Ridley who is a leading writer of popular science books. The Prospect article is clearly about the book, but the Spectator article is more varied. The Courier article is basically about the book. But yes, the three topics are clearly intertwined: Montford is really only known as the author of the book and the blog, and the book seems to be a development from posts on the blog. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If this blog is known enough for Dr Judith Curry to read and post on, then it is a notable blog mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted libellous content (about a person), not about the subject (a book)

Tchannon made the following edit explaining "Deleted libellous content (about a person), not about the subject (a book), used cloaking text to point to a denial article and link to a Guardian newsp. article which does not support the assertion.)". I checked the cited article and it seems to support the content, so I'm not sure what's libellous. However, the cited article isn't about this book. This might be an example of WP:SYN to advance a position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We can't call state the obvious, that Montford is skeptic? C'mon. Yilloslime _C 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Think it's the "denial" link. I changed it to a less controversial target, and one that's probably closer to the source (feel free to undo me if I'm wrong, working from memory as to the content of the sources). Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You've linked "denial" to his blog, not his book. Still seems like WP:SYN to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

I've done what? What the heck are you talking about? Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to undo my edit, that's fine. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm sick of your nonsense. If you prefer that link, I'll self-revert. Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Either way, "skeptic" or "denialist", you need a source to connect them to the book. Otherwise, it seems like a violation of WP:SYN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing what your talking about re:WP:SYN. Care to elaborate? Yilloslime _C 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's just the old "let's make everything into a fight" attitude again. AQFK, I strongly recommend you read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't make up WP:SYS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I agree with Guettarda that AQFK is being spectacularly unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In order for something to be synthesis there needs to be

1. A source
2. Another source
3. A combination
4. A conclusion not explicitly stated.

Please provide these 4 elements and we can determine what is being synthesized. Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What is this about? there is no problem with having him described as a sceptic, that is about the author, not the book. Really guys this is not syn, i had that in the lede when i wrote this article with a ref to the guardian to back it. mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it seems like WP:SYN because we're specifically stating something that's not in the sources about the book. Or perhaps this might be WP:UNDUE? It seems questionable to me. But let me think about it and read over the policies again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Other Hockey Stick Papers

Someone added the standard talking point about other papers which have are claimed to have confirmed the results of the hockey stick.

The book addresses this claim and points out why it is true but extremely misleading claim. For that reason I propose a change from:

More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.

to:

When confronted with the criticisms of the hockey stick supporters of the IPCC view claim that the conclusions of the hockey stick paper have been confirmed by many other studies. Montford explores the complete context of this claim and points out that many of the other papers suffer from flaws as serious as the hockey stick or do not actually go back to the MWP.

