Talk:Hockey stick controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
High traffic

On 2 May 2010, Hockey stick controversy was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Named refs" not an appropriate "fix" for "duplicate refs"[edit]

@Mikeblas: Re your "fix duplicate ref def" edits (here and following): Please do not use "named refs" (the "<ref name= ..." construction) to replace short cites. The style established in this article is to NOT used named refs. Ideally all of the short cites (typically using {harv} templates) would use a page/location specification, and there would be fewer "precise duplicates". And if you wanted to go through the sources and get the particular page numbers, that would be an excellent contribution. But it is not an appropriate "fix" to merge short cites with "named refs". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @J. Johnson:! Perhaps you can help me understand your objection. This article has at least a dozen named references. Before the my edit to which your objecting, one was "<ref name="bbc">{{Harvnb|BBC News, 16 July|2004}}.</ref>" and another was "ref name="bbc">{{Harvnb|BBC News|16 July 2004}}.</ref>". Since the names are identical but the content of the reference text isn't identical, the article renders with one (the first) reference visible, the second reference obscured, and the error text "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "bbc" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).".
The fix I applied was to remove the second ref tag and replace it with a closed tag, as <ref name="bbc"/>. Both references are to the same item; so using a named reference produces a short cite with a linked identifier for navigation in the references section. The link still resolves to the correct item in the bibliography.
The references I fixed (for this issue) were to web pages, which don't have page numbers, so I'm not sure I understand your objection, or what you're proposing as an alternative remedy for the errors in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure. The "Cite error" problem you were addressing (in two citations of a BBC News item) has a bit of a history. Originally the article had two notes ("footnotes"), each containing a short cite (using {{harv}} templates) pointing to the full citation. Then some one decided we can't have duplicated notes (the <ref>...</ref> construction), so they converted them to the "named" form ("<ref name= ..."), making one note appear in multiple places. (Here, in one other place.) Unfortunately, the names used weren't identical, leading to the error, which you fixed.
My objection is that you fixed the wrong problem. The problem was not in the name inconsistency, but in merging separate notes with a named-ref. There is no reason for merging those two notes (aside from a wide-spread mania about "dup refs"), and various problems using named-refs, while there is no harm in having them separate. The better fix would be to undo the named-ref edits.
The "citation style" of the article was to use short cites instead of named-refs. That named-refs have crept into the article doesn't change matters: they are contrary to the established style, and should be removed. (Which I was working on three years ago, then got side-tracked to other matters.)
What I would propose is that all named-refs in the article be removed, reverting the notes back to short cite style. At the same time, multiple notes at the end of sentences can be merged, or some notes moved into the sentence to follow the content supported. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


A passerby's comments[edit]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled upon this page called the Hockey stick controversy. I have two comments; there must be some kind of misunderstanding here. The whole thing is a "controversy" because the results of two different methods are presented in the same graph. If you either increase the time resolution of the proxy part through Monte Carlo techniques or decrease the time resolution of the modern record to fit the historical one, neither a steep hockey stick will appear, nor modern "unprecendented" temperatures. This is nowadays well-known within the scientific community. The "controversy" comes from the misleading super-posing of two sets of data not really saying what some people claim. Apple and pears. The other part is the sources. For instance, claiming that fossil industry is behind "manufacturing" doubts: the Guardian. Really, such serious charges are validated using a liberal newspaper (and no evidence are presented in the articles either upon closer examination)? I think the whole controversy will clear up if you stick to scientific papers only. When you put politics in the mix., like "the Guardian", you are forced to either choose sides or let all sides have a say. In this case you are clearly not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.242.200 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

[Adding a section header for someone who commented without benefit of the "New section" tab at the top. And doesn't know about using the four tildes ("~~~~") to sign one's posts.]
These comments above are rather superficial, even unfounded. E.g., as I recall the Guardian is not cited for any claim that the 'fossil industry is behind "manufacturing" doubts' (Really!); that can be supported by much more reputable sources. I did a quick check, and it appears that the Guardian is cited only for statements of Fred Pearce, who was a participant in the controversy, and for which the Guardian is deemed a reliable record.
The controversy about the "hockey stick" can not be "cleared up" by "stick[ing] to scientific papers only" because much of it played out outside of the scientific press. E.g.: the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and reports from several "conservative" think tanks. Which certainly seems adequate to "balance" any liberal taint that may have drifted in from the Guardian. And also shows that the controversy was as much political as scientific. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)