Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 24 August 2010

Template:Community article probation

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

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

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)

I hadn't looked at this article before today, and I was surprised at the "reception" section, not seeing any critical reviews. I'm sure there must be some. However, while I can find a non RS critical review in Amazon, I'm not finding much. Surely there must be some.--SPhilbrickT 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

None as yet, and i have looked on a regular basis for new reviews, weird huh, you`d think at least Monbiot would have had a go at it :) mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a problem with the dutch reference in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. The reference given points to the webshop, where they sell the book, and there is a little story accompanying the product the webshop. Therefore I would say that the statement that "Erwin van den Brink, writing in the Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek" is false, unless there is a reference actually pointing to an article in the magazine itself (which I can't find). I doubt this section in the Reception should stay. (WijzeWillem (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Also the article pointed to is in Dutch, so the apparent quotation is not in fact in the text. Given the large number of well sourced positive reviews I can't see any harm in removing this one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is also true. The translation from Dutch not brilliant, in any case. The 'review' is btw not positive as I read it, stating that the core of climategate has not been laid bare, and that it seems like McIntiry is like a pensioned old mathematician, on a revanche for a briljant acadamic career he has missed since his childhood. Anyway, unless anyone objects, I'll remove it shortly. (WijzeWillem (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

I object, why remove reliably sourced material? mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Full translation here btw mark nutley (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's not a noteworthy 'review', it's a comment to promote a product in a webshop! I don't know why this should be in, given the already quite large number of reviews in the list. (WijzeWillem (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

As a further comment, I don't think many books will have the 'Amazon product review' as a reliable source on the reception of a book. This is exactly the same thing.(WijzeWillem (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Agreed; I have removed it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hartwell Paper

It seems that we now have a section on the usage in the Hartwell Paper, that is actually longer than the sentence for which the citation is used. That seems rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on alternative wording. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How about recognizing that the citation isn't really one - and most certainly doesn't merit a section in the article? Seems to be in the "desperation to make the source seem notable" category--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't strange, it is ridiculous. I've removed it. Good grief, are people soooo desperate to prove this book is worth soething? What next, a section on "it was used to wrap chips in"? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a comparable section in any other article about any other book. It's non-notable and inappropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just added another journal using it.

Use as a source

The book was used as a source on the CRU email controversy and how the emails related to climate science and paleoclimate studies in a paper published by the University of Oxford's Institute for Science, Innovation, and Society. The paper was titled, The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009 and was authored by Mike Hulme, Gwyn Prins, Isabel Galiana, Christopher Green, Reiner Grundmann, Atte Korhola, Frank Laird, Roger A. Pielke, Jr., Steve Rayner, Daniel Sarewitz, Michael Shellenberger, Nico Stehr, and Hiroyuki Tezuka.

The book has been used as an source to support that models used in environmental regulations involve a range of public and private institutions as the models in question are derived from a range of sources.

References

1. Prins, Gwyn (2010). "The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009". University of Oxford Institute for Science, Innovation, and Society. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-07-15. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. Fisher, Elizabeth (2010). "Understanding Environmental Models in Their Legal and Regulatory Context". Journal of Environmental Law, Oxford Journals, University of Oxford. 22 (2): 251–283. doi:10.1093/jel/eqq012. Archived from the original on 2010-07-15. 1.1 The Prevalence of Models in Environmental Regulation In the policy sphere many of these disputes have been in relation to policy-catalyst models. This is not surprising. As such models are establishing the premises for potential state action, it is obvious they will be controversial with different actors arguing for and against such action.36 Moreover, these disputes will also involve a range of public and private institutions as the models in question are derived from a range of sources.37 Notes 37 A W Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Stacey International, London 2010). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 57 (help)