Timg156 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Your proposed edit seems to state that "many of the other papers suffer from flaws as serious as the hockey stick or do not actually go back to the MWP." Per WP:FRINGE this article needs to make the mainstream perspective clear, and clear that it's the mainstream. The mainstream perspective is that the hockey stick is, and was right, and is confirmed by further studies. Hipocrite (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are so incredibly wrong it stuns me, name one paper which backs mbh98 that did not use the same proxies mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years." Hipocrite (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of those "dozen studies" get their flat shaft from the same relatively small set of tree-ring proxies, proxies which (a) probably don't reflect long-term trends and (b) tend to "diverge" in recent decades, suggesting they might also have done so in the past.(support) The first batch of studies relied on the Graybill bristlecone pine series which NRC said "should be avoided"; later ones shifted to rely on Polar Urals or Yamal. (Moberg is arguably an exception; not coincidentally it shows more variance than the others). --Blogjack (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So what? The point is the book lays out an argument that shows why the claim of 'other papers' is misleading/wrong. Simply stating the mainstream view that 'other papers' support the HS without mentioning that the book refutes that view introduces bias into the article. My edit makes it clear that the view being refuted with the view held by supporters of the IPCC. It is not up to WP to pass judgement on who's view is likely correct. Hipocrite's edit is trying to do that by omitting the text which makes it clear that the book specifically addresses that claim Timg156 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The book may "show" that. But mainstream science disagrees - more specifically the NRC report. And while we (WP) can't judge - we can judge whether this book or the NRC report is the more reliable source on the subject, and which one that carries more weight. (and that isn't difficult) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The NRC did *not* explicitly disagree with the premise of this book. It didn't even consider it. The NRC report identified specific issues with MBH and alluded to other studies in determining the MBH findings were still "plausible" yet made no effort to determine the degree to which the other studies shared the same flaws as MBH. In short, there is no contradiction between NRC and this book. So you don't need to decide which is "the more reliable source on the subject". --Blogjack (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The NRC study did quite a bit more than "allude" - it examined the field in general, and concluded that while there was some issues with the methodology of the MBH study (it also noted btw. that the methodoly wasn't wrong per se - just badly chosen), it was confirmed by other studies that the results held. "Plausible" in the NRC's terminology meant (2:1) odds in favour - which is the roughly the same confidence as both the MBH and the IPCC report assigned to it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing is it also plausible that the MWP was warmer than today. The NRC document was a carefully written polical document designed to save face without saying anything that was scientifically wrong. This means it is necessary to read between the lines to understand the true statement. Also "plausible" has an English meaning and that meaning has no probability associated with it. Assigning a 2:1 probability to the word is an abuse of the English language which suggests an intent to deceive. I do not belive that was the intent of the NRC report and they used the word because it was the only way the could say something that would be positive and true.Timg156 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. You just showed that you can't differentiate your personal POV from reality ("read between the lines", "save face", "carefully written political document") . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Am not the one making up self-serving definitions for the word 'plausible'. The word has an english meaning and that meaning is NOT 66% probable. If the report really meant to say that they would have used the word "likely" which is the IPCC term for 66%. Timg156 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"likely" is just as made up as "plausible" - as long as there is a quantitative definition along with the word - it doesn't matter. That neither makes it "political" or something to "save face" nor in any way make it "political". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To be meaningful the quantitive definition has to match the standard english meaning of the word. I could arbitrarily decide that the english word "likely" means >10% probability but that would simply confuse readers. The english word 'plausible' does NOT mean 66% likely. At best it means that no probability is known. In many cases the word is used to say that theoretically possible but the speaker is skeptical. The authors the NAS report would have known this and would have never used the word 'plausible' if they really meant to say 66% likely. I believe the word was choosen because there was no agreement amoung the authors about the likelyhood of the results being true.Timg156 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think there is no need to explain the mainstream view in detail unless Montfort's counter argument is explained in detail as well. The only information that needs to be conveyed is: mainstream view is the HS has be verified with other studies Montford disagrees and explains why the 'other studies' fail to do what the mainstream claims they do in the book. Timg156 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but that is what WP:NPOV requires. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a book. Putting in a claim about the 'mainstream' view and then refusing to make it clear that the book addresses that specific claim is unacceptable bias in this context. Either remove the claim about the 'mainstream' view or put the claim and counter claim in. My reading the WP:POV policy is putting Montford's claims in this context is perfectly acceptable as long as the claims are attributed to him (e.g. Montford says, Montford argues...) and are not represented as the mainstream view. Timg156 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When presenting minority (or fringe) viewpoints, then we must describe the majority viewpoint as well, and in such a way that the reader is aware of which is which. Thats a basic tenet of WP:NPOV, no matter if it is in an article about a book or anywhere else. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why don't keep the original text and append the following sentence to it: "Montford claims that many of these papers suffer from flaws as serious as those he alleges the hockey stick graph suffers from or do not actually go back to the MWP." Yilloslime _C 17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is what Tim suggested up above but Kim seems to disagree with this idea mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really show the mainstream version of the statement does it? We can of course put in such a sentence - but that also requires us to describe that it is a tiny minority/fringe position. Since Montford's claim is far and away from the mainstream on this. As far as i know, there are no reconstructions that doesn't show the MWP as warmer than the last part of the 20th century. (not even Loehle, after the corrections). Montfords position that these other studies have the same or similar problems are necessary for his narrative ("The MWP was made to disappear"), and thus aren't surprising - but it is a tiny minority/fringe position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a book contesting the mainstream POV. That requires that the opinions in the book be given more promenence than they would in other contexts. Timg156 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And we are giving it much more prominence than it deserves on its merits. But we could triple the amount of coverage given to the mainstream, and still be giving this view far more coverage than it deserves. What we need to do is to present fringe views in the proper context - a context that doesn't mislead readers into thinking that this is anything other than a fringe view. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read and understand WP:NPOV, specifically the section on undue weight - here is an excerpt: "...In articles about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained..." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...is this an article about a minority viewpoint...or an article about a book? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as an article on a book attempts to state something about the science, per WP:FRINGE, we are required to place that statement in context. In this case, every time one of the fringey amateur skeptical statements is made, the position of nearly every informed professional needs to put along side. If you'd like to remove every statement of fact the book purports to make, feel free. Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...that doesn't really answer my question, now does it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read it but I also understand that common sense applies when applying such guidelines. In this case, this article is about the book therefore any reference to the mainstream view should simply place the book's arguments in context. It is NOT article about climate science in general and it makes no sense to apply guideline in the way you wish to apply it. Timg156 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Redo of lede.

Took out 'skeptical' appearing twice in same paragraph (spelt differently each time). Tried to make this unnecessary by being explicit that the book is Montford's view of the history of the HS and that Montford is a skeptic and therefore the book provides a skeptical viewpoint.

Included short sentence explaining what the book is about (ie the history of the HS).

If anyone asks, I'll self revert. If someone else reverts, please change the spelling of 'sceptical' to 'skeptical' so that it's consistent. cheers Thepm (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

rv why

I reverted yillowslimes edit back to a NPOV and his removal of a review from a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing, would yillowslime tell me why his view is not notable? mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the guys here is not willing even to discuss it . Topic ban for this guy now? Nsaa (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You would have to do an RFE It is crazy that he keeps reverting stuff out and never comes to talk to explain why. I`m sure that breaks a rule somewere along the line mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources last time I checked. Has the policy changed recently? If it has, I'll happily self revert and offer an apology. Also, how is the opinion of a psychology professor pertinent? Citing such sources seems really barrel-scrapy to meYilloslime _C 19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Leigh_2010-02-04_Guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Unassessed England-related articles
• Unknown-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• Unassessed Internet culture articles
• Unknown-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Unassessed science articles
• Unknown-importance science articles
• Unassessed Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment