Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment: I am here due to a request to close, which I declined. Remember There is no deadline; please attempt to discuss with your fellow editors and find common ground. Closure of this because there is a simple majority is not the same as finding consensus. The most that can be said right now is that "no consensus for merge has been found" - but that could change, and opinion is still very much divided. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:15, 30 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)
   • Kommentar 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)
     • How does this change the idea that they are "exceptionally weak"? These are also very weak examples. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
       • How exactly is being interview for Channel 4 a weak example? Or being Interviewed by the times? Or being part of a live debate with Bob Ward and Ben Webster? mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 26 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 ^T_C 06:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
5. support per my comments below under the section "references" Thepm (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Support per my reasoning in the AfD. Montford makes the most sense to me as the unified article, but here would be fine. Thepisky (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Can we merge the AfD discussion here? It seems a bit silly to have two simultaneous discussions of the same question. Thepisky (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The AFD has run it`s course, it`s a keep as there is no consensus for a merge or delete mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 29 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. I think there are enough sources to support having the blog article separate from this one. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose no need to merge anything, I think, but certainly not all three into one. ATren (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Book and person/blog are different subjects. Would support merger between Montford and blog. Slowjoe17 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Agree book and person are entirely separate.--Martin Audley (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

   Note: this is this users only edit. Canvassing, anyone? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Note: You fail the guidelines of "Assume Good Faith" and "Do Not Bite The Newcomers" with that innuendo. Please withdraw it.--Martin Audley (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   And that is your second edit. You aren't being honest here: you are a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   Either launch a sock puppet investigation or retract your claim. SkipSmith (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

   I protest this accusation. I don't know enough about Wiki to know a mechanism to directly link my Wiki name to my person other than to log in under that name which is the entire point of registering in the first place. I've edited Wiki previously via just an IP address and yet when I registered under my own name (specifically so that I'm open about my identity for voting purposes) I've been immediately accused of being a sock puppet both here and on my talk page by William M. Connolly, within 2 minutes of my post. This is not even an "In my opinion this is a sock puppet" type statement of belief - it's a direct accusation by WMC. I protest again: This is not Assume Good Faith and not Do Not Bite The Newcomers. I can be found pretty quickly via web under my name for anyone making an effort. My name is my name - UK Google it - the first page is mostly me. I don't know yet how to make Wiki admins aware of this personal attack, which (in my opinion) is libelous and certainly against Wiki principles as previously stated. Edit wars=Bad, so I won't protest indefinitely after this.

8. Oppose Book and person are entirely separate. --Cable-tv of our forefather's (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
9. 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)
10. Oppose Book and person are entirely separate. Timg156 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

    Note: this users only contributions are to this talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

11. Oppose Both are notable. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    Can you explain this basis for this? The blog fails our general notability guidelines and webpage-specific notability guidelines, and the book is borderline. What are you using to conclude that these are notable? Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN jumped the gun on the tags. I've restored them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Help:Merging, this should probably be closed by an uninvolved admin. Also there's little sense in closing this while the AFD is still ongoing. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose The blog is discussed in several sources, including BBC and Guardian. When talking about the blog the press rarely mention the book, and the blog has been mentioned specifically for it's role. Looking at the article histories and talkpages, it would seem that this nomination could be for reasons not to do with any necessity for merging. Regardless of the nominators motivations, the press coverage afforded each of the three elements separately - book, man, blog - means that all three deserve an article. Oppose merging. Weakopedia (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comments

As we can see from the above, the majority want no merger, so i figure to make a small comment on the merger proposal. A blog article has no place in an article about a book, and as such should not be merged into this article. Montford the person is notable in his own right and under policy qualifies for his own article. The book is also notable enough to have it`s own article and as such should be left as is. The only issue i can see is with the blog, which has just survived an AFD, so it to qualifies for it`s own article. Does anyone disagree with the above assessment?

If there is to be no discourse then i figure the merge proposal be scrapped mark nutley (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Last chance before the merge tags go mark nutley (talk) 07:15, 12 May 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.[8] 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 ^T_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) [nb: I have nothing against stating something like this - but it has to be contrasted with the mainstream science position - otherwise we are dodging NPOV --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 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)

What makes you think that these are seperate concepts? Depending on how the book is presented, it becomes a statement on a minority viewpoint, and that is just what has happened. For instance when we present Mendes' book on how he thinks that the Chinese discovered America - we also present the mainstream view, per NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 26 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)

This article is now so carefully hedged and trimmed of skeptical claims that the *other studies find* claim is not relevant and I'm inclined to remove it. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT would only apply here if Montford's view *were actually being presented*, which it is not. All this article says now is that Montford-who-is-skeptical wrote a history of the HS from a skeptical perspective which so far has been well received. Which needs no rebuttal. The article doesn't tell us anything about what the book *actually claims* - what montford believes or why he believes it - so there's little need to reiterate the mainstream view as a bulwark against those claims. More to the point, *guesses* such as this by people who *haven't read the book* as to what might be telling counterarguments against it are unlikely to be useful or successful. --Blogjack (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I have removed the merge tags as for two weeks nobody has responded to my comments above, i believe it is also time to be rid of the POV tag, are there any objections to this? mark nutley (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you addressed any the issues raised in the past? Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Which issues? All we have above are people wanting to stick a POV into the article with regards to saying it`s fringe. This is not a book about the science, it is a book about stuff which happened. So i really don`t see how the article can be altered to suit this "make it look fringy" POV without any refs to back that. Even judith curry has said this is an excellent recounting of the events for gods sake mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So I take it that's a "no". If you deny that the issues exist, it's really hard to solve them. Which gets us nowhere. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets work through this and see were it gets us. What is the first thing in this article you think breaks WP:NPOV mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see little value in repeating what's already been said, especially since your response has been to deny the problem. Why don't you pick one and take a shot at resolving it, or even take a shot at explaining why you don't agree with it? Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss your issues then the tag will be removed, as you can see from the above threads they have become a mixed jumble. Either work on me with this and state your issues with specific content or the tag goes, thanks mark nutley (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't refuse to discuss anything. I'm simply asking that you address the issues raised, rather than demanding that other editors explain them over and over again. Guettarda (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the tag is ever to go, MN needs to stop stuff like this [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, with that revert I think the thing is OK, or at least not too terrible, given the subject of the article William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for Mr Nice Guy. Weakopedia has dishonestly restored the text but not the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't restore text so much as remove it. The phrase was unsourced - unsourced text remains speculation until sourced. The tag thing is entirely separate - there is no policy that says we must include unsourced commentary to balance out sourced text. If there is a problem with the text that is already sourced, remove it. If there is a problem with an omission of text, find a source and include it. But don't add unsourced qualifiers in an effort to retain some kind of 'balance'. We can only report the balance reflected by the outside sources. Weakopedia (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Weakopedia has a point. The text was unsourced, so its removal is not unreasonable. It probably is accurate but only reflects an editorial assessment, rather than what a reliable source has said. That is problematic from an OR perspective. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on 1RR here, so I can't restore the tag, today. But like I say: I removed the tag on the explicit condition that text stays. If it is removed, honesty from Weakopedia should restore the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that in exchange for removal of a POV tag you want to include an unsourced phrase that you think balances out the POV you see. Unfortunately there is no policy which says that you can add unsourced material in an effort to balance out an article to reflect a different POV to that which it already has. And thinking about it logically, there is no reason why it should - if an opinion is notable, it will have appeared in reliable sources which can be added. If it hasn't appeared in reliable sources then it isn't notable so why include it?

Unfortunately you do not get to barter with article content like that. In this case there is no need to break your 1RRR, just find a source for what you wish to add. But if you can't find a source, then there was no need for the POV tag. You are basing your wish for a POV tag on the absence of unsourced information - that doesn't make sense to me. Just find a source for what you wish to include and you have both contributed to the encyclopedia and avoided 1RR and we'll all be happy. Oh, and please stop calling me dishonest, it really is rather bad faith of you. Weakopedia (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is all right: I've found a way round the 1RR restriction by simply tagging the section. It is a better tag anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And now we have two tags for christs sakes. What is the issue now? Gutterda has restored the pov tag yet refuses to actually say what in this article is not NPOV mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Refuses to say" is false. Everything I added below I have said in the past. Guettarda (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to ponder (yet again) whether "for christs sakes" is compatible with your civility restriction (or indeed grammar, unless you are a heretic). As to the tagging: I crossed over with G; sorry about that William M. Connolley (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot comment on other instances of similar behaviour, but in this case MNs comment is not addressed at anyone, but used in it's more general sense as an expression of, perhaps, futility or exasperation. But however it was formed, it is not directed against any editors and is unlikely to be covered by a civility parole. Of more concern to the civility aspect would be things like accusing other editors directly of dishonesty - please review WP:CIVILITY for a distinction between commenting on edits and commenting on editors. Weakopedia (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The POV tags need to stay.