It has been a lot of misconception about this book. How many have claimed that it's a book that is fringe? A claim debunked beyond all doubt. (I don't think any of the fringe claiming people even has looked into it. That's my two cent.) Nsaa (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly - we don't use article pages to "win" discussions on project pages. Secondly, I don't think it's appropriate to find that the book was referenced by a paper and then say the book was used to "support that models used in environmental regulations involve a range of public and private institutions as the models in question are derived from a range of sources" (which isn't even english, I don't think). For all you know, that paper references the book to say "Andrew Monford is an accountant." Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Book articles are supposed to summarise the book and its reviews; "use as a source" is simply off-topic and WP:POINTy, frankly. The concept of such a section is fundamentally absurd. Take the article about Anthony Beevor's book Stalingrad, for instance; a list of "uses as a source" would be considerably longer than the entire article. There's no reason to believe that a passing reference in a paper has any intrinsic notability for this or any other book. It grossly fails to pass the notability criterion for article content. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, you state that "that paper references the book to say "Andrew Monford is an accountant." ". I've read the paper ... AND quoted it in full (what sentence was sourced by using this book.). I don't see what you're after. If you have problem reading, it's not my fault. As I've provided in the quote from the paper: "Moreover, these disputes will also involve a range of public and private institutions as the models in question are derived from a range of sources.37" is backed by this book. What this has to do with him as an accountant is beyond my grasp of reality. Nsaa (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with all this removing of content from this article? Aren't we supposed to be adding content, not removing it? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is no. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read that section? The type of edits that were removed from this article are not listed in that section. There is no policy that supports the removal of this content, only policy against it. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, the "Use as a source" section is a stupid idea in principle. A citation by a particular paper is not notable. Books are cited all the time by all kinds of sources. This is commonplace; it has no more notability than, say, the fact that a book has an index or page numbers. Look around Misplaced Pages at other book articles - do you see "Use as a source" sections in there? You don't, because there is no purpose to it. The only reason why anyone has sought to add that section to this article is because certain editors are trying to prove that this book is a reliable source. But as Hipocrite rightly says, "we don't use article pages to "win" discussions on project pages". By all means make arguments on talk pages that are based on citations, but don't use articles as a tool to prop up your talk page arguments. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's a goal for most papers and scientist to get cited. Your credibility increase. Works this in other ways for books? Why shouldn't usage by papers be a relevant measure? Nsaa (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, that's not very helpful to say that the content shouldn't be added because the editors who added it are trying to win a content dispute. Does policy allow the information to be there or not? I think policy is clear that there is no problem with the information being there. If I were to submit this article for Good Article consideration, which I may do, that's the kind of information I would think a reviewer would use in their evaluation of the completeness of the coverage of the topic. If this book is being used in academia, as noted by Nsaa, that is relevant. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, let me ask you two simple questions. What evidence, from a reliable third-party source, do you have of these citations being notable? Do other Misplaced Pages articles about books go into detail about who has cited those books? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters in this case, because the content in question did not violate any policy that I'm aware of. It was positive information, not negative. Generally, as far as I've observed, Wikipedians debate the inclusion of negative information in an article. I think AGW is the first topic area in which I've seen editors edit warring over the inclusion of positive information about a subject. I feel that it would be of interest for readers of this topic to know how this book is being used by academia, which it has been it two instances already, and the book was only published six months ago. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead on an entire section why not a subsection in reception? Call it citations received or something would that be ok for everyone? mark nutley (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We certainly don't need an entire section, but again, why is "citations received" in any way notable? Books and papers get cited all the time; what is so special about this book or these citations that it requires special mention? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained that already, it informs the reader how this book has been used as a source in academia. How and for what type of information. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, though, why is "how it has been used as a source in academia" notable? Can you point out any other Misplaced Pages articles about books which has a section on who has cited the book? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is only another stupid discussion beyond all reasonable proportions, only because pro-AGW editors like Kim D Petersen, Willam M Connelley, ChrisO et al make politics of the article. But even Petersen et al are probably intelligent enough to understand how to solve the problem: not have an entire section, but mention it in the section "reception". And I am sure ChrisO understand very well why the Hartwell paper is worth a mention. Sorry to talk this way, but sometimes it is only sound to be clear and straight. 110.49.193.207 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Once the page protection expires, I'll add a two sentence paragraph to "reception" explaining that the book has been used as a source in two academic papers. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable solution to me. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a very poor idea, and doesn't represent the discussion above. Trying to add such is mere puffery William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. Your opinion is not more worth than aybody else, and here was an agreement. You only say "no" and make claims without any arguments. Sometimes, you must accept that other people have the last word, even if they are not admin. With other words, don't misuse your role. 110.49.205.15 (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Now I or somebody else add a two sentence paragraph to Reception, in accordance with the discussion above. 110.49.193.181 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• The text in question was just removed. See discussion below. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should have been here and on no other place. Why did they change? Obviously because it should have shown too well that there was an agreement here, and that the few who was of another opinion lacked arguments. Now they can start again to "discuss". It is very tiresome to see how some editors and moderators use all possible tricks to cange an article, instead of relying on rational discussion. 119.31.121.90 (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone managed to establish notability of the two footnotes? It is hard to escape the conclusion they are worded for the purpose of promotion. Wikispan (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

RC review

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/ William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a great RS, being both a blog and published under a pseudonym, but we really do need to find a critical review somewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Tamino would help, if a suitable publication record in the field is available it would be expert opinion and appropriate as a WP:SPS giving an outside view of the claims in the book. . dave souza, talk 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Montford's initial comments on Tamino's review are here. Tamino doesn't have a good record (ime) in getting things right in this area. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RC is used as an RS. It isn't at all clear why we should be guided by Tillman's views on Tamino William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that this is written by Tamino - since that invalidates RC as an RS in this particular case. (it no longer is covered under the expert clause of SPS). On the other hand it is interesting, since this is the first review of the book we have that is at least somewhat supported by scientists (under the assumption that the RC crew agrees with Taminos analysis). But imho not usable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Who actually is Tamino? Does he have any relevant expertise? Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tamino is *probably* "Grant Foster", one of the scientists quoted in the Climategate letters. In which case he has relevant personal and professional expertise. But because it's a pseudonym, there's no way to confirm that. --Blogjack (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RealClimate is a self-published source. I'm removing it. Cla68 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A lack of relevant expertise didn't stop Christopher Booker! --ASmartKid (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I self-reverted, because I remembered that all the involved parties in the current ArbCom case are supposed to have voluntarily topic-banned themselves. Do you have a reason why using a source that violates our RS guideline is ok here? Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I too have self-reverted. Obviously it's unfair that Booker's inane views can be credited but this scientific rebuttal can't be. But I can see the point of the ban on blogs ("Anyone can create a website"). I wasn't aware of that rule but am now. --ASmartKid (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@JAJ: I don't know, which is why i'm saying that the expert clause in WP:SPS can't be used, and thus this isn't a reliable source. Its an interesting one - and if it had been underwritten by any of the regulars at RC, it would have been an RS. But that is water under the bridge, and thus the ref can't be used without consensus to do so (which i doubt we'll get). Fwiw. i support the removal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (nb: the Guardian may still repost it, as they've done with other such articles, which would then change things again - but we'll worry about it then) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

If the Guardian reposts it, then I think we should give serious consideration to including it. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that the piece's writer is using a psuedonym? Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

tamino's real identity (along with that of Eli Rabett) are among the worst-kept secrets around. Are people unable to read? His website http://tamino.wordpress.com is rather obvious, even if you didn't already know whop he was. I'm sure he prefers not to be deluged with email rants or dead rats on this doorstep. He certainly is an expert on statistics and time-series, which should be self-evident to anyone who has followed his blog for any length of time. JohnMashey (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, does anyone here think it is appropriate to list a critical review of this subject by a writer using a psuedonym? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a clear violation of policy. mark nutley (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment was not a wish to get tamino's review included, as it is not an RS under the rules. I do believe this particular case may, in the long term, be helpful in sharpening Misplaced Pages's views on the nature of reliable sources, not an easy task. tamino's article is *not* a RS, no matter what his track record on Open Mind is, no matter that RC published it, no matter that his identity is actually well-known, and that 2 of the RealClimate authors have been coauthors with him on a relevant peer-reviewed paper. Under the rules, virtual identities are not RS, no matter what. But the contrast highlight something far more interesting:

According to this article: George Gilder, co-Founder of the Discovery Institute, writing about climate for the DI's website, seems to be a RS, despite having apparently learned what he knows of climate science from Arthur Robinson of OISM fame. I'm sure a DI cofounder's work was heavily edited and fact-checked by the DI website, well-known for its insistence on good science.

Two business writers for local newspapers, including one who stated there is zero evidence of global warming, with no obvious expertise, are RS as they are real people, and if something is in a newspaper, it is a RS, although one might question the observed record of such papers in editing such things. A third business writer, writing for a newspaper with a long-demonstrated history of climate anti-science, seems to be RS. He's currently named in a serious libel lawsuit on a closely-related topic, and I've read the complaint, but he is innocent-until-proven-guilty. However, even if found guilty, I think (?) by Misplaced Pages rules he will still be a RS because he is a real person. As far as I know,

This case offers a very clear contrast. What happens to this particular page seems irrelevant, given that HSI will be overtaken by events anyway. But this whole process and its history offer a very useful case study, precious to preserve. Thinking about it may help Misplaced Pages in its constant, albeit difficult effort to improve the rules. JohnMashey (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One might add that Judith Curry's comments on the book were also disallowed, on the grounds that she posted her remarks on a 3rd party blog -- see RS noticeboard here. The only climate scientist so far to comment on the book using her real name. That one is more of a gray area, and might have been salvaged, but for an over-zealous editor here who impersonated Curry to make a point . So I agree, the pendulum seems tohave swung a bit too far against non-"cut & dried" RS's. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Update: Josh at Cartoons by Josh weighs in: Fantasy Climate #2, "Tamino sees the light". Heh. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed in the comments section for Tamino's piece that Judith Curry posted a long defence of the book, along with a threaded rebuttal by Gavin Schmidt. Neither are reliable sources for information for this or the Hockey stick controversy articles, but makes some interesting reading for followers of the topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps people can comment on the HSI pp.28-29, specifically the Deming quotes. Do those come from Science, or do they come from JSE (The Journal of Scientific Exploration)? Where does it lie on the credibility scale, say relative to Science or Energy&Environment? Also, where does the whole discussion pp.23-30 most likely originate? Is there any problem for Montford regarding the Huang discussion? (All this is related to the RC thread, which is why it is mentioned here.) JohnMashey (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No takers so far? These are straightforward factual questions whose answers are exemplars for the scholarship of the book, not endless arguments over who is or isn't a plausible reviewer. Put another way, is Deming's story on pp.28-29 published in a reliable source, or not? Does the Huang story match reality, or not? Who is Deming, besides having published a borehole article? This material, after all is fairly key to Montford's narrative. Are they true, or not? Do they ignore any relevant other evidence, i.e., that might be called "Culpable Ignorance"? JohnMashey (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the e-mail about getting rid of the medieval warm period see here I`ve not read the RC thread, is it the actual comments or foster`s article? What exactly is it you`d like verified? mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to verify that a) Deming is a credible commenter on climate science, that b) JSE is a credible publication, and that c) the Huang(1997) story makes sense. JohnMashey (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(c) No the story doesn't make sense according to --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, I'd hoped MarkNutley would answer, but that hasn't happened. All the answers are in several of my posts at RC, specifically This one on Huang and This one, which corrects some links and has more and this one, including a fix on the sheep.. Basically,

a) David Deming is an Oklahoma petroleum geologist/geophysicist, even less credible on climate than most such, he's right with Inhofe.

b) JSE is a fringe/pseudo-science journal, many rungs below Energy&Environment. Some discussion can be found at Rabbet Run's ask-for-it-under-counter-in-plain-brown.wrapper. See JSE Misplaced Pages description, but some links are broken. If you want to sample it, many past articles are freeely available at the current current JSE website. For example, Hollander's article describes weighing sheep while suffocating them, finding an anomalous, but quantized weight gain at time of death. It's a great source for sciencey-looking papers like An Empirical Study of Some Astrological Factors in Relation to Dog Behaviour Differences by Statistical Analysis and Compared with Human Characteristics, in which studies of 500 French dogs found that their behaviors are astrologically-driven like humans. I used to think the sheep were #1, but the dogs are contenders. Every once in a while a halfway-plausible-sounding article somehow sneaks through, but given the caliber of peer review displayed, who would ever know? Despite the description, this is NOT The Onion. It must be seen to be disbelieved.

It is hard to believe anyone not totally clueless would ever take JSE seriously ... oops, I see Montford quoted it twice. Sorry.

c) Huang is covered above. That was already sorted out in 1998, but the memes were passed along via McIntyre and McKitrick, ignoring everything that happened, and desperately trying keep Lamb's sketch used in teh 1990 IPCC alive, like claiming the world is flat because an old map is found, and ignoring GPS satellites. Huang(2008)'s complaint is likely directed to M&M, among others, or further back to Soon&Baliunas(2003). McKitrick quotes Deming in an obscure talk in Australia, and that seems the likely pathway for Montford to end up with 2 quotes from the ultra-obscure JSE. Anyway, this is a small sample of why HSI pp.17-30 ... are junk.JohnMashey (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Geoscientist

The Geoscientist isn't the journal of a learned society. It is just their mag William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow of the society who personally knows people who have written book reviews for the magazine I concur with this. I have published several articles in geolsoc peer-reviewed publications, these are a separate matter. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Even so, I must say I'm surprised to see such a tendentious review appear in the magazine of a reputable scientific society. What gives? Is this an Institute of Physics scenario all over again? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps people are shocked at the behaviour of the climatological community in their refusal to follow the scientific method? mark nutley (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps, as it turns out, the reviewer works in the oil industry (see User talk:NuclearWarfare#Illusion). So it would seem this is basically someone who has a professional and personal financial interest in promoting denialism. He is clearly not a scientist and this is clearly not a scientific journal - though considering it's published by a scientific society I'm surprised that they've allowed this to pass something which so contradicts their official position to get through their editorial process. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This publication has editorial oversight and clearly meets Misplaced Pages's guideline on reliability. That said, these changes look fine to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is supposed to be "a magazine, not a journal, and its main purpose is to entertain" . Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

They also answer to the council So although they have editorial control the last word obviously remains here mark nutley (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion on NW's talk page cited above, the corporate affiliation of Joe Brannan needs to be mentioned. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, you can add his job description to his article, this article is not about him it`s about a book mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add his corporate affiliations (he's probably worked for more than one oil company anyway) but I've added his specialisation per Pete Tillman's comments below. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i`m good with that, it is a fair compromise, well done chris mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe Brannan is a petroleum geologist with a considerable list of publications per Google Scholar, as J or JR Brannan. I'll CE to reflect this. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you added "geologist", but not "petroleum geologist". I've added this detail, since it's worth clarifying (just as you would clarify whether someone was an evolutionary biologist or a developmental biologist, for instance). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "petroleum industry geologist"? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What about not pushing labels onto sources, we have a decent compromise here mark nutley (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that it might be useful to say that he is employed by the petroleum industry, without adding his corporate affiliation. I googled him and found a blog post stating that he is in oil exploration. A "petroleum geologist" could be employed by Greenpeace. Calling him just that fails to sufficiently identify him, in my opinion. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No you are trying to label a source as in the pay of "Big Oil" and as such unreliable. Stop trying to spin stuff scotty, it`s fine as is mark nutley (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make sure we're not violating WP:SYN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We already are, but i`m willing to let it go as a compromise mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's synthesis to correctly identify him. Mark, I'd be taking this position if he was indeed employed by Greenpeace. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is his job description in the source? Nope mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is combining stuff to reach a conclusion not stated in the sources. A source is available for his career, though I agree that it's not currently given. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a reasonable thing to include in the article, but it does need to be sourced. StuartH (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The question is how to describe him. My feeling is that if he works for Shell Oil, he should be identified as such, or at least as working for the petroleum industry. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Does it say that in the source scotty? No it does not so no wp:or if you please. Leave your feelings at the door, we use what the sources say. And don`t bother to say you have a source for him, this article is not about him so no wp:or if you please. I was happy with the compromise chris came up with but you refused to let it be, now it does not even have that compromise anymore does it? mark nutley (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'm not disputing the removal. The source's corporate affiliation is mentioned elsewhere, in another review as I recall. I'd like to hear more comment before we proceed further. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I see Cla has re-inserted the paecockery under a deceptive edit summary. I've taken it out again, togethr with the "was used as a source" stuff which is yet more of the same William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked WP:PEACOCK and it applies to the use of "puff" words like "great," "outstanding," "unequaled," etc. So your revert is not supported by policy or guideline. Also, there is no policy against reporting when and where this book was used as a source. For those reasons, I will readd the material, and I guess this wording is now off-the-table. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We already mention the Geoscientist review in the body, and the book being used as a source for other works isn't even remotely notable. StuartH (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the edit by StuartH.. "Peacock" doesn't get it quite right. What's at issue here is a bizarre attempt to inflate the importance of the book. Two paragraphs are devoted to the fact that the book was mentioned in the Hartwell Paper and another study in footnotes, not even in the text. The authors of the Hartwell paper are leisurely delineated, to extend the length of the paragraph. Just because we like a book doesn't mean that we go to any kind of extreme lengths to inflate and promote it on Misplaced Pages. This is the kind of stuff Hollywood press agents do, not neutral Misplaced Pages editors.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don`t and have reverted, there is nothing in policy saying this content can`t be used, please show me here were it is against policy, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just my 5 cents: although it might not be 'against policy', strictly speaking, I find it simply bad writing and this kind of 'puffing' should be avoided (i.e. I agree with ScottyBerg). (WijzeWillem (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Protected - 1 month

The same content has been edited warred about for the past few weeks, which is not acceptable. I have fully protected the article for a month. When any sysop feels that some sort of agreement has been worked out about the content in this article (which could range from status quo, to removing the information entirely, to keeping only a reduced version, etc.), they are free to unprotect the article without asking me. NW (Talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You've protected it with the following edit in place?

The book was also used as an source to support that models used in environmental regulations involve a range of public and private institutions as the models in question are derived from a range of sources in a paper by Elizabeth Fisher that was published in the University of Oxford's Journal of Environmental Law.

It's dreadfully written, and there is no consensus to include the peacock material. StuartH (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuart, please read above for the specific Misplaced Pages meaning of WP:PEACOCK. While it is clear that there is no concensus on the content of this page, imprecise use of domain specific terms adds more heat than light to the discussion. Slowjoe17 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps puffery is a better term for it, then? We have a repeated attempt to add back in bad material - some of it factually incorrect, some of it completely ungrammatical, most of it non-notable puff material. Tendentiously adding back in material which has been rejected is disruptive, and locking it by administrators is just encouraging the disruptive editing. StuartH (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus for it`s removal. Why is it bad material? Tendentiously removing material which has been accepted is disruptive mark nutley (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Four different editors have provided a clear explanation why the information should be removed. I am in agreement with them. Wikispan (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal. Three different editors have said it can stay, so there is no consensus for removal. I`d like an actual policy based reason for it`s removal please mark nutley (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been accepted. You need to build consensus to add material, not to remove it. Under the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, if a new edit gets reverted, you build consensus on the talk page, you don't just keep adding it back in tendentiously. There are multiple severe problems with the edits, such as a questionable notability and relevance, overall puffery and poor, ungrammatical writing. Several of the blindly-restored edits contained severe factual errors (such as describing Geoscientist as a journal). They are unproductive, just as locking the page is. StuartH (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What questionable notability? For a book to be used as reference material by the Journal of Environmental Law is pretty notable i believe. Were in the article does it say Geoscientist is a journal? mark nutley (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"For a book to be used as reference material by the Journal of Environmental Law is pretty notable i believe." Not notable enough for you to effectively write in mainspace: "Look everybody, this book appears as a printed note in the Journal of Environmental Law!" If I am wrong, and indeed the use of the book as a footnote is itself notable, then you will have no problem producing reliable secondary sources that make the same point clear. Wikispan (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, no one in this thread has been able to provide a policy-based reasoning for removing the material. StuartH is incorrect, you don't need consensus to add material to an article that doesn't violate any policy or guideline. If that were true, Misplaced Pages articles would be a lot shorter than they are now if we had to have consensus every time we wanted to add material somewhere. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I suggest you read WP:BRD. Editors are encouraged to be bold, and if no-one objects to an edit, it is considered the new consensus. There has been considerable opposition to your edits, which violate WP:PUFF and are an indiscriminate list of non-notable content, and therefore you need to come to the talk page rather than disruptively revert it back yourself. StuartH (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PUFF can`t be violated, it is not policy. mark nutley (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Erwin van den Brink's reception

There are some problems with the Erwin van den Brink review. The first and most clear one is that it isn't published in the magazine, but is located in NWT's online bookshop. So it should at least be stated as "Erwin van den Brink, writing on the site of the Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (Science and Technology) said". The piece seems to me however to be written to sell the book, seeing as it is in their shop section. So this brings me to the second problem which is that is this really something we should mention, I can't quote the policies on this, but it would seem to me that a page where you can directly buy the book from shouldn't be reliable as a review of the book. A minor last one is that there is a slight mistranslation due to lost nuance in the part 'was added at the last possible moment, as this final chapter is about "ClimateGate"', the article actually states 'could have been added at the last possible moment, as is the final chapter about "Climategate"'. It isn't that important, but in the article it now states that van den Brink thinks it was added at the last moment, because of the last chapter being about Climategate. Where as he states that the subtitle and the final chapter might(/could) have been added at the last moment.

My reason however for posting is at least to point out that this was not published in the magazine, but in the online shop and that because of that I have serious doubts whether we should mention this article at all.83.86.2.57 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As discussed earlier in the talk page (Reception II), this section should be removed. It was removed, but reverted back again without discussion. I will state again that letting this in is a bad idea, as it would be same as adding the 'amazon product review' under reception. I don't think this happens for any other book, so it should not happen here. Strong and clear case for removal, as far as I see it. (WijzeWillem (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

In light of the recent protection I might add that Cla68 reverted and put back vd Brink's reception with little notice, after it was discussed and found to be very obviously not suitable for inclusion. This really has to be changed back.(WijzeWillem (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

There is nothing wrong with that review, it was after all written by the editor of the magazine in question. Given his journalistic background and the fact the magazine specializes in science i see no problem with this review. mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody reading this, especially when you're Dutch (like me), should immediately see that it's simply a piece of text written to promote a book sold in in a webshop. In that light it doesn't really matter who wrote it. Wouldn't everyone agree that this is not a 'review' worthy of being used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WijzeWillem (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If they wished to just promote the book they would have used the stuff on the cover, not get the editor to write a piece up. mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would still argue that it doesn't matter who wrote it, it still a text in the webshop. It's not published in the magazine itself, which quite simply discredits it as a source. I rest my case with that ;). (WijzeWillem (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

I didn't see the discussion on the talk page (and I looked for one) about the review for the magazine. I haven't come across this type of situation before. The magazine is giving the book a neutral review, and is also apparently trying to sell it. Perhaps the text could be reworded to say that the magazine's editor listed the book in its online webshop. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also the problem of the article being in Dutch. This doesn't mean it can't be used, but we shouldn't give the impression that any English text is quoting the original. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps (@ Cla68), you haven't come across this type of situation before, because normally it wouldn't be included in an article in the first place. And again, it is not 'the magazine' that is giving a review, it's the webshop. There's more than enough material in the reception section, why keep this in?(WijzeWillem (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

I find it fairly flabbergasting that anyone would try to argue that an online promotional page (complete with the price display at the bottom) counts as an RS. It's a contortion of policy beyond comprehension. I see no reason why such a questionable source shouldn't be removed as soon as possible. BigK HeX (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} There is a consensus for the following content to be removed

Erwin van den Brink, writing in the Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (Science and Technology) said, "The book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, reveals a staggering picture of how those involved in climate science are dealing with criticism. The subtitle, “ClimateGate And The Corruption of Science”, was added at the last possible moment, as this final chapter is about "ClimateGate", the leaking of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia".

Thanks mark nutley (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is this consensus you describe? As far as i can see editors are split right down the middle on this one. A thing that hasn't been mentioned here so far btw. is that N&T is a pop-sci magazine. I'm rather tilting towards WW's argument - since it is rahter clear that this book is being puffed up beyond all reason. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• You'd need a clearer consensus (ie no significant objection) for a change to an article protected due to a content dispute. If you can establish such a consensus, then feel free to re-enable the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm kim, i was asking for it`s removal. I believe i was the only one objecting to it`s removal. mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, Jonathan A. Jones? Before doing something like this, you need a consensus - not just a change of your own mind. Get consensus first :)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that, besides marknutley, Cla68 was the only one objecting to it's removal. And I'd say the discussion is very easy --> it simply isn't a RS. ;) (WijzeWillem (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Then lets get Cla's opinion - and get it removed. My objection was on the claim for consensus - not for or against the content (although i'm leaning towards your view). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The four editors agreeing on removal (presumably on the basis of failing WP:RS) are being held up by one editor whose support seems weak, at best? Is Cla68's opinion alone enough to prevent consensus?? BigK HeX (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline involved here. We can wait. The most important issue here, since the article is protected, is to get as broad a consensus as possible. Rushing it may bite. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What`s the rush? He`ll be online in a wee while mark nutley (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rush. But, IMO there is a consensus here. Unanimity doesn't seem necessary, though, of course, it's nice to have. I'm a bit concerned about the opinion of one editor being regarded as an indication of a lack of consensus. Hypothetically, if User:Cla68 comes in to strongly reaffirm his/her support of this source, what then? We close this {{editprotected}} request as "No consensus"? BigK HeX (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about this overnight and I wasn't able to come to a conclusion on it. So, I'm going to ask at one of noticeboards, probably RSN. I'll post a link here to the thread that I start. I'm going to try to give both sides of the debate so please try not to repeat your argument from here over there in order to give room for the uninvolved editors to comment. If they see another AGW free-for-all they may not, based on what I've seen before, elect to give an opinion. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a source is in Dutch, which puts non-Dutch speakers at a disadvantage. According to User:WijzeWillem, who is a Dutch speaker, this is a web only feature of a promotional nature. It should go. No brainer. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Let's see what uninvolved editors say at RSN. Hopefully, the involved editors will stay away and allow some independent opinions to be expressed. Cla68 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it should go, mainly because it is in Dutch. The page is not exactly short of positive reviews. I also think there are a lot of editors here (on both 'sides') who need to calm down a bit. Poujeaux (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Results

• • • Three uninvolved editors responded at RSN. One said that the source is an advertisement and is not reliable, one said that it might be ok to use if it is clearly identified as being from the magazine's bookshop, and one stated that might be ok to use if attributed as the editor's opinion, not of the magazine. I personally don't have a problem with using non-English sources in Misplaced Pages. I think, because of the three different opinions from the RSN, that we're going to have to work out a compromise. I suggest the middle option, that the review be changed to, "The book has been offered for sale from the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (Science and Technology) with a synopsis written by the magazine's editor, Erwin van den Brink." Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • • That "compromise" is not in any way supported by the disdainful comments on the RSN board. The discussion is here. User:Griswaldo said "the source appears not to be reliable." He said "If the editors opinion is notable enough as an individual opinion, then it would be possible to attribute it to him only, but not to the magazine as such." User;Peregrine Fisher said "Anyways, according to the person who can read dutch, it's a promotional sounding blurb. That doesn't mean it isn't reliable, at least for the opinion of the author, but it raises bias issues. I would say something like 'In a promotional blurb in the books for sale section of the Science magazine website, Science mag editor said '....'. If you really want to keep it that bad, that is." User:Dlabtot said: "Advertisements and other promotional materials lack the independence required to qualify as reliable sources, imho." I think that these comments point up the dubious quality of this source. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Seems like a decent compromise to me, i support it mark nutley (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the results doesn't indicate that we should be looking at rewording, but rather simple deletion as failing RS.

• WijzeWillem "Strong and clear case for removal, as far as I see it."
• Cla68 --Proposing alternative usage of source--
• Jonathan A Jones --No Opinion Given on source as reliable.--
• BigK HeX "I see no reason why such a questionable source shouldn't be removed as soon as possible."
• mark nutley "There is a consensus for the following content to be removed"
• Kim D. Petersen "I'm rather tilting towards WW's argument"
• ScottyBerg "It should go. No brainer."
• Griswaldo "From what I gathered here and on the talk page where this is being discussed the source appears not to be reliable."
• Peregrine Fisher "I would ...If you really want to keep it that bad, that is."
• Dlabtot "Advertisements and other promotional materials lack the independence required to qualify as reliable sources, imho."
• Poujeaux --No opinion given on source as reliable.--

That looks like two non-RS comments, at least five (and possibly 7) editors out of 9 that have concluded that the source fails WP criteria. Even the 2 or 3 editors who may be inclined to support the source have not indicated any strong support for it. On the "support" side, at best there are 3 editors to keep the source and 5 who have advanced arguments for removal. Worst case , there are 7 editors in favor of removal, with Cla68 standing alone to keep the source.

Either way you slice it though, removal seems the most preferred option. BigK HeX (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I've refrained from commenting on this source until now, but a promotional review does not look like a reliable source to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Montford's blog is now showing what appear to be scans of this review from the magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek itself, and a second magazine De Ingenieur. I'm still checking this out but they appear to be genuine. If so, and the review was in fact published in two magazines, then many of the comments above seem to be superseded. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, this is exactly what i have been saying. The magazines editor would not be writing promotional blurbs for a webshop. So we can certainly use these after all mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is so, indeed my objections are superseded. I would not mind keeping it but only if (1) proper references can be made (i.e. not a link to the webshop), (2) it is made clear that the review is not totally positive, it ends with a clear negative note on the book, and (3) the quote is removed, since it is a free translation from Dutch and not a direct quote. Cheers, (WijzeWillem (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

New Review

I wish to add this review from the Hawaii Reporter to the article. Are there any complaints to this proposed addition?

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a nuclear scientist has written in the Hawaii Reporter, "The Hockeystick Illusion clarifies and communicates the complex recent history of this issue. It deserves a prominent place in your library. The federal government and many state legislatures should be embarrassed for having embraced such unscientific nonsense as a basis for crippling energy policies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

I suggest including a wikilink to the source- HawaiiReporter.com but otherwise think the above suggestion is fine. Cla68 (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That is this guy who, I note, is a Heartland Institute talking head. It continues the trend of this book being reviewed almost exclusively by denialists who give it glowing reviews for confirming their existing POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you opposing or endorsing the addition? Cla68 (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<ec> "Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com. ... Dr. Fox is listed by the Heartland Institute as a global warming/climate change expert." His views are clearly in line with The Heartland Institute's, fringe views in science but a significant minority view in the politics of climate change. As are Montford's views. Which should be made clear if it's added. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's original research, Dave. Remember, we just report what the sources say and let the readers decide on their credibility. I noticed in the review that the reviewer linked to a private anti-hockey stick site. I'm sure other readers who check the source will notice that also. The HawaiiReporter, however, is ok as a source. Cla68 (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research, since it can be sourced. What is your basis in policy for withholding sourced information on the affiliation of the writer of this review, information directly relevant to the subject matter of the review? Your interest in withholding this information seems at odds with your professed diesire to "just report what the sources say." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that if the information you wish to shove into this article is in fact not in a source which discuss this book they you are engaging in wp:or mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied below. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's source based research. Our purpose is to inform readers, not to mislead them by omission. . dave souza, talk 10:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That review isn't usable; it says in its first para The “hockeystick’ is the name given to the temperature chart assembled to represent the last 1000 years of temperature records (tinyurl.com/28qwkec) and the URL is to the appropriately-named "moonbattery" . In other words, it is self-declared "skeptic" tripe William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think adding yet another positive review adds any value, particularly since this one veers into politics. There is already even another one from Hawaii. Poujeaux (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, shouldn't it be linking to "Wingnuttery"? ;-)

• There seems to be a pattern taking shape of adding freelance reviews by industry officials (Brannen) and CC skeptics working for right-wing think tanks (Fox) and then withholding from our readers their affiliation, using various excuses for omission. The end result is to pass off corporate and political agendas as independent reviews, and I don't like it. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We use what the sources say, if the source does not say what you would like then there is not a lot that can be done about it is there. Since when was Fox a right wing think tank btw? And why do you think it necessary to label people? mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "labeling" people to state their corporate or think tank affiliations, which in this case are directly related to the subject matter of the article. I notice that you've repeatedly mischaracterized corporate/think affiliations as "labels." That's inaccurate. Why do you do that? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You say We use what the sources say, if the source does not say what you would like then there is not a lot that can be done about it is there? What is your basis in policy for saying that we are required to mislead our readers by omission? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who said right-wing think tanks now i hate to point out the obvious but right wing is a label mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your other question above btw mark nutley (talk)

Err, that is a label for a think-tank, not a person William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was not suggesting article text. What you were saying, and you've said before, is that giving a reviewer's corporate affiliation is "labeling." That's wrong. Re the policy justification for yr comment in boldface, it is, I take it, that adding sourced material is prohibited by WP:OR? That's absurd. There is nothing in that policy preventing addition of sourced material, or even remotely addressing this issue. If we say Joe Blow, a fellow at the X Institution (4), said that The Hockey Stick Illusion is "a great book,"(5) we're sourcing both statements. We're not synthesizing either. Syntehsis is when a Wiki editor expresses an opinion by blending the contents in both sources. Can you please address this, or cite another policy you feel is applicable? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that objecting to relevant affiliations being noted in the article as an WP:OR problem would be absurd. BigK HeX (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Scotty that`s rubbish, what exactly does joe blows job have to do with this article? Sweet FA mate. Just quit it ok mark nutley (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple, it identifies him. It says who Joe Blows is. Again, please explain what aspect of policy supports your position. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless the article about his review of this book identifies him as a member of Heartland or whatever, then it is WP:SYN to include it. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a misreading of WP:SYN. We are not prohibited from identifying a freelance writer. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So much for "adding" to the article. StuartH (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone provide me a link somewhere that states he is a member of Heartland? I apologize if I missed it but I haven't seen one anywhere.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

He`s not a member of heartland, he is listed on their site as a global warming/climate change expert. I am unsure as to why Chris0 said he is a talking head for them mark nutley (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any more questions about why mentioning that fact in the article has issues? Cla68 (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no "issues." There is no reason in policy from omitting the corporate or think tank affiliation of a book reviewer, if that affiliation is not listed in the review. There is, however, a serious issue with omitting his think tank affiliation, as that omission materially misleads the reader. I'd feel the same, and I presume others on the opposing side of this discussion would be screaming bloody murder on this point, if the writer were from Greenpeace. WP:SYN prevents editors from introducing original research into an article, not something like this, and is being used in this instance as justification for omitting material facts, without which that passage is misleading. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I would not be "screaming bloody murder" if the author was a member of Greenpeace because I take WP:SYN and WP:OR seriously. As Mark pointed out, the Heartland website does not list this guy as a "member." Also, his membership, if it existed, would have to be in context of this review. To assume, even if he was a member, that he was acting on that organization's behalf is definitely SYN and OR. Again, any more questions? This is clear cut, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in policies that prevent us from identifying the pov or affiliation of the people we quote; to do otherwise is misleading. It is common to identify individuals in this way in journalism. To suggest that WP:OR forbids this is to misrepresent the purpose of that policy. Our purpose should be to inform readers, not to mislead them. Including the affiliation or pov of our sources helps our readers evaluate that content. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We should not report the political viewpoint of writers cited unless the source is partisan (e.g., a political think-tank) or the person's political viewpoint is mentioned in the source. The specific guideline is synthesis because we would be putting together information from different sources. If journalists do this we can quote the connection they draw but cannot make it ourselves. Otherwise climate change deniers would insist on adding that scientists quoted in articles believe in climate change and therefore put them on an equal level with climate-change deniers. This source should be rejected however because it is non notable and is reprentative of a fringe view. TFD (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is non-notable. On your other point, I think our readers would be well-served by identifying a scientist as published in the peer-reviewed climate literature, or an industry hack as associated with an industry front organization. Forgive me, but I see no WP:SYN problem here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be affiliated with the group. Note: there was an all male golf club that was being protested for only allowing men in. The KKK came out to protest for the golf club much to their embarrassment. It would be incorrect though to state that the golf club was affiliated with the KKK just as it is incorrect to say this man is affiliated with the Heartland just because the Heartland says they acknowledge him as an expert.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how adding the source adds anything substantial to the article. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a non-notable review, and therefore it should be omitted. mark nutley, when you look for commentaries on books you should search for the most notable reviews and follow them according to the prevalence of their views. You should not include obscure reviews like this. Let me ask you, do you normally go to the Hawaii Reporter website for their opinions on the latest books? TFD (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Retired nuclear energy consultants are rarely climate scientists. Very few people on the list Global Warming Experts list actually are. He might be as expert as Joseph Bast, and if you believe that, make sure your kids and grandkids start smoking young, he'd like that, that's been Heartland's original job for decades, as per the Tobacco Archives. This is simply a list of people who can claim some credential or other that Heartland can use as front people. Whether they get paid, get free trips, or just like to see their names somewhere, so they think somebody cares, I don't know. But he is certainly "associated" with Heartland, as Heartland recruits these folks.

If people consult Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony, you find activities like Heart#1 (he was speaker), Manhattan2008 (signed at Heartland conference), Heart#2 (attended, I think), CATO2009 (signed), and HeartExp#2 (continuing Heartland Expert). He wasn't quite active enough enough to make CCC. The idea of using a (changing) array of "expert spokespeