Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

New Guardian review mentions this article

THI has now been reviewed by The Guardian, which also mentions this article - "The book has received fawning reviews from the Spectator and the Sunday Telegraph but its account of events has created so much dissent that its Wikipedia entry has been protected from further editing until disputes over it have been resolved." (How true!) Here's a proposed addition for this article:

Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment criticised "the serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies in [Montford's] book" in a review in The Guardian. Describing the book as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn", he highlighted various omissions and selective quotations in Montford's account and characterised the elided material as "awkward truths ... which would get in the way of his conspiracy theory." Ward concluded that "given such glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in his book, it would perhaps be wise to treat with some scepticism Montford's assessment of the validity of the inquiries into the hacked email messages."

[…]

References

I'll add this when the article is unprotected. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start, but I have a few comments. (1) You can wikilink Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (2) More seriously I'm not sure the word "noted" is right, as it implicitly accepts his claims; something more neutral would be better. (3) The reference to the assessment of the inquiries might be unclear to readers less familiar with the minutiae of the topic? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thanks, I should have spotted that - added; (2) how about "highlighted"?; (3) good point, I suggest wikilinking the words "inquiries into the hacked email messages" to Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Reports, so that the reader can learn more about that topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thanks. (2) Better, but I'm not sure that's quite right; I've got the right word at the back of my mind somewhere but it's refusing to come out at the moment. (3) Clever, but you would have to add the review of the reviews to the article for this to make sense? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) often ends up like this: "...he highlighted [what he perceived to be] various omissions and selective quotations..." Wikispan (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) No problem; (2) I recommend a dram of whisky, that might help!; (3) I really don't want to get too much into the details of the reviews - that's not really germane here and there's too much room for disputing the details, so I would prefer to keep things as simple as possible. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• The author has a rebuttal of Ward's claims posted at "Glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations". He's thinking about asking The Guardian to publish a reply. If so, we should include it, I think.

We should also link/cite Ward's position at Grantham: Policy and Communications Director, ie PR man. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it needs to be clear that Ward is a PR guy, and I don't see any other problem with Chris' proposed edit, as now written, to add the Ward review. Still oppose the notion of butchering the synopsis with critical commentary or anything outside of what the book actually says. Minor4th 02:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the backgrounds/affiliations of all reviewers should be made clear. Thank you for that suggestion. However, if you are describing ChrisO's work to improve the article as "butchering", you may wish to choose words that are less likely to cause offense. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not talking about anything by ChrisO or any specific editor, and I apologize for coming across that way. What I meant was chopping up the synopsis with outside sources (either approving of the book or criticizing it, either way). I used the word "butcher" because that kind of treatment of the synopsis would almost certainly result in a "butchered" conglomeration of POV sources stitched together into some unreadable mess. I just don't see how the synopsis is the place for that, and I'm having trouble even conceiving of how that could be done. Minor4th 04:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Ward should be identified, although with an appropriate link, not just calling him a "PR guy." He does have a science degree and science society experience. In fact, I think *every* reviewer should be properly identified, if possible. Just to pick a few:

For instance, John Dawson is a Melbourne businessman and freelance writer who runs (or ran) http://www.aynrand.org.au/ and seems to write for Capitalism Magazine, http://www.capitalismmagazine.com. Somebody already mentioned that Joe Brannan is a petroleum geologist, and that certainly seems worth mentioning, especially given AAPG's example. Bruce Robbins appears to be a local business/news writer, http://www.thecourier.co.uk/search/qs/bruce%20robbins/rf/sample/qt/article_slideshow/. Peter Foster is (some kind of) writer for the National Post, http://www.nationalpost.com/search/index.html?q=peter+foster . He is also named, p.1 in the (quite-relevant) lawsuit by Andrew Weaver, http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/andrew%20weaver%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf Excellent idea! JohnMashey (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I agree that all reviewers should be idenified with current affiliations. Minor4th 04:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of this. And the review section of the article needs some pruning, when unprotected -- do we really need the Maui News review? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a procedural note: Any admin is free to edit through my protection or lift it should they feel it would be appropriate to do so. Once consensus is gathered here, you can use {{editprotected}} to request it be added to the article. NW (Talk) 04:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the reviewers should be identified with any affiliations unless it is in the source presented. In this one it is, in the other reviews it does not and as such we are unable to add their affiliations mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not synthesis on any article to combine two references to source a quote . For example, say the article was on a Russian history work. Writing "Robert K. Massie, an author with a Pulitzer prize winning book in the field,[1] remarked about stuff in the book[2]" is much better than "Robert K. Massie remarked about stuff in the book[2]." If you merely write the later, people will wonder "Who on Earth is Robert K. Massie?" By explaining the author's background, you allow the reader to judge for themselves more easily how much weight they should to Massie's opinion. NW (Talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, how about this as a possible text?

Writing in The Guardian Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, criticised what he called "the serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies in [Montford's] book". Describing the book as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn", he highlighted what he perceived to be various omissions and selective quotations in Montford's account and characterised the elided material as "awkward truths ... which would get in the way of his conspiracy theory."

[…]

References

Might we get consensus on something like that in the reviews section? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I`m ok with that, but why a ref to the whoswho at the institute? A wikilink to should be enough don`t you think? mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally I would link to a wiki page about Bob Ward, but slightly surprisingly he doesn't seem to have one. Failing that I'm happy to fall in with the majority. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Added a bit to draft, to make clear it's Ward's opinion re "serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies". Pete Tillman (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, i`ll write up an article about bob tonight (or tommorow) as time allows, should`nt take long to knock out a stub covering the main aspects for him mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW the article has been updated, better check it to ensure your edit is still the same as the article mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I have struck out the now missing text above. There's not a lot left; might be best to start again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm: "This article was amended on 20th August 2010. Changes were made following a complaint from Andrew Montford." -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's give this another go, based on JAJ's proposed text, as the article seems to have stabilised now:

Writing in The Guardian Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, criticised what he called "the serious inaccuracies in [Montford's] book". Describing the book as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn", he highlighted what he perceived to be various omissions and selective quotations in Montford's account. He characterised the elided material as "awkward truths" that Montford had neglected to tell the reader about and commented "it would perhaps be wise to treat with some scepticism Montford's assessment of the validity of the inquiries into the hacked email messages."

[…]

References

Hopefully this won't need to be modified! -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, can we wait a couple of weeks on including this? As was repeatedly stated in the main Climategate article, there is no rush to get things included early rather than encyclopedically. The review was published last week, and it isn't clear whether the ground has settled yet.Slowjoe17 (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I expect we could reach consensus on something like that - I'm certainly happy with the first two sentences. But more broadly I think Slowjoe17's point is correct; the article has stabilised for the moment but Montford is hinting [1] that the initial redaction may just be the first stage. Obviously we shouldn't hold off for ever, but waiting until the end of the week might be sensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

When the Guardian article does stabilize and the review is included in the article here, Montford's response needs to be included as well: [2]Minor4th 15:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed waiting a little bit can't hurt, and I think it looks fine as it is now. As Minor4th said we might want to add a sentence on the fact that Montford responded and (of course) large disagrees with the criticisms.WijzeWillem (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian has now added a direct link to Montford's response on his own blog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added chris0`s content would someone be so kind as to add Andrews response? mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky to see how we could use the blog material (not completely impossible as Montford's blog can be a RS for his own views, but tricky). While we could in principle add the fact that the Guardian has linked to the blog it is hard to see how one might phrase that. I note, however, that the Guardian has now added the text "This article was amended on 20th August 2010 following a complaint from Andrew Montford to make it clear that we did not mean to imply that Andrew Montford deliberately published false information in order to support the arguments made in his book. We apologise if such a false impression was given." and we might just be able to do something with that? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can say Watts responded to the review (ref to his post) which lead to the Guardian modifying the article? mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• Proposed addition for Guardian's amendment & apology:

The Guardian amended Ward's review, apologized, and added a link to Montford's response , following a complaint by Montford.

References

MN, did you mean Montford responded? You've confused me with the Watts ref.

ChrisO, thanks for the "ref group" trick! Always wondered how to do that... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pete, see also the Template:Reflist#List-defined_references and WP:LDR description. It's a great extension :-) Nsaa (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Second those thanks; I have learned lots of nifty syntax tricks by studying ChrisO's edits! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Oops, yet more changes to Bob Ward's review, per Bishop Hill. I'm in transit, so someone else will have to re-archive & revise our bit.

PS: What's this "Grauniad" business? Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian has now published a reply from Montford [3] which I guess should be added to the Bob Ward section. Oh, and the "Grauniad" is a traditional UK joke about the notoriously large number of printing errors in the Guardian 20 years ago before they modernised their typesetting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hartwell Paper - Edit Warring/Restrictions

This is getting simply ridiculous. The next person who edits wars over information in the article about The Hartwell Paper will be blocked. My advice on this matter? Start a fresh discussion below to decide whether or not to include the information, and recruit an uninvolved editor (perhaps an uninvolved FA reviewer or mediator) to close the discussion and come up with a consensus closure. Incivility and any responses to it will be removed, hopefully as promptly as possible, and will be met with blocks or topic bans as appropriate. NW (Talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if everyone laid down their arms and focused instead on collaborating together to get this article up to GA status.[4] Jprw (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be Lovely? [5] Like your edits to the Lede; a nice start. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good one (-: Jprw (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I failed to notice this - my apologies. I cut the Hartwell stuff in the process of trimming the over-long review section. In penace, I've restored all the other stuff I cut, too (though in the long term I still think it needs to be trimmed). Should you feel the need to block me for this I'll understand William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here: the use in the Hartwell paper clearly isn't part of its reception - it is a citation. I dno't think that makes sense to have it in the article (as previously stated) but if/while it is there, I think it should be moved into a "citations" section William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimming

Someone suggested earlier that we should try to trim some of the less notable reviews. I agree. There are a couple in particular that look marginal. Pete Tillman highlighted the Maui News review, and I suggest that we should also lose the Discovery News review by George Gilder. It's a publication which is way out on the fringes. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gilders review is fine, i have already trimmed one review. We can also lose the maui review if you would like to put back the Erwin van den Brink which was just reverted back out mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO and William M. Connolley -- do not remove sourced material without establishing a consensus on the talk page! Do not do it again. Minor4th 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point I am opposed to removing any reviews that are reliably sourced, mainly because there seems to be developing a contest over whether the reviews are mostly positive or 'mixed.' Minor4th 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... your last edit seems to be removing a bit of material also. Your edit also appears to state as fact what seems to be a contentious point. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was already a consensus to remove the Dutch sales blurb? It's certainly been discussed at length. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a sales blurb, as posted above it was actually in the magazine and from there into the webstore the review is valid mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Headdesk. What I said above about Hartwell applies to this too. There is already a fair consensus on the matter: [6]. That can change, but it has to first before it can be readded to the article. NW (Talk) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the review as it stands now nuke as it has since been found that the review is not from the webshop but from the magazine mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus DID change. Read the whole section that you cited! All those opinions that it wasn't notable and should be removed were superceded. Minor4th 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you posted an editprotected request to have it removed, based on the consensus to do so. Had you forgotten that? Minor4th shouldn't be going against consensus here. If you believe that the piece should be re-added, let's please respect the existing consensus and discuss it here first. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that last bit. The consensus is still a bit tenuous though. Can we freeze the discussion where it is and ask people to reconfirm their views? NW (Talk) 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats is when everyone thought it was from the shop, it is not and is a valid review, you already know this as i have posted it umpteen times now. The review is valid and the consensus was on a false premise mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see three people - Jonathan A. Jones, yourself and one other person - arguing that the previous consensus was invalid. I don't see anyone involved in that consensus agreeing with you, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially thought that the Dutch magazine mention could be removed, but I reconsidered after I read in Illusion that that magazine was one of first media publications to investigate and support McIntyre and McIntrick's conclusions on Mann's research. Because of that, I think the brief review in the magazine is relevant for this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And now consensus includes Cla and me as well. Minor4th 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just readded the Dutch review, but added a sentence with sourcing to show the relevance of the review to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimming the Maui News review makes sense to me. It is not much more than a community newspaper. Discovery News is hardly to be taken seriously since it is a publication of an organization with its goal to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery News is definitely from an advocacy organization, but so are several of the other reviews. Does the Discovery Institute have a very large following? Does their newsletter have a large circulation? Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[Without comment on the Dutch material itself, I would make the following observation.] After making admonishments about other editors working within consensus, you've now added the material against the apparent consensus? Seems a bit self-serving, don't ya think? BigK HeX (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus the other way? I'll remove it until this gets cleared up. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Dutch, but I'm getting only four hits ever for this entire publication [Natuurwetenschap & Techniek] on Google Scholar. Can anyone confirm this to be notable? If this is the case, then a review from such a little-known source doesn't seem like much to be getting worked up over... BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I got a different result. Did you search in the Dutch Google? Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Google gives the same 4 results. BigK HeX (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My search returned 17,200 hits. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite the same search that I was talking about, but ... does this publication have some sort of special expertise that makes it necessary? Because ... we're talking about scrapping the Maui News source for being so little known, and doing a search your way, Maui News gets about 4 times as many hits as the Dutch publication. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an actual popular science magazine -- I think it's more relevant and appropriate than the Maui News, although I don't think there's a problem with including both of them. If one is cut, it should be Maui News. I don't think there's any legitimate dissent against including the Dutch magazine review. The reasons that previously supported exclusion are no longer applicable. That discussion was concluded a month ago. And like Cla said, it actually has significance to the book because it was the first to investigate M&M. Minor4th 01:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

About this: in Holland it is a pretty well-known popular science magazine, but not with much authority (personal view). I still haven't been able to track down the actual reference to the publication. I myself am in favor of trimming the section and I think it's not notable enough to include (as with the Maui news). BTW, it's very logical that it doesn't turn up many hits in google scholar, since it's not a scientific journal in that sense. WijzeWillem (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither source seems to be notable enough for this much discussion. Suggest dropping both. In fact, in this format, two supports and two criticisms should be enough. If there is more that really needs to be said, then a different format should be used with more in depth coverage. The existing format has way too much repetition. Specifically, the name of the book (and its author) does not need to be repeated so many times. Q Science (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 says that "several of the other reviews" are from advocacy organisations. I'm not seeing this - they're all published by mainstream sources. Discovery News stands out because it's not remotely a mainstream source, and as Cla68 says, it's published by an advocacy organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 asks "Does the Discovery Institute have a very large following?" See Discovery Institute, George Gilder, intelligent design movement and related articles. Probably worth including as it shows an area of support for the arguments presented in the book. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the Discovery Institute article and I didn't see where it really said how much of a following that it has. If its newsletter doesn't have a very large circulation, then I think it would be a candidate for removal. Cla68 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I've seen a couple of editors lately, including Dave and Chris, seemingly imply that there is something wrong with the Intelligent Design movement and the people involved with it. I was under the impression that we weren't supposed to take sides on the topics we edit in Wikipedia. Is there something going on that I'm not aware of? Cla68 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla, you seem to be seeing incorrectly, perhaps your vision on this issue is distorted. The intelligent design movement promotes a fringe pseudoscientific view, which opposes mainstream science. That doesn't mean that they're wrong, it means that we should show their views in accordance with relevant policies. Not sure how you were unaware of that. . dave souza, talk 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What Dave says. My point was not that they are "wrong" but that their publication, Discovery News, is simply not a mainstream source. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Q Science. Neither publication immediately jumps out as bastion of reviewing expertise, and deeper research on the publications does nothing to better indicate notability. Remove them both, and reorganize the reception section. BigK HeX (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can we please just let this settle for a bit and not go about removing sources. There is no requirement that Discovery News be a mainstream source. The only requirement is that it be a reliable source. This is a magazine subject to editorial review, and as such it is a reliable source. More importantly George Gilder is a notable person, and he is the one who wrote the review. The Dutch magazine is reliable as well. Please do not remove sources at this point. There needs to be fuller discussion and a clear consensus to remove reliably sourced information. Minor4th 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Discovery News is subject to editorial review? Not that it matters because no one disputes that Gilder wrote that which is attributed to him. The point is that Gilder and his publication are not sources that most readers would go to for a review of a book. It adds nothing of significance besides clutter. Do you object to the removal of the Maui News paragraph? If so, I wonder if you might help me understand how it improves the article and helps our readers? Is Harry Eagar an expert on climate change or related issues? Is he a well-respected book reviewer? He seems to be well-informed on the news of Maui, but I wonder why that makes his opinion of HSI helpful to our readers.[7]

• Re: George Gilder's review: I think people are getting a bit off-target by focusing on where Gilder's review appeared, and/or what his views on intelligent design (etc.) may be. Gilder himself is a very well-known writer, particularly on technology-related subjects, so I think many people would find his opinion of HSI to be of interest. Looking over the list of reviewers, Gilder is almost certainly the best-known of the group, at least in the USA.

As for trimming: I agree that the Maui News review seems dispensable. However, since trimming has become contentious, I agree with Minor 4th that it would be best to give this a rest for now. We don't have deadlines, and I suppose it's better to be more inclusive than less. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the maui news review, along with some other fixes, i think the reception section can now be left alone and it is time for me to expand the synopsis using the book. mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hartwell Paper again

Nuclear Warfare You said you were going to block the next person who edit warred over the Hartwell Paper, etc. Although discussion is ongoing here about sources, WMC is removing large chunks of sourced text without comment on the talk page. This includes the reference to the Hartwell Paper. This is the second time he's done this in 24 hours [8], [9], despite warnings on this page as well as on his talk page [10]. I will copy this message to your talk page -- I expect that you are going to follow up on your warning. Minor4th 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief he removed a lot of text. I'll give NW a chance to respond before adding it back, although I presume anyone is welcome to do so. Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the text, though I still think it needs to be trimmed - I'd missed NW's warning. Regardless, the problem remains: the reception section is ridiculously long, bigger than the rest of the article put together. That is symptomatic of the problem: there really isn't much to say about the book, so the article needs to be bulked out with "reception" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Or somebody needs to write a 600-800 word synopsis, as is recommended here, which would address the balance problem. Jprw (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but in view of the polemical nature of the book, care is required to show that propositions are the author's views, and be clear that they don't have mainstream acceptance in science. . . dave souza, talk 14:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I've read in other sources the conclusions drawn by the National Academy of Science, Wegman, the M&M papers, Judith Curry, Richard A. Muller, Hans von Storch, and the current director of the Royal Statistical Society, among a few others and to say that this book is "polemical" is not supported by the evidence. Also, are you really sure you can speak for "mainstream science" as far as it relates to this book, especially since it appears that you have haven't actually read it? The book is what it is, one subtopic under the hockey stick controversy, and a controversy it obviously is. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read all that ... Dave is encouraged to *read* the book ... but why? Most of the arguments here are about reviews by reviewers whose relevant expertise and/or thorough reading is less than clear. If one can only discuss reviews of the book, as opposed to content of the book, in *talk* page, then skip the next.

[dog astrology] HSI p.28 tells an untruth about Lindzen's confirmation of Overpeck, verifiable simply by consulting the citation HSI provides, which shows the untruth of Lindzen's claim about Deming. Given that the whole discussion is part of a core proposition of the book, is this untruth a) careless reading of Lindzen or b) having read "Lindzen confirmed" elsewhere and not checked the cite? Other reasons are possible. Maybe someone can ask AM. After that simple item, we can return to the credibility of Deming & JSE.JohnMashey (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• For those who are curious, this moved on to my talk page. NW (Talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why the Hartwell Paper is under "Reception". Perhaps there should be a separate section for papers that reference HSI and it could be mentioned there. But I would not create a section for just that paper. In fact, it does not even appear notable enough for inclusion there. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of having a section on papers that reference the book. I can't think of any other book article on Wikipedia that does this, not least because it would be highly impractical. Imagine adding a section to The Selfish Gene on papers that reference the book - it would be longer than the entire article! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a separate section for citations to the book. That is what is done in Google Scholar, and I think that's a good way to showcase the book. No reason not to include it.Minor4th 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide me with an example of where this has been done anywhere else on Wikipedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No clue. Is there a rule that there can't be a section for citations to a book? Minor4th 19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to treat this book differently from any other book covered on Wikipedia, you need to provide a pretty damn convincing reason to do so. I'm not seeing any reason at all why this book should receive unique treatment. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was fairly surprised when I saw that the article listed papers citing the book. Seems pretty unusual, if not pushing the bounds of noteworthy content. BigK HeX (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not proper editing policy. Let's have further discussion. Minor4th 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an "other stuff exists" argument - that's just the problem, it doesn't exist. You're advocating treating this book in a unique way, giving it a type of coverage that no other book on Wikipedia has received (as far as either of us know). Why? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Minor4th: Umm ... even aside from the unusual treatment in this article, I pretty clearly noted my concerns about the Hartwell material "pushing the bounds of noteworthy content." Did that not count towards "further discussion"? BigK HeX (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The book is only mentioned in a footnote, not in the main body of the paper, which is one more reason why this section is absurd. Wikispan (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: Minor4th wants to treat this book in a different way to any other book on Wikipedia. Why? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. It seems to be very over-enthusiastic to include this kind of stuff, and I am in favour of it's removal.WijzeWillem (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Joyner

Mark, calling Joyner "emeritus" isn't to "big him up", but just to make clear that he is retired. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree With jaj. See emeritus.Nsaa (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, just seems to me to be bigging him up, why mention any of his personal details? If he is retired then why does it say he`s a prof at a uni? mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Emeriti are usually described as professors even after they have retired. But I have no problem with removing all the personal details; I just don't think we should describe him as a professor without making clear he's emeritus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "emritus professor". Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a brief description of the background, affiliation and/or qualifications of reviewers should be included and may help our readers better understand the review and its potential biases. I've made this point earlier on this page, as have others. Marknutley seems to be about the only one who objects to this. At times, he has mischaracterized it as original research. Please see Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion/Archive_4#Geoscientist. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding backgrounds of reviewers as long as it is done uniformly (as far as possible of course). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry

A review from the Royal Society of Chemistry which appears in the September edition of Chemistry World. "Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better." [11] Wikispan (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably by this Nick Hewitt [12]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be the fellow. [13]

Add the review to the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think this could be used, it is an attack on the author, were exactly is the review in that article? mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That does appear to be true that it is an attack on the author under a veiled guise as a book review, but it still qualifies as some commentary on the book from what appears to be a reliable source. What do others feel about its inclusion? Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is just a gratuitous, ad hominem attack of the author and it goes too much to the personal aspects rather than the content of the book. It is inappropriate coatracking in this article and it's also BLP violation since it is about a living person, it's an opinion stated by an ideological opponent and is not a reliable source on Montford's education and level of scientific knowledge. Minor4th 03:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a problem extracting any usable text, but perhaps something like

Writing in Chemistry World Nick Hewitt described the book as a "polemic" and stated that "Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book."

might be OK? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that wording accurately describes his "review." I'm of the opinion that we report what the sources are saying and let the reader decide on their own their validity and credibility. So, I'm in favor of adding the text you suggest to the article. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we add Andrew`s response? "I still can't take the smile off my face at the ridiculousness of Nick Hewitt's 'review'. It's just so hard to comprehend how one can reach the rank of full professor and still be unable to put together a coherent argument (although who knows, perhaps this is normal at Lancaster, Phil Jones' alma mater). Come to think of it, it's hard to comprehend how one can become a full professor without being able to spell 'practice', but that's probably just me being pedantic again. And once again, we have a review that could have been written without actually reading the book at all. Not a single quote from the book, not a single fact disputed. I'm wondering if I should christen this kind of thing a "Hewitt", in honour of Professor Nick." mark nutley (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Should Chemistry World choose to link to that in an echo of the Bob Ward review, then we could certainly have that discussion. Until then "author disagrees with critical review" is hardly notable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a critical review, it`s an attack pure and simple. I object to it`s inclusion on BLP grounds as it is not an attack on the book, it is an attack on the author mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this one short, per Jonathan's proposal above. Looks okay. Wikispan (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I trust our readers are intelligent enough to recognize the "review" for what it really is. We just report what the sources say and leave it up to the readers to decide what to believe. Cla68 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't water it down then -- if you're going to include it, go ahead and show how ridiculous it is by quoting the ad hominem attack. Minor4th 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as actually reviewing the book -- I think this is a more appropriate quote, as this is the only actual review of the book in the comment from Hewitt:

Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail, with a focus on the actions and words of its protagonists. Undoubtedly there have been shortcomings in working practises, many a result of the sustained pressure these individuals have been under from a small but determined group of sceptics (most recently in the UK through the repeated use of freedom of information requests), but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system.

Minor4th 15:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

George Gilder

In the context of this article, I think it is more helpful to the average reader to describe George Gilder as an intelligent design advocate, rather than as co-founder of the Discovery Institute.[14] Some may not be familiar with the mission of the Discovery Institute and may confuse it with a scientific organization. I'm confused by the edit summary of the anon.[15] S/he seems to be agreeing, yet reverting. If Jonathan A Jones is advocating brevity, may I suggest that my edit is in accord with that wisdom.[16] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the entire mission of the Discovery Institute just to promote the Intelligent Design theory? When I looked at the Discovery Institute's webpage, ID appeared to be but one portion of their agenda. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Gilder is best-known as a writer, particularly on technology-related subjects. See George Gilder, which has ID & the DI fairly low on Gilder's life-list. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My take on these questions is that the best approach is simply to wikilink the author's page, where there is a detailed discussion of his background. Selecting particular facts from this page leads to the danger of POV selection (where the author does not have a wiki page it's trickier of course). Thus I would normally not support describing him as co-founder of the Discovery Institute for the same reasons as I would not support describing him as an advocate of intelligent designe. In this particular case there is some argument for doing so (though not paerhaps a very strong one) reflecting the fact that the article was published in Discovery News, and so we are alerting the reader that this source is, if not quite a self published source, someway along the line towards one. However my personal preference would be for the simplest form: "Writing in Discovery News George Gilder compared the portrayal". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And why are we using this blog post anyway? Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See "Trimming" above. At a glance we didn't reach any firm conclusions; I think we got sidetracked onto minor issues. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All that got bogged down in agennda-driven stuff by M4th and MN. I've trimmed everything from Gilder on down. I still think tehre are too many though, which is really just a way to fill up the page, in the absence of anything real to say about the book William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder looks like a blog post to me, also. Does anyone have any evidence of an editorial policy or independent review? Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

there is no agreement to delete all that stuff so i put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.64 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is no agreement to have it in. Moreover, good reasons have been put forward for its removal. More, whose sock are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder's review is in the Discovery Institute's magazine, so I don't think it's a blog post. Gilder's opinion appears to be notable because he is such a prominent writer on science and technology. Cla68 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"the Discovery Institute's magazine"? Have you ever looked at "Discovery News"? It appears to be a blog. Each post has a date and time stamp, with new posts added to the top of the page. There's no mention of an editor or any editorial board. There's no publication information. So what's the basis for your claim that it's a magazine? Surely given an FoF about your misuse of sources you wouldn't be making up claims about this one, would you? If you have a source for your claim, please share it. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder is notable as co-founder and leading light in the Discovery Institute, which has a "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal mission"[17] and remains focussed on Teach the Controversy as a euphemism for intelligent design. We should not be misrepresenting the weight due to his opinion. . . dave souza, talk 10:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder a prominent writer on *science* and technology? Can you cite his previous writings on *science*, especially anything credible to do with this topic? His Wikipedia entry does not make this obvious, maybe it needs an update to add his science writing.JohnMashey (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover Magazine [18] has a full editorial staff, you did not look very hard did you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.44 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover Magazine? Sure it does. But does that have to do with "Discover News"? Guettarda (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, 72.20.28.44 is editing from a shell (closed proxy) server, so may be a previously banned user. The rules are unclear for whether closed proxy edits can be reverted on sight. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the argument about the exact format of "Discovery News" is beside the point. Gilder's opinion is (imo) notable because he's a notable writer on technology, and we can presume that this newsletter (or whatever) is a reliable source for Gilder's views on the book.

That said, several editors strongly object to using Gilder, and it's not like we're short of positive reviews, so I won't be pressing further for use of his review. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Restore to last stable version

{{editprotect}} The article now looks broke [19] after an edit war. Please restore the last stable version at Cla68 at 2010-09-21T07:04:41 per WP:STATUSQUO. Nsaa (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Better to fix up the tags. Or, in my opinion, better to semi it so we can fix it up. But adding bad the fluff: no William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Last stable version significantly better. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. While there is plenty of opportunity for debate on where the article should go next, Nsaa has correctly identified the last stable version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support per above. Moreover, the haircut was very sloppy -- all sorts of hanging ref-tags now. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So Tillman: just to be absolutely clear about this: you think that having a "reception" section longer thatn the rest of the article put together is a good idea, and that there is no need to trim this section at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So WMC, why don't you expand the article in other areas then. For example the The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Synopsis section could be bigger if you think the reception section is to big (I don't). Nsaa (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think my last edit was the last stable version before somebody swooped in and deleted a significant portion of the article. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't support that - there's too much bloat in the article as is. Using blogs as sources when we have real sources - not a good idea. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And where is the blogs [20] from note 21 to 26 as restored by MSGJ? Nsaa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, per rough consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Nsaa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (for the record). Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose fixing a broke page? Nsaa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed stuff

• 2010-08-30 MN remove maui news, depeacock joyner and various fixes[21]. Ok per talk page as discussed at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Trimming

• 2010-09-21T15:59:34 WMC removes a lot of reviews
  1. Discovery News, George Gilder
  2. The Courier's Bruce Robbins commended the way
  3. Peter Foster, in a column in the National Post
  4. In The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009, authored by 14 natural and social scientists including Mike Hulme and Roger A. Pielke, Jr.,
  5. The book was cited in a paper about environmental regulation by Elizabeth Fisher

William M. Connolley claims that this has been discussed ((→Reception: trim. see talk)). This is plainly untrue (I've gone through all the active discussions at the moment). Why is the article protected after this extremely controversial removal of content without restoring it to the last stable version Cla68 at 2010-09-21T07:04:41? Nsaa (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief - that trimming this has been discussed is obviously true - just look at the sections currently on this page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, give me a reference to each of the five paragraphs you removed where it was discussed (and at least got some wider consensus of removing it except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments). Maybe I've not read the discussions well enough? Nsaa (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any consensus to remove the material either. I don't support its removal. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, a long array of 1-2 sentence paragraphs is horrible writing. As for the material that was actually removed

1. Gilder's blog post wasn't notable when it was first added, and it's even more inappropriate now that there are non-blog reviews.
2. The Courier stuff is a barely notable bit of fluff. Adds little.
3. The Peter Foster bit says nothing beyond "buy this book". How does that belong in an encyclopaedia article?
4. The "Hartwell paper" shouldn't be there. "The book was used as a source"? Seriously? Is this clutching at straws, or parody? And it's seriously misleading.
5. The last bit, an entire paragraph (or sentence, since these are one and the same here) to say "it was used as a source". Um, yeah. Stop making fun of Montford's boosters?

Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda's analysis. "Writing in Discovery News, George Gilder ...." may suggest to the casual reader that Gilder is a newspaper reporter. He should be identified as an intellegent design proponent if that source is retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Again mostly WP:IDONTLIKE arguments. As far as I have remembered the two last sentences has been discussed at length. It's a big pain for the AGW movement that this book has been used by peer reviewed articles. Knowing that the book is regarded as a well written piece used by the scientific community is extremely important and interesting for the general readership of this article and make the weight of the book much bigger. Ok, you don't like it, but that is not an argument, see Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship. As the arguments for the other articles like "barely notable bit of fluff" (please blog about it instead), " The Peter Foster bit says nothing beyond "buy this book". How does that belong in an encyclopaedia article?" ok what does the sentence say? "The Courier's Bruce Robbins commended the way "that Andrew has managed to break the episode down and re-assemble it in a way that has transformed the Hockey Stick saga into a compulsive detective story."[22] In a second review he commented, "The Hockey Stick Illusion, charts in great detail the efforts of a sceptical mining industry consultant and statistician, Steve McIntyre, to take apart a graph that became known as the Hockey Stick".[23]". Buy the book? Yes hopefully you will do and read it but that is not what this sentence says. Nsaa (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, there is about 30% more material on reviews of the book as there is material in the entire rest of the article. This is poor style. My suggested change would be to leave one prominent favorable review, and one prominent critical review (e.g. Joe Branan and Bob Ward, which seem to be the most detailed of the reviews), then add a sentence to the end of each paragraph referencing other reviews with a similar view. Combine the two citations to the book into one more paragraph. Voila, 13 paragraphs becomes 3 and we can forgo all of these arguments on whether to add each new review every time one comes out. Do you think readers are counting the number of favorable and unfavorable cites??? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

your edit left a bunch of broken cite tags. I am going to revert your good faith edit to clean it up, and how about we carefully remove some of the excess? The problem with your proposal is that it would make it appear as though there have been roughly equal positive and negative reviews, which isnt the case --- that would give a bit of undue weight to the negative reviews. This section does need to be trimmed, however. Perhaps leave a couple of the better positive reviews and one negative that is represenative? Minor4th 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the reference tags. The references for this article are in so many different formats I couldn't tell if they were correct or not until actually making the edit. I would welcome an effort to clean them up. Given the preponderance of the sources, I think it would be reasonable to add a few more sentences about the positive reviews and possibly cut the review by Bob Ward, which had some issues with it from what the current version says. Maybe add the word "many" to the the "remainder" sentence for the pro sources and replace "several" with "a few" in the con sources, barring a sudden outbreak of more reliable sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the results of my edits, it appears the only problem was that there were several references that were never cited or cited in two different ways in the revised version, which can be trivially remedied. (most were resulting from deleting the he said/she said argument from the Ward review). Shall I try to clean it up or leave it for a more experienced user? Sailsbystars (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree the "Reception" section should be trimmed, but predict this will continue to be contentious. I only have a few minutes (leaving on a trip), but here are a couple of comments. I oppose removing Gilder's review. He's probably the best-known person (to the general public) to have commented on HSI. Gilder is not a blog post, rather it appears to be a [22] newsletter. And I think Richard Joyner's non-review should be trimmed to a single sentence, as I believe another editor previously suggested. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I tried to do with my edit [23] was to shorten everything down except a summary of one review from each side. Here's what we can solve by this method:

1. Most of the reviews for both "sides" tell the same story. One favorable and one negative review in detail tell you the more or less the entirety of the point of view.

2. If we start adding reviews, we get into edit wars and personal attacks over, well, just about everything. This source says one thing, but this other source says this other source is wrong but then this other source says.... ad nauseum. If we add reviews with a note of the source and a citation, we avoid the whole messy details that people in this topic area love to argue over.

3. With regard to Minor4th's point about one detailed review each giving undue weight to the "con" side which has fewer reviews, I disagree respectfully. Look again at my version of the article.[24] It was obvious to me when I was writing it and it should be obvious to a casual reader that there are one heck of a lot more reliable sources in the "pro" camp than the con camp. Adding another detailed review to the "pro" camp adds little new information to the article, while providing the opening for yet more edit wars and endless debate.

4. with regards to a lot of the comments on this page saying "trim this review, expand this review", taking such actions fails to solve the main problem with the reception section, which is the fact that it's just a collection of quotes about the book and terribly long with a minimal organizational scheme. Picking at it gradually won't reduce the bloat and will leave a field of battle littered with dead horses beaten in the intervening edit wars. Hence why in my humble opinion, the section should simply be weedwhacked down to the essential points, as I tried to do.

Sailsbystars (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Sailsbystars might be on the right track here -- I like the idea of grouping the positive and negative reviews, though I think SBS's proposal is too telegraphic. SBS, why don't you post your proposal here on Talk and we can try to work out a version that is acceptable to the consensus? This approach has worked on other contentious pages. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be my suggestion too. SBS's text is the right broad approach (though I'm sure I can find some details to disagree with!). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sailsbystars on the broad approach, however this book demonstrably promotes a fringe agenda with misleading omissions, and that's something we should properly cover, as sourced to Bob Ward's review showing mainstream views. The positive reviews all appear to come from proponents of fringe scientific views, and the weight given to these reviews should reflect that. . dave souza, talk 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in the book, fringe views

As Bob Ward's review makes clear, the book shows a practice of misrepresentation by omission, then draws false conclusions promoting fringe views. Careful reading of the book reinforces this point.
For example, on pages 24–25, Montford presents a schematic diagram from the 1990 IPCC report as showing "the scientific understanding of the time" of global warming. The graph shows Medieval temperatures dipping below modern levels around 1330, but Montford says "it suggested that past temperatures had been warmer than today in a long period lasting from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries." Is he not very good at reading graphs, or has he failed to read the IPCC report page 202 which discusses this "exceptionally warm" period "about AD 950-1250" in some areas, when another area was cold? He correctly notes on p. 26 that the graph was largely based on records for central England, but then introduces his claim that it was only in 1994 that "potentially explosive" idea that the Medieval warm period was only regional was introduced, ignoring page 199 of the 1990 IPCC report, "the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global)" as well as page 202 which describes regional variations. On page 32–33 Montford claims that Mann et al. 1998 in reconstructing temperatures after 1400 "was the beginning of the end of getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period", and makes the exciting revelation on page 33 that in the 1998 "Hockey Stick" graph showing only temperatures back to 1400, "The Medieval Warm Period had completely vanished", as though the graph could show a period before the graph starts.
That's pretty blatant, and is even self contradictory, demonstrating the low standard of scholarship in the book. It's enough to dismiss the book as a reliable source for fact, though it is a reliable source for the author's fringe views. As this analysis is based purely on the book itself and the source it cites, it's reasonable source based research. The conclusions are not those presented in the book so it's arguably original research in Wikipedia terms, but it is something to bear in mind when considering the weight to be given to Montford's views. . . dave souza, talk 11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a thought on that problem as well. Perhaps a compromise could be to link to "Main Article: Hockey stick controversy" (or Global warming controversy) immediately under the synopsis break. The Fringe views are quite well debunked on those pages, so rather than debunk them on every page about a fringe source (which would constitute SYN or OR (or perhaps combine both into Original Syn)), simply link to the main article that explains the broader context of such views. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A more explicit alternative, which I think would create more problems that it would solve (which is why I refer to the above as a compromise) would be a disclaimer along the lines of

The following section may represent a minority view on a scientific subject. To see the complete context of the controversy, please see the article on the Global warming controversy.

But what exactly constitutes a minority view? And what about adding such a statement BLPs, e.g. Judith Curry? It's more BLPORSYN. With my first choice of the main article link we solve the problem with neutral wording, which allows a similar style to be followed regardless of the scientist's position on the sliding scale of mainstream vs. fringe and lets the reader decide for themselves where that book/person/blog falls. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you'll appreciate, expecting a reader to click on a link to get an idea of the mainstream/minority/fringe status of a specific claim doesn't meet the weight policy requirements, and it should be made clear from reading the article itself. Not easy to achieve in an area as hotly contested as this is. Agree that the problem is solved by neutral wording which makes it clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view, as well as giving sufficient detail of the majority view. Unfortunately sources on barely noticed fringe subjects don't often give us that degree of information with specific reference to the specific subject of the article; in this case, the book itself. As for Judith Curry, her views on science itself appear to be mainstream, her ideas on this particular book seem to have been rather vague and ill-informed. . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but disagree about what can be done with the article. I think that the problem here is that current wikipedia sourcing policies are set up poorly with regards to fringe viewpoints. Most traditional media is happy to uncritically report fringe viewpoints since they are controversial and exciting. Blogs by experts are much more adept at dismantling these frivolous claims. The ideal solution would be to have a policy to allow the use of blog postings by recognized experts in a field as a source in their field of expertise. The ideal solution for this particular article would be referencing RealClimate's thorough demolition of the book. (Although we would still have a problem with WP:UNDUE, and an intractable debate would develop about whether we are giving undue weight by number of sources or undue weight by reputation of sources) Unfortunately, current policy doesn't allow that. So we're stuck with a fringy article for the forseeable future and should thus concentrate on repairing other aspects of the article that we can actually get consensus to fix. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how these suggestions can be achieved without major BLPORSYN issues, and consequent edit wars. The key thing to remember is that this article is about the book. Trying to use it to debunk Monford or his views is just as much COATRACKing as trying to use it to debunk AGW would be. By all means wikilink everything, and include specfic links to Hockey stick controversy or Global warming controversy. By all means include reliably sourced quotes from people like Bob Ward. But more than that is SYN at best and OR at worst. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me right back to my edit [25] attempt at major clean up the article. One side wants to use the reception as a COATRACK for debunking the book's claims and the other wants to use it as promotion bordering on advertising of the book. But additional reviews fail to add more information content to the article. The "inclusion of reliably sourced claims" has gotten out of hand on this article and has instead become "inclusion of any reliably sourced claim that supports viewpoint x or y". There is no viewpoint z (yet), so why the need for quoting 11 different sources to show two viewpoints? Sailsbystars (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we pretty much agree on basic approach, and your edit was the best we have seen for a while. I think the only real question is whether we hack it about here or on the article page. As you have no doubt noticed people get a little fraught on these pages! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt bob ward just a pr man? Does he actually have the credentials to review the science? And montford says bob got it wrong [26] Ward's article is, however, worse. He fails to make clear that the scientific papers he discusses are rather peripheral to the hockey stick story. He makes three main arguments, each one of which is in essence a straw man Should this also be in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.44 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This exactly the sort of pointless addition that is how this section got so bloated. The subject of this article is not reviews of reviews of montford's book. And the whole montford-ward-montford back and forth is already documented here and doesn't need Yet Another Quote. It's an article about Montford's book. Let's cut out the meta. In my suggested revision, I collapsed Bob Ward's review to a single sentence since it's regarded as problematic by some. However, the article at the guardian is the amended version [27] so why do we care the about the whole back and forth of how it got amended anyway? Just cite the amended version! Sailsbystars (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cited, again

I took out [28], yet again. What is this "an administrator said this has to stay until there is a clear consensus for it to be deleted, he said he will block people who delete it" stuff? Who is this mysteroius admin, and what is he doing making content decisions?

Can we have the article semi'd, perhaps? There is enough trouble n strife without anon reversions William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with WMC's deletion, although for a different reason. It seems like original research to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you - I think it's trivia (as I've said before), but it's also OR. Now if a reliable source discussed this, it would no longer be OR and probably would not be non-notable trivia. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Secondary sources documenting it as a well-regarded academic source would be needed to keep the paragraph, otherwise it's OR and perhaps also puffery. The only reason I left it in during the major cleanup was that I didn't want accusations of bias to lead to a revert of the desperately needed compaction.. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this had been settled. Earlier on the page, I said I would block people for continuing to edit war without gathering consensus either way. My recollection was that such consensus had been gathered. Apparently not, and I don't have time to look through archives right now unfortunately. Here is an attempt to remedy that: People who believe this information should be kept in the article, please explain why. NW (Talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't semi the article for a bit in the meantime, could you? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have referred that question to WP:RFPP to get an outsider's opinion. NW (Talk) 17:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I am that outsider ;-) I declined to semi-protect the article, as it seemed at the time that IPs were behaving with some degree of responsibility (I could be wrong, however...) and that sock-puppetry was probably occurring, but using auto-confirmed accounts (hence semi-protection would not be effective in addressing that). I think that full-protection may be the answer, but it's a big step and I'd prefer to avoid it if at all possible. I'm continuing to monitor the situation and will fully-protect the article if problems continue. TFOWR 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i had only meant to put back the discovery magazine which was removed as a blog. It has a full editorial staff and i posted that up above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.44 (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend discussing such edits here first, and waiting for consensus. There has been way too much edit warring going on here, and if it continues the solution will be to fully-protect the article. This is something that I would greatly prefer not to do, as it will mean that everyone will have to use the {{edit protected}} template to propose and request changes to the article. TFOWR 10:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover isn't the source you re-instated. The source you reinstated is "Discovery News", a production of the Discovery Institute which lists no editorial staff and is made up of posts with date stamps, newest at the top. You (72.20.28.44) should really read links before you reinstate them. Guettarda (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

The current version reads "Numerous other newspaper and magazine articles ...".[29] It would be more accurate to say "A number of ..." or simply "Other". Unstated is the fact that despite the interest in the topic, this book was largely ignored by the mainstream media and scholars. Compare its reception by scholars to that given a mainstream book on climate change, e.g., "The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change" (2005) by Tim Flannery.[30]][31] The lack of scholarly sources has made it difficult write a balanced article. As currently written, with the backgrounds or affiliations of the reviewers either unstated or misstated, the reader of this article may not understand that many of the reviews are little more than a reflection of the bias of the reviewer. I find no evidence that Fred Singer is a climatologist, but describing him as a retired physicist and anthropogenic climate change skeptic would be accurate and helpful to the reader. I think that the article is much easier to read as a result of the edits of Sailsbystars. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed "a handful" to "several" for the critical reviews, but there really are a lot more positive than negative ones. I retitled Singer to Atmospheric physicist, per his wikibio. The reviews are what they are -- I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to sort out bias vs. expertise, so long as the reviews are verifiable and accurately summarized. I think readers can judge this for themselves. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The usual compromise is just to drop the title - no-one lese has one that I can see. Singer isn't a AP any more, he is long retired William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um. As a mostly-retired geologist, I resemble that remark... <G>

More seriously, retired professionals don't often decay into instant senility. Singer himself seems to have remained quite active -- whether or not you approve of his activity. Quite impressive, for an 86-year old. You'll be there, too, someday....

Also tweaked to "A number of", per Walter's suggestion, above. And I agree that SBS's revision is a significant improvement for this section. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Judith Curry review

We finally have a usable version of Judith Curry's views on HSI, at her new climate blog. I've given her remarks the lead in our reception section, plus a few tweaks for neutrality and readability. See what you think. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm. I think this will lead into another WP:SPS argument, and I think that's a dangerous road to go down. If we include Curry's self published view, why can't we use RealClimate's? Sailsbystars (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "Tamino" review, that one's problem was the pseudonym. I believe we've used other RC posts elsewhere under the "established expert" SPS clause -- which would also apply to Prof. Curry. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the SPS issue, the edits look fine by me. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Identification of reviewers

I think it's helpful to our readers to include a word or two of identification for reviewers who aren't household names. I think it's essential to do so for people who don't have wikibios -- such as Richard Joyner, whose ID got trimmed for consistency. The tag I suggest for him is "emeritus chemistry professor."

It's one thing if the tag becomes contentious (as it did for Fred Singer and George Gilder) -- their bios are just a click away. But I don't think we should require our readers to Google for an ID for Prof. Joyner (or whoever), especially after link-rot sets in. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what you say here. This should not be controversial I think as long as it can be sourced. Nsaa (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Joyner there is a mini-bio at the bottom of the source, but I take your point about link rot. My preference is not to do this, but it's not a life or death point for me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I always try to look at these things from the viewpoint of the average reader. Editors here will already know who Fred Singer and (maybe) Bob Ward are, but probably not many outsiders. Knowing a bit about the reviewer gives the reader a leg-up in judging their credibility. And virtually no one will have a clue re Richard Joyner. As you say, not life-or-death, and I take your (and WMC's) point for just wikilinking controversy-provoking people -- but we should put the user first if we can. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My view on this tends to be that if the author isn't notable (for which we can use having a wiki bio as a very rough proxy) then giving the name of the author doesn't actually add anything much, and we might think about describing the review based on the source rather than the author, as we do in the previous paragraph. More generally, if neither the author nor the source has a wiki page then the review probably isn't notable. Joyner's review survives partly because Prospect is notable, though actually you could make a decent argument that Richard Joyner should have a page, not for his scientific work (which is adequate rather than notable) but for his involvement in the "Save British Science" campaign - he's far better known for science politics and science administration than for his research, except possibly in the world of zeolite chemistry. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While you have some confusing cases, I think a generally good style would be to list the person's profession if it's something other than journalist. I think the default assumption by the average reader is that a book review is written by a journalist. If it's written by someone from another profession (a guest column or some such), it's useful to specify that to the reader. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Alastair McIntosh review summary

I just reread this review -- it's actually a pretty decent one, but I don't think our summary does it justice. Let's see if I can do better:

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, wrote that, while Montford's book is based on Stephen McIntyre's criticism of the Hockey stick graph, McIntyre’s attack on Michael E. Mann's work is "strongly contested" by many scientists. McIntosh lists several studies supporting Mann, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, according to the journal Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. McIntosh calls The Hockey Stick Illusion "exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog," and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."

See what you think. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more coherent and stand-alone:

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, wrote that, "Montford claims that the MWP was airbrushed out by cherry-picking and statistically steamrollering tree-ring data – one of the proxies used to reconstruct past planetary temperatures". This claim is based on Stephen McIntyre's criticism of the Hockey stick graph. McIntyre’s attack on Michael E. Mann's work is "strongly contested" by many scientists. McIntosh lists several studies supporting Mann, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, according to the journal Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. McIntosh calls The Hockey Stick Illusion "exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog," and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."Slowjoe17 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat exaggerating the quality of the review. Even the author admitted it wasn't particularly useful [32]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read McIntosh's comments more carefully. He says that his "review, for which [he] only had 700 words, does not attempt to be a comprehensive summary of [Montford's] arguments". Nowhere does he say "it wasn't particularly useful". While that may be your personal opinion, I think it is a thoughtful review by a well-informed writer. I applaud efforts to improve the content that is based upon it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rereading McIntosh's wiki-comments [33], he says (I think) that his primary beef is that Montford's (et al.) criticisms weren't peer-reviewed. So we should work that in. And perhaps both my and Slowjoe's summaries are too long, compared to the current positive side. Hmm. Too late now for me, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Third draft:

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, says Montford's book purports to prove that Michael E. Mann's Hockey stick graph is "just not true." "But who is Montford?" A blogger with no real scientific credentials, McIntosh answers, and lists several studies supporting Mann, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, according to the journal Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. McIntosh calls The Hockey Stick Illusion "exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog," and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."

Hopefully submitted, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Montford has a degree in chemistry. The phrase "A blogger with no real scientific credentials" is original to you, I think. The above synopsis is frankly not great, in the sense that it suggests that McIntosh has said something that is arguably libelous. Can we not work something out between the first two suggestions, since the differences between them are small? Slowjoe17 (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rm: why

I took this out [34]. That doesn't look like an RS, and the material is predominantly ranting about GW, and only about the book in passing. Since it really is ranting, its effectively a BLP problem for the author, so needs a RS for inclusion anywhere William M. Connolley (talk)

I found a reliable source. I take no position on the substantive issue of whether this "ranting" belongs in the article. David.Kane (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)