1. The "Reception" creates a misleading impression of how the book was received.
2. The synopsis is still unsourced; although a few qualifiers are inserted, the section is still written from an 'in-universe' perspective. In particular

1. "relates the story of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes's "hockey stick graph" from a skeptical perspective - judging from what Montford wrote in his "Jesus" blog post, I rather doubt that he actually "relates the story"; "from a skeptical perspective" is also misleading - the assertion that so-called "climate skeptics" actually approach the subject "from a skeptical perspective" is at odds with just about every reliable source not springing from that group. We don't validate spin. Especially not in an unsourced section.
2. "Starting with a brief summary of the consensus view prior to 1998" - again, based on Montford's past performance, I think this needs to be validated by a reliable secondary source who understands the material
3. "the book traces the history of what Montford claims is the slow unraveling of that same graph" - adding "what Montford calls" doesn't change the meaning of the sentence - it still implies "the...unravelling of that...graph". Again, we can't validate spin. Especially in an unsourced section. Guettarda (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point 1 relates to the above discussion - if you have a reliable source for a different impression to the one given in the "Reception" section, then add it. If you believe the sources cited are inadequate or misrepresentative, then modify or remove them. However it is up to you to show that the impression given by that section is misrepresentative, and for that you need sources - which you can add to the article to clear up the concerns you have with the impression it gives. But then, of course, for you to say that the section is misleading you must have seen other sources which contradict the impression given in the article, so just add those and problem solved. Weakopedia (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The section gives only positive reviews. Thus, it creates the misleading perception that the reception was entirely positive. The lack of sources isn't a good excuse to mislead readers. Guettarda (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The impression is only misleading if you have other reviews that say different. And if you do, you can add them. I have created a section for this below - specific concerns need to be addressed. Weakopedia (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course the problems with that section go much deeper. The whole section is a mess. It takes passing mention, like Booker's "see also", and spins it as a review. And I still don't see what Gilder's blog post is doing there... So not only does it mislead the reader by omission, it also puffs up the reception by Montford's allies. Guettarda (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Ok lets go through your points then.

• • • • The "Reception" creates a misleading impression of how the book was received. Do you have a source which is actually critical of this book? Unless you do then you are suggesting we us wp:or to insert information to support your POV.
      • I rather doubt that he actually "relates the story This is your POV, please recall Judith Curry has said "never before has the whole story been compiled into a complete narrative" and this "from a skeptical perspective" is also misleading you are correct as this is wp:or there are no sources to support this claim.
      • the...unravelling of that...graph Is montford the only person to have said MBH98 is discredited? Nope. Again, we can't validate spin yet this is what you are suggesting we use in this article to support your POV. Your objections are pointless as they simply can`t be fixed, not without any wp:rs at any rate mark nutley (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Do you have a source which is actually critical of this book?" - Are you saying that the reception was entirely positive? If it wasn't, then the section is misleading.
• "This is your POV" - and that's a problem why? The section makes unsourced assertions that appear to support one POV. It's irrelevant whose opinion it supports or fails to support.
• "Is montford the only person to have said MBH98 is discredited? Nope." True, but it's not universally accepted, it's not the mainstream opinion. But it's presented as fact in a section utterly devoid of secondary sourcing.
• "Your objections are pointless as they simply can`t be fixed, not without any wp:rs at any rate" - there's one simple way to fix some of them - removed the unsourced content. It may not be the ideal fix, but it's false to say that it's impossible to fix. There's another way, and that's to use the primary source to write an uncontroversial summary. Again, lacking a copy of the book, I can't do that. As for the first issue - carefully written, that section could be improved substantially. The current section is simply spin. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i will rewrite the synopsis and cite the book to do so, this removes one of the problems. Once that`s done we`ll see if there is anything else. I`ll start doing it now but it may be a little while before i`m done as i have my kids running riot :) mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look and tell me if it`s ok with you thus far? mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception II

It has been suggested by several editors in the above section that the Reception section displays undue POV by ommission of reviews contrary to that perceived POV. The editors have been asked for sources to show those contrary reviews, but have not yet provided any. Are there any sources to show this different POV or not? If not, the POV in the article must reflect the coverage in reliable secondary sources. If that is not true, however, there must be specific sources to show that, or specific concerns with the quality of the current sourcing. Perhaps the editors who think that section shows undue POV could list their specific concerns so that they may be addressed. Weakopedia (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda - you said "Are you saying that the reception was entirely positive? If it wasn't, then the section is misleading.", but the article does not claim that the reception was entirely positive, it just lists some examples of the reseption it received. If you dispute the sourcing used, you could change that. But it is only appropriate to say that the reviews present do not represent the views in general if you have a source saying different. You must have seen such a source to have the opinion that the reviews here are unrepresentative, so could you please list that source, either in the article, or if you do not wish to edit it in directly, here, for other editors to work on. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

rm Curry

I removed Curry from the article[2]. While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've never heard of this web site before, but generally speaking, web sites which do interviews are considered reliable for the interview unless there's some reason to suspect the interview isn't legit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Collide-a-scope is a blog/discussion site operated by Keith Kloor, a well-respected journalist and former editor of Audubon Magazine. His resume is here, and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.

Please note that Prof. Curry is commenting on the book, not the author. Thus BLP concerns are peripheral here. Good try, though. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't source Curry's opinion (Curry is a living person) to an unreliable source. It has nothing to do with the book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's not reliable, per my post above, plus what Tillman said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:V: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer - this is about a third-party, Curry, it is self-published by Kloor. (WP:BLPSPS states this rather harsher). I do agree that it is a grey-area though - since i'm rather convinced that this is Curry - but the medium (the blog) isn't reliable for such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...there may be a disconnect between what the policy says versus what editors are actually doing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interested thought experiment. What if Curry posts something on her blog (assuming that she has a blog) confirming that the interview is legit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the interview is legit, this is one for the RS noticeboard, you`ll never get any agreement here on it mark nutley (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken above about it being an interview. It appears the original source of this is a comment she made to this blog post.[3] Can anyone confirm this account is hers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think Mark is right, re RS noticeboard. It's too late tonight here -- I'll post it there in the AM. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

---

• I've now posted this query at the RS noticeboard here. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

This sentence in the lede: "Many subsequent scientific papers have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original Mann et al. (1998) hockey-stick graph using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records." appears to be a violation of WP:SYN. As far as I can see, that Guardian article does not mention this book. Any objections to removing it? Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually got a reason? mark nutley (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your so not funny, give a reason for allowing wp:syn in this article mark nutley (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that we should William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A straight answer please, stop wasting time with stupid games mark nutley (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, if you don't back up your objection with a valid reason why WP:SYN doesn't apply here, I'll be removing the sentence myself. Please, the podium is yours... Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While you gather your notes, perhaps you could answer a question. WMC, do you have of have had an off-wiki personal and/or professional relationship with Dr. Mann, one of the principal authors of the hockey stick graph, such as founding and contributing to a blog with him that defends his research? Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant, exactly? Knowing or having worked with someone, or having opinions on something is not a conflict of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, you're fishing. If you want to try to drum up a COI issue, then put it on the COI noticeboard, but be sure to look up the previous cases first where the obvious has already been discussed. William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Back on topic, this article has to comply with due weight policy, as has already been discussed at #Other Hockey Stick Papers above. While the paragraph in question isn't perfect and can be improved, the point remains that "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." Without this well sourced statement about the graph which is the subject of the article, this policy would not be met. Have you suggestions for improvements which would comply with policy? . . dave souza, talk 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we can follow policy like you say and avoid the synth currently in the article. If you have a source which says what you want in the article then please present it mark nutley (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"It should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view" No, it should NOT always be clear. We're here to report back what reliable sources are saying about this article's topic. If no reliable sources about this topic have made this connection, you are engaging in original research, specifically, synthesis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes it should, weight is a core policy. Is the topic the hockey stick, or just the book with no comment on the hockey stick? If the latter, how do you cover the book with no comment on the hockey stick science? . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So, just imagine, if we had two conflicting policies, what should we do? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the conflict? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV demands that we present a minority view as such, and present the majority view as well, so that the reader has no doubt as to which is which. Apparently that conflicts with WP:OR, when the book in question has been ignored by the majority/mainstream. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting WP:NPOV. If no (or even few) reliable sources have said such a thing about this article topic, then to include it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Remember, the point of WP:NPOV is about editorial bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive 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." -- WP:NPOV --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

<ec> And I think A Quest For Knowledge is ignoring or misinterpreting the clear statements in NPOV policy, and thus you're justifying a misleading article on the grounds that the book itself is too fringe to have been analysed in detail, though the topic of the book has been analysed by reliable sources. No original research is needed in that it's obvious that the book is about the hockey stick graph, and reliable sources cover the mainstream views on the hockey stick graph. Does AQFK claim that the book's about something else? . dave souza, talk 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a minority viewpoint, it's about a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a book presenting a minority point of view - the view of the "citizen scientists", specifically those that frequent the website climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim do you have a source saying this book presents a minority view about the hocky stick controversy? If not then stop saying it. Adding content to an article which is not referenced to the article subject (in this case a book) is wp:or and wp:syn mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your question several times. I'm tired of it. It has nothing to do with OR or SYN. If you are not aware by now that this book is presenting a one-sided view of a controversy - specifically the viewpoint as presented by climateaudit and McIntyre - and if you are also not aware that the McI/climateaudit view is a minority one in comparison with the scientific mainstream - then i'm sorry to say that there isn't very much that can be done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)