Talk:Michael E. Mann

Template:Community article probation

HSI

HSI isn't a good book, and our article on it isn't a good article, and spamming a link to the bio of everyone concerned is a bad idea, and so is singling out a few. So I've removed the link William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough i disagree, so i`m going to put it back, and as you have not read it how do you know if it`s good or not? mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you will edit-war over it? Not really a good argument is it? BLP comes into play here since the book claims conspiracy and deliberate fraud. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no it does not, were did you get the idea that it claims that? And how am i edit warring? mark nutley (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are at 1RR (your personal limit) and your statement was "i disagree, so i`m going to put it back" - no attempts at convincing - no arguments based on policy - in fact just a bold statement that you were going to revert (apparently no matter what). As for where i did get that idea? Well - first of all i read the subtitle of the book, then i've read several excerpts on Google books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if it does, if its a reliable source, there is no problem. I've seen you insert plenty of sources alleging conspiracy in other BLP articles; what's the difference here? FellGleaming (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that its a reliable source? Do please remember that reliability is dependent on context. And just for your information - i have never inserted anything "alleging conspiracy". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You inserted reams of material alleging conspiracy in corporate funding links to climate skeptics. As for the source, the context of, "if it attacks skeptics, it's reliable; if it attacks the mainstream, it's not", is not a reasonable yardstick. FellGleaming (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is true kim, you used exxonsecrets in a blp did`nt you mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters since first of all funding is not conspiracy, and this isn't a forum to discuss such - the enforcement board isn't far away. Secondly i have never "inserted" exxonsecrets to my knowledge - i may have reverted a bad edit where exxonsecrets was part - but i have never added it to an article. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope sorry FG - i haven't (do try to differentiate between reverting a bad edit, and inserting) [funding btw. is not conspiracy - its a potential conflict of interest]. And my definition of what is or isn't a reliable source doesn't differ between skeptics or mainstream articles. If you are going to continue down this line, then i would suggest that you create a user RfC or start an enforcement procedure - since i'm done accepting personal attacks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pointless fiddling

This [1] is just pointless fiddling. I'll revert it when my share comes back again William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Released, Hacked or discovered

I changed to released here, partly because it's the longer standing wording, but mainly because it seems less POV than either 'hacked' or 'discovered'. Thepm (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it is POV by omission. "released" indicates that it may have been legal - "discovered" tells another POV story (oh - that elusive insider) - while hacked tells it the way most reliable sources state it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If we're speaking English, "leaked" is the correct term. "Released" implies intentional action, "hacked" is far worse -- it can mean a dozen different things, and even in its closest context, you hack a system, not a piece of data (such as an email) on the system.

"Leaked" however, means: "To disclose without authorization or official sanction". Which describes the situation perfectly, despite obfuscatory attempts to the contrary. And many reliable sources have used just that term. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It was shown as 'released' for several months prior to the latest changes and, at least in part, that was why I changed it. The article Climatic Research Unit email controversy has, as its first two sentences;

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server.

(bolding is mine)

This would suggest that neither discovered nor hacked can be used without additional explanation that would seem to be out of place here. 'Released' just seemed the most neutral word to me. Happy to change it to anything else except 'hacked' or 'discovered'. Thepm (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it exactly, ThePm. The server was hacked, but the emails were leaked. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People who don't know how to write for the enemy have no business changing these wordings. Demonstrate that you can with a diff before changing it again. Hipocrite (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit emails section

Hipocrite is correct. This section is now either a coatrack, or so close to it that it doesn't matter. Also, it reads like an out of date newspaper article. It needs to remain relevant to Mann and it needs to be a balanced discussion of events that took place. My attempt at rewording is;

Mann's correspondence with fellow climate researchers was included in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In an interview broadcast by the BBC, Mann commented that the "emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said..." He wrote in The Washington Post that the e-mails "do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real."

Penn State University commenced an inquiry into the matter in December 2009, "following a well defined policy used in such cases". Their report was published on February 3, 2010 and found there was no credible evidence on three of the four allegations and stated that it did not have enough information to draw a conclusion on the fourth question: whether Mann had deviated from accepted practices within the academic community. The inquiry remanded the fourth complaint to a panel of five prominent Penn State scientists for further investigation.

I think it should also somehow mention that Mann had been attacked/criticised as a result of his correspondence, because that's what's relevant to Mann. The second paragraph makes it clear that he has been cleared to date, but any discussion of Mann would be incomplete without some sort of coverage of the intense scrutiny and criticism that he copped following climategate the release hacking discovery CRU incident (is 'incident' ok?). Thepm (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've replaced the contentious piece with the corresponding section from Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which was the result of careful deliberation there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks ridiculous, it has to be changed back to Climategate, you know, that word the rest of the world uses mark nutley (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any other problem with the text? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

None at all, just the section title mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the section title. However, having thought about it some more I think the section as a whole is undue weight - comprising nearly half of the entire article - which doesn't reflect the relative significance of this issue. It may not be intended to be a coatrack but it effectively acts as one. Following the example set on Phil Jones (climatologist), I've shrunk the section to a single paragraph, taking out the section title altogether and reflected the four key facts - that some of his e-mails were involved in the CRU controversy, that allegations of wrongdoing were made, that he rejected the allegations, and that PSU cleared him of research misconduct. There's no need to elaborate further - otherwise we just duplicate the CRU controversy article and coatrack-ise this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats not de-coatracking, that`s whitewashing, with copious amounts of paint. And you seem to be intent on calling climategate by the wrong name, why is this? mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about a distinguished scientist with numerous honours and awards and many years of work. Dedicating nearly half of a biographical article to a single issue - namely allegations which have turned out to be bogus - is grossly disproportionate. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not when the majority of his press coverage which gave him his notability is about the climategate scandal. mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. His public profile comes largely from the famous "hockey stick" graph, long before the CRU controversy. His role in that controversy was relatively marginal - a couple of the most controversial e-mails were sent to him, not by him. I'm well aware that he is a hate figure on the denialist blogs that you appear to frequent, which I suggest has distorted your judgement. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mann's involvement with the CRU stuff was peripheral; and the entire thing has turned out to be overblown by the press and the "skeptics". So anything here should be very brief. The idea that Mann's notability comes from CRU shows a very shallow understanding William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mann's involvement in the CRUstuffgate is what most people would know him for. I have no doubt that he's a distinguished scientist with many awards, but if you asked Bill Bloggs-Onthestreet who Michael Mann is he would say something about CRUstuffgate. That's if he didn't say he was the founder of the Sex Pistols. Most news articles about Mann seem to be related to CRUstuffgate.

You're right that it shows a shallow understanding and ChrisO's comment that he's "largely from the famous "hockey stick" graph" would be right if it wasn't for CRUstuffgate, but there you go. Furthermore, I think you're doing Mann a disservice by not covering his involvement in those events. Mann has undergone a level of scrutiny that few scientists would ever endure. To date, he's come out of it pretty much squeaky. It's a major event in his life. It's got to be covered. Thepm (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with you. Compared to the coverage of the MBH stuff NRC, Wegmann, this was comparatively trivial for Mann. Of course, as the most recent event it inevitably looks big, but as it receedes into the distance it will become ever more obviously a molehill (for Mann, certainly; probably for almost everyone else) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are correct it that assessment then that would be the time to condense the section mark nutley (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It already is a molehill. Mann was on the periphery of the CRU controversy; as I pointed out earlier, the most controversial e-mails were sent to him, not by him, or otherwise discussed his work. Since he was exonerated subsequently, this is a case of "nothing to see here, move along." -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, before I reply I'll put my ignorance on display for all to see. What's NRC? Thepm (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you make yourself vulnerable I *will* snark at you: it is revealing that you know what Wegman is but don't know about NRC, which was the real report: see Hockey stick controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I knew about neither (maybe, for example, neither redirects). Maybe I figured asking about one would tell me what the other is :) Reading now, will reply soon. Thepm (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you didn't ask about Wegmann (not sure how many N's BTW). And indeed you are correct: one will tell you about the other William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Investigation into Mann by VA Attorney General

I just added a line indicating the new investigation by the VA Attorney General, looking into Mann's work while at UVA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30755623/Untitled We can add additional sources, as needed. Virnbaum (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. A primary document with unknown provenance is an insufficient source for a WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary source needed, and note that not only is Wikipedia not news, but due weight needs to be given to the context and significance to Mann, if any. Va politician launches expensive fishing expedition for documents at the expense of a university where Mann used to work, damaging to Va but doubtful if it has any standing as far as Mann is concerned. Quote of the day,[2] "Even Fred Singer now admits they are still looking for the smoking gun. What is it with Republicans and elusive weapons?" . . dave souza, talk 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FOXNews.com State of Virginia to Investigate Global Warming Scientist Mann. Virginia Attorney General Letter. Even though this appears to be real, I think it would be wise to not report anything until the results are known. Q Science (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As with all things, we need a proper balance. I agree that the original news item sounds like, well NEWS, and properly excluded. However, I'm not convinced that the suggested rule - no mention until the results are released - is a good rule. Ideally, we need to distinguish between RS coverage which is coverage of a news event, and coverage which establishes notability of an event, but I'm not sure how best to do that. I'm in support of waiting and monitoring to see where this goes (hopefully nowhere), but I'm not yet acceding to the belief that there should be no mention prior to the release of results.--SPhilbrickT 14:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably inappropriate to titter about this, but it does seem laughably ridiculous and we'll have to see how the dust settles. Agree with Sphilbrick, we need to see if it gets any traction but don't have to await the iinal results. Interesting to note McI's view, but of course as a blog it's an unsuitable source. . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Better to wait till it`s over. I suspect this is a political move to gain some media coverage by the AG rather than an actual investigation mark nutley (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very real possibility, in which case we should avoid becoming an enabler.--SPhilbrickT 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit seems like a well sourced addition to the page, but I'm curious as to what extent we wish or expect to be a source for news about the ongoing suit. I mean, this is a page about a person, not about fall out from climategate. I'm not sure I object to the article the way it is, but I fear that if this suit is dragged out, Dr. Mann's article could turn into a play-by-play about these sorts of things. Thought? jhe_iv (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should confine ourselves to summarising it; following the story is more suited to Wikinews. I've had a go at rewriting this section to confine it to the three key facts - the CID being filed, a summary of reaction to it, and the university filing suit to overturn it. The result of the suit will be a fourth key fact when it's been announced. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO and JHeiv - this should not become a blow-by-blow update. Frankly, I think the counter-suit, which is really just a procedural motion, is more detail than necessary at this time. Unless it turns onto something major, which is unlikely, I see the three key items as filing, reaction, and results, recognizing that the first iteration of reaction will simply be reaction to the filing, and ultimately it will be reaction to the filing and the results.--SPhilbrickT 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to mention the UVA action (not strictly a counter-suit, btw, since Cuccinelli's CID was an administrative action rather than a lawsuit) since we otherwise have nothing on the university's position. But otherwise I agree with your characterisation of the key items as filing, reaction and results. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading just to mention the 1st amendment defense, as the UVa has given reasons why Cuccinelli does not have the authority to demand the documents, so have briefly noted that. He's apparently going beyond his powers under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, we don't seem to have an article on that. . . dave souza, talk 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He may or may not be. I'm not an attorney, but I assume that reasonable attorneys even disagree on this. I think proposing that people may have gone outside their powers, regardless of whether they're properly sourced, comes close enough to BLP to be avoided except in rare circumstances. I mean, Cuccinelli filed suit, and UVA has responded. Until we get a final result, my opinion is that the article should be left at that. No opining on legal tactics or discussing related case law. Just my $0.02. jhe_iv (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A less cynical outsider might think that when an Attorney General issues demands these would be made competently with the full authority of the law. UVa dispute that,[3] and we should not leave the misleading impression that the Attorney General's authority to make these specific demands is uncontested. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, though I think we should avoid going into too much detail. I think your wording has it about right. Good job. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it was the way it is now before I last commented, but after reading it, I agree that the wording as it is is very good. Sorry for any confusion. jhe_iv (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See also to HS book

Links to stuff like THSI should go into SHC, if anywhere William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC reverted a See also to The Hockey Stick Illusion. Since a main topic of the book is Prof. Mann's work, I believe you are overreacting. If you like, we can go to RfC. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The book is about Mann, so should link to him. Mann isn't about the book, so shouldn't link back William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? WP:SEEALSO: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. How can you say that this is not a "related article"? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, a more extensive quote A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all. My bold. Many articles are "related" to Mann, but aren't linked. The hint is, would a hypothetical "perfect" article about Mann include a discussion of this book? I doubt it. If you think it would, your remedy is probably to attempt to write a NPOV section which mentions this book. I think you would find that very hard William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is of course a related article and as such should be in the see also, i`ll put it back in later mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's related only to the extent that it promotes fringe allegations about Mann. As such, putting it in see also is just a way of including a non-notable attack on him. So, don't put it back in without consensus. . . dave souza, talk 12:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mann is notable outside of academic circles for one reason only, the hockey stick and the controversy around it. The book is neither an attack nor does it promote fringe views, it is a recounting of the controversy, even Judith Curry say`s that it is mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

HSI says nothing about Curry's opinions. If they are indeed notable, I suggest you add them over there. But not here William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not adding JC`s opinions here i was using her words as an example as to weather the book is an attack fringy piece or not, it is not. The HSI should also be linked to from here obviously as both articles are related, please give valid reason for it not to be mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I must say, it's entertaining to see the convoluted "reasoning" from the !Cabal to avoid besmirching the lily -white image of St Michael here at Wikipedia.... WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Bah. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say, it's extraordinary to see to see the convoluted "reasoning" from the !skeptikCabal attemting to link to a smear campaign. If it's not shown by a reliable third party source as significant enough to feature in the article, it's certainly not appropriate to sneak it in as a "see also". . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How peculiar, tell me why does the Hockey stick controversy not feature in this article? I am certain it has been covered in hundreds of third party sources by now. The book has been covered in third party sources also, again please give a valid reason for The Hockey Stick Illusion article to not be in the see also section here mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, have you tried reading the article? As for your second point, what sources show significance of the book for Mann? Your argument looks like classic WP:SYN. . . dave souza, talk 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Already pointed out above, Mann is famous for one reason only, the controversy around the hocky stick. No syn here at all, just plain common sense. Still waiting for a valid reason within policy why this article should not be linked via the see also to the HSI mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Our article on The Hockey Stick Illusion lists favorable reviews from:
  • Matt Ridley, The Spectator
  • George Gilder
  • Andrew Orlowski, The Register
  • Christopher Booker, The Telegraph

Additionally, Judith Curry has commented favorably on the book, noting that "The well argued allegations in this book, which are serious, should be refuted by the mainstream climate community involved in this research and the IPCC if they are in fact incorrect. And if they are correct, there are serious problems with climate research and with the IPCC," and "the fact that NO ONE from the mainstream climate community is commenting on this (other than a few people over at Klimazweibel) is telling, in my opinion; much of what Montford has written will not be easily refuted." See comment 178

I await with interest presentation of RS's calling the book a "smear campaign," "fringe allegations about Mann," and/or an "attack book." --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were British. You know who Ridley and Booker are, don't you? And El Rego? Come on - El Rego may be reliable for tech, but for climate science? You're defeating yourself here. GG I had to look up: Republican Party activist, and co-founder of the Discovery Institute. Who speaks in favour of this book rather condemns it (other than Curry, but she is no talisman, and has made a number of gross errors recently: she though the Wegman inquiry was done at the behest of NRC, for example). And why did you see-also HSC? It is in the lede already William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The point really isn't another editor's opinion of the reviewers. The point is that The Spectator, The Telegraph, and The Register are all respected publications, and George Gilder is a repected commentator. These aren't "fringe" publications, and their reviews are respectful and positive. Do the editors opposing a reference to this book have any WP:reliable sources for their opposition? Pete Tillman (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do those publications mention the book in articles about Mann, or mention Mann in articles about the book, or neither? Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles I listed mention Prof. Mann by name, in the context of his Hockey Stick work:

• Gilder: mentions Mann by name twice (review)
• Ridley, Prospect: mentions Mann by name 4x (review)
• Orlowski, Register: mentions Mann by name multiple times (interview of Montford re book)
• Booker, Telegraph: mentions Mann by name 3x in HS context (2 columns on IPCC problems). Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misread my question. These all appear to be articles about a book mentioning a person - making it obvious that the person needs to be mentioned in the article about the book. How many articles about the person mention the book - IE, how notable is the book to the person, not how notable is the person to the book? Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you're not keen to discuss your "lily -white image of St Michael" or allegations of "Cabal"[4]. You want to be careful with Cabal accusations: that way lies: well, you know. You really ought to consider refactoring that comment William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC: please look again, that's the !Cabal = "Not Cabal". Pete Tillman (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the ! really makes the difference ...... Not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And why did you see-also HSC? - just read your edit comment. You didn't take MN on trust, did you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And your reason within policy for removing the HSI from the see also? mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that mention in our article of "a long-running controversy" (with a pipelined link) doesn't remove the need (in my opinion) to call out the article in question as a "See also": Hockey stick controversy. This is simply making the article more transparent, and helping the general reader find related articles. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: MN has been spamming the same stuff to Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redact your PA now please mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

There is an ongoing dispute as the whether The Hockey Stick Illusion a book about the work of Michael E. Mann should be included in the See Also section of this article. I think it is time for outside opinions on the matter so that it might be resolved. mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

• reject In the context of this biography, the book simply isn't notable. It might be notable on the hockey stick controversy article though (in a public perception part) to which this links - but note that the comment by Judith Curry so flung around, states something that is overlooked, but rather important: The book has been widely (to the extent of completely) ignored by the scientific community. This is a biography of a scientist, and the hockey-stick controversy is a scientific one. WP:UNDUE here, and (unfortunately) i suspect promoted here as WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include – Without commenting on the irony in KDP’s appeal to keep non biographical information out of biographies and his unwillingness to do so in articles related to AGW skeptics, the material belongs in the hockey stick article, not here.However, a link to the book in the see also section is entirely appropriate. WVBluefield (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute as the whether The Hockey Stick Illusion, a book about the work of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, should be included in the See Also section of this article. Previous discussion started 3 days ago at #See also to HS book. Outside opinions are requested so that it might be resolved. Atmoz (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include Mann is notable outside of academic circles for one reason only, the controversy around his work. The hockey stick illusion is a book about that controversy and as such rates being in the see also section here mark nutley (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Reject I don't know if I qualify as involved or uninvolved on this article but I'll play it safe and put my comments under the involved section. AFAIK, the concensus of the scientific community is that global warming is real and primarily the result of mankind. The book in question supports a minority (possibly fringe?) viewpoint. There is no reason to include this per WP:NPOV. If readers want to find information about minority POVs, there are plenty of other articles they can read. We're not here to cater to minority viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• reject per others William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include. The Hockey Stick Illusion has received favorable notices in a number of respected publications and from respected commentators -- see here (above) for a list. The subject of the book is Prof. Mann (et al.)'s paleoclimate reconstructions, commonly known as the Hockey Stick graph. Our article already mentions the long-running controversy about this work. It seems obvious to me that, as a service to the reader, the book should be referenced in the article.

Opponents of referring to this book have explained their opposition with unsourced innuendo, including (direct quotes) "smear campaign," "fringe allegations about Mann," and "attack book." -- see "See also to HS book" above and page history for context. They have been asked to supply reliable sources for these criticisms; none have replied. To omit the book from our article would have the appearance of attempting to conceal serious criticisms of Prof. Mann's work. -Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject per ChrisO and others. Note that the "respected contributors" listed aren't really. And with the exception of Gilder's self-published review, the "reviews" are very thin. Guettarda (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure. (Adding my comment here because I've edited related articles in the past, although I came here through RfC page.) I would have thought it was notable and should be mentioned in the main body, not in See also. I'm always strongly opposed to warring over See also sections. They should never be used to slip in ideas that would be contested in the main body of the article where sourcing rules apply. I see below someone has said "it's fringe". Not a relevant argument in a biography (except for stuff that is so loopy it will never be mentioned in the mainstream media, of course). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fringe argument is extremely relevant. I used the example below of the "birther" conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth certificate. They are completely loopy, but they have received far more coverage in mainstream sources than this largely ignored book, which isn't even biographical in nature. But we do not add pro-birther books to the "see also" section of the Barack Obama article, precisely because they're fringe works, just like this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a clear parallel, and I think the reason that I see notability as more important than fringe on this is an important point of principle, which probably needs to be aired in quite another forum, but I will try and state it concisely here. That is, that each article falls within a field of enquiry that has its own standards of scholarship. For biographies the gold standard is a scholarly biography that has become the "standard" biography on the subject. This is obviously impossible to apply in the case either of Mann or of Obama. Instead we use coverage in the mainstream media, as our sources, and also as our guide to what is notable, and what is due weight. The "birther" question is a notable issue in the case of Obama and deserves a brief mention. Similarly, the fact that Mann's "hockey stick" idea has aroused discussion around the edges of scientific academic, and in the mainstream press too, is notable. The "Illusion" book isn't RS for that; it should be regarded as primary, and sources such as Nature, the BBC or the New York Times should be used instead. Without looking back at the news coverage I'm not sure how much attention any of this merits, but I would have thought a brief mention worthwhile. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your reasoning, I think the problem is really one of weight. The controversy itself is already linked from this articles, which to me seems appropriate as many people only know Mann because of it, which is itself regrettable, but not the responsibility of wikipedia. The problem lies with this book in particular, or any particular single source or book being given such weight as a direct link. ChrisO's analogy becomes relevant when it's viewed in that context; there are many books and articles that have been written about the hockey stick, just as there are many books and articles that have been written about particulars of Obama's career (like the Birther conspiracy theory), but linking any of them directly would be granting them excessive importance. siafu (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the only book (so far) specifically about the Hockey-stick graph controversy. Certainly it's the only such book that's made it to Wikipedia.

ChrisO's analogy, comparing Montford's book to "birther" conspiracy theories about Barack Obama, is, in my opinion, so far afield as to be offensive. Montford has written a serious book, that has received respectful treatment -- except from Mann's partisans, sfaict. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresent the facts here. Montford, chemist turned accountant turned science writer, has written a fringe book that has been mostly ignored by the mainstream science establishment. Contrasted to the Obama Birther conspiracy, they receive a similar treatment in the public eye; one could just as easily say it has received a respectful treatment -- except from Obama's partisans, "sfaic". Both claims are, however, ridiculous; these are indeed fringe theories. The question still remains either way-- how is this relevant to Mann himself? If it isn't, there is no way to get past the problem of undue weight. siafu (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're offended by the Birther analogy, consider the analogy of including a title like Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers by Bill Kaysing in the See Also section for Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. Fortunately, this book doesn't have it's own article yet, but it stands at #137,328 in Amazon's best-seller list, compared to Montford's #90,695. Obviously the Moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is quite a bit more obvious as a piece of fringe nonsense and yet it's sales figures would indicate that it's being taken "seriously" by many -- all except NASA's partisans, namely, almost everybody. siafu (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many respected commentators, such as Judith Curry and George Gilder, commenting favorably on either the "birther" conspiracy or the "moon landing never happened' business. So I don't think either analogy is good.

Would you please present evidence, other than your personal opinion(s), that Montford's book is "fringe". I hope you can see the logical fallacy in arguing that " 'everyone' has ignored the book, so it must be fringe, " which you & other editors have presented repeatedly. We are trying to be objective here.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, it's you who are presenting a Catch-22 here. If there are lots of sources describing this book as "fringe", then that means there are lots of people paying attention to it, which in turns makes it less ignored and more well-known. If it is fringe then it is not going to have many commentators. Obviously you're not going to have commentators like Judith Curry talking about those other topics, since she's a climatologist, and you will, in fact, find quite a few commentators like Mr. Gilder (how you can call him a "respected commentator" is beyond me) taking up the cause of Birtherism since it's precisely the extreme right-wing that Gilder represents that is championing that particular ridiculous cause. siafu (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject – the book is promoting fringe claims about Mann's work, not presenting anything notable or reliable about his biography. . . dave souza, talk 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, do you have any refs/cites that state that Montford's book is "fringe"? What I've seen suggests a serious piece of work, and Judith Curry shares this opinion. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since all the reviews seem to be by those promoting the "skeptic" side, there's no evidence that it has mainstream credence. Judith Curry's attempts to reach out to "skeptics" have been rather credulous, accepting their claim that pointing to plagiarism by Wegman was a "smear" then having to retract that, and she's in a tiny minority in her approach. Looking at the cited review by Mark Ridley, it appears that the book contains blatant falsehoods, such as the allegation that "Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down)." The book evidently gives uncritical support to McIntyre's claims to have proved the "hockey stick" wrong, claims which are clearly fringe and are rejected by scientists.[5] . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from your wp:or have you any refs at all which say this book is fringe? mark nutley (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The book has been ignored by the mainstream, Mark. [per Curry] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that, do you think the reason it has been ignored by climatologists is because it hits to close to home? It uncovers some ugly truths? There can be two reason as to why it has been ignored by one side of the debate you know mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You just complained about OR - does it only cut one way? Hmmmm. Curry's statement is rather clear - the book has been ignored. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No Or intended just a point you seem to keep missing. Yes curry says it was ignored, does she say why? Does she say it is fringe? Or an attack? no she does not, she says it is an accurate telling of the controversy. Now we have no sources saying it is fringe, or an attack, or a polemic, or whatever else you guys want to call it. So apart from wp:IDONTLIKEIT no reasons are being given to have this in the see also mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, she is not saying it is "accurate". She is saying that it "provides the perspective of the skeptics", and she is giving no reasons for it being ignored - other than because people actually have no interest in reading it. She argues that people should read it and rebut it - which she argues (in her opinion) will be hard. But she is also stating that she isn't an authority on the issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ Kim, the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Context is the sceptical/blogosphere view - not the mainstream view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

• Reject. The obvious problem with inclusion is that the book is a fringe work by fringe commentators, making claims that have largely been ignored or have been rejected by mainstream commentators in the relevant field. It is comparable to including the pro-birther book The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality or any one of a number of other fringe works in the "see also" section of Barack Obama. The bottom line, basically, is that fringe works are unsuitable for inclusion in BLPs in any capacity, whether as sources or "see also" links. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on you chris, but do you actually have any sources which say this book is fringe? mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See siafu's comments below, which is basically what I would have written in response to you. A book by a fringe non-scientist promoting claims which have been overwhelmingly rejected is not a useful "see also" link, any more than a book by someone promoting claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate would be a suitable link in that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject for similar reasons as ChrisO; the onus is on Mr. nutley to demonstrate that this book is taken seriously or represents a credible viewpoint, not the other way round. As it is, I have to agree that the justification for inclusion is exceptionally weak. siafu (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: editors ChrisO and siafu (above) refer to each others justifications -- ChrisO calls the book "fringe work by fringe commentators" etc.. Could either or both of you please supply sources for your criticisms? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling something fringe is indicating a lack of notability or relevance; if it's true, there won't be any sources for it precisely because it's not notable or relevant. If it's not true, then there will be plenty of sources indicating that. As I said, the burden of proof is on those seeking inclusion here, not those opposing. siafu (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Dr Judith Curry has had something to say about this book, and she certainly did not call it fringe "The well argued allegations in this book, which are serious, should be refuted by the mainstream climate community involved in this research and the IPCC if they are in fact incorrect. And if they are correct, there are serious problems with climate research and with the IPCC," and "the fact that NO ONE from the mainstream climate community is commenting on this (other than a few people over at Klimazweibel) is telling, in my opinion; much of what Montford has written will not be easily refuted." See comment 178

Looking over that source reveals some irony here, in that comment 178 you are referring to is a response to a challenge by someone pointing that no one is taking notice of this book (comment 175). Irony aside, these are just blog comments, not exactly high up on the reliable source scale anyway. Really, the controversy is already linked from this article (paragraph 4, in "Career and Awards"), and a link to this book from that article seems entirely appropriate, but what completely inappropriate here is a link from the page on Michael Mann (as opposed to a page about the "controversy"). How is it notable in this regard? It's not. siafu (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the link you mention to the Hockey stick controversy is somewhat obscured inside a pipelined link. May I take it you would support linking (forex, as a See also) directly to the article title, as a service to the general reader? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing obscure about a pipelined link. siafu (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And a further note, if there is anything "obscure", I think it is probably in the other direction here; the link you are referring to connects hockey stick straight to the article on the hockey stick controversy. The genuinely naive reader, that is, one who would be confused by an "obscure" piped link, would likely assume that hockey stick would link to an article describing the hockey stick itself and what it represents, say global warming. From my point of view, this already seems like an unnecessary cession to the opposing point of view to Mann's work. siafu (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and I might add that Curry's comments are themselves a fringe opinion - Montford does no more than repeat claims that have already been addressed by others. What he has written has already been refuted. For instance, he regurgitates the allegations about the CRU emails that have been conclusively disproved by the various inquiries into that affair. The lack of responses to the book indicate three things - that Montford is not a significant voice (he has a very low profile in reliable sources), that he has said little or nothing that is new or interesting, and that nobody has felt it worthwhile to waste time criticising the book in detail. A book by a fringe writer that has largely been ignored is barely notable in its own right, and is certainly not significant enough to warrant a link from a biographical article, particularly as it's not even a biographical publication. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the book yourself, Chris? If not, could you please supply a RS for your assertions? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are reversing the burden here. Even Curry says the book is being ignored. If it is being ignored, then it doesn't have WP:WEIGHT. We are not here to promote a book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I don't think so, Kim. "My"side has presented multiple sources that praise the book and consider it significant. "Your" side has presented -- well, personal opinions, so far. Have you something else? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for being obtuse, but I've only noticed one source being presented (Curry), and it doesn't seem to support the thesis that this an important work at all or that it is directly relevant to Mr. Mann. siafu (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What you have presented are activist/fringe/advocacy sources - the only one that could reasonably be stated to be relevant to science is Curry - and Curry states that the book has been ignored. Take a look at the article talk page for the book - one of the very problematic issues there is exactly the lack of independent reviews. You are advocating that because it has been ignored - it hasn't got bad reviews - thus it must be a valid/good source. Hmmmm. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include : Notability only applies to the article itself, not the content found therein (see WP:NOTE), so arguments citing notability of the book within this article are irrelevant to determining whether to include a content item on this page. That having been said, the book itself has been judged notable enough to have an article of its own AND the topic of the book discusses one of the most notable aspects of the subject of this BLP. As such, readers of this biography should be properly directed to other articles related to that notable topic (i.e. the Hockey Stick Controversy and books about it). --174.34.174.4 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Note - this !vote came from an open proxy, and is invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Within an article notable is referring to its weight, which is an integral part of the neutral point of view policy, and about as far from irrelevant as you can get :). The Hockey stick controversy is linked within the text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject. Ignored in the field, due to fringe content; irrelevant to Mann's biog per ChrisO's Obama analogy. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include. Though I do not agree with everything the book's author says, it is is not fringe just inconvenient to the mainstream view (I have actually read the book by the way). As usual, strict+ interpretation of the rules is being applied when dealing with GW (the normal Wikipedia bias on the subject).-Mariordo (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include Of course. Why would you not include a controversial book written by the subject of the article?Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the case here - the book was not written by the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Include The book is notable and directly discusses the only thing that Mann is notable for himself (IMHO). If it weren't for this hockey stick thing no one outside of a small group of close friends and colleagues would have the slightest idea who Michael Mann is, or care for that matter. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (banned; probable sock William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Kommentar: Per User talk:TheNeutralityDoctor#Blocked, which redirects from Rushs Algore, "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username."  ???, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of notability in specific relation to Mann's bio? . . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include For reasons given by Rush's Algore. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The purpose of "See also" is to provide further information, not misinformation. TFD (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Might i ask were the misinformation is? mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a polemical work written by a layman published outside the academic press and pushing fringe science. However the onus is on you to show that the opinions of this book have gained any support within to scientific community to at least raise it to level of a respectable minority view. Could you please point me to a review in a scientific journal that commends it? TFD (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the ref which says it is a polemic. I would recommend you actually look at the publisher before you say it is published outside of the academic press [6] I think you will find they publish a lot of academic stuff. And are you saying Mann`s work is fringe? as that is what the book is about mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked for relevant scientific opinion of Muntford's book. Here is one that woud seem to kill the "fringe" argument, from Judith Curry:

"I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford. ... The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book." (About 10 paras into the interview)

"So I am laying down the gauntlet, this [Muntford's book] really needs to discussed and rebutted by the paleo researchers and the IPCC defenders." [7].

Whatever your personal opinion of Prof. Curry, she is a respected climatologist. Her opinion of Muntford's book is worth more than mine or yours, I submit. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Her view is that this is a narrative presented from McIntyre's perspective (and with a certain spin). And you forgot to mention what she also says:

"It is being ignored by the climate establishment, see for example Gavin Schmidt’s comment at RC when i mentioned this book on the Comments on the Second CRU Inquiry Reports thread. Has ANYONE supporting the IPCC and the consensus view read this?"

And that is what has been said everywhere - it is a book that is being ignored by the mainstream. Obviously Curry thinks its interesting - but that is her personal view - which has extremely little weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the author of The hockey stick illusion as fringe, which I thought was apparent. While the book was published by a respectable publisher they are not an academic publisher and therefore the science in the book has not been peer-reviewed, the writer, although he has a bachelor's degree is not a scientist and the theories are fringe. While Curry is a respected climatologist, she has not presented her views to peer review either. When she does, we will be able to see the degree of acceptance her views have received. If you disagree with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, and believe that fringe views should have equal or greater weight that the consensus of the scientific community then you should work to change the policy. TFD (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, books are never (sfaik) sometimes peer-reviewed, even academic books by respected scientists. And peer-reviewd book reviews are even rarer. I suggest your concerns are overblown. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You should check again, academic books are peer-reviewed. (See for instance the debate on the sceptical environmentalist, where this was an issue... Some claimed that it wasn't (which it was)). And Curry's statement isn't a book-review, nor is it published in a reliable source [and she isn't an expert on this topic] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You can follow the links to peer review and academic publishing for explanation. TFD (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sometimes" seems accurate: "Some university presses undertake peer review of books" -- Peer_review#Procedure (etc.). And peer review has problems of its own, partic. in climate science. But we are getting rather far afield. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject. That's not what "see also" sections are for. They should be neutral, relevant and notable in the context of the article on which they appear. The HSI is an irrelevant, biased hit piece which is not taken seriously by the scientific community. StuartH (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I don't see how this [8] improves stuff. his findings had been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources" is very different to many of the claims of modern climate science have been independently verified. I'm not sure MN knows what Mann is talking about here William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird, why are you speaking for Souza? Is he an alternate account of yours or something? Perhaos if you look at the source you will see not all global warming science is settled which would indicate that many of the claims, but not all have been verified. However Dave`s edit is misrepresenting the source as no-were in there does mann say his findings had been "independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources mark nutley (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My revert must have clashed with his William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As for your claim that the quote isn't in the source: you're wrong [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

...where you can read "But in the interview with The Morning Call, Mann says at least a dozen studies have replicated his work and confirmed his conclusions. The more relevant question scientifically is whether our findings have been independently verified by independent teams using alternative methods and alternative data sources, he said. And the answer is definitively yes." Mark, please read beyond the first page! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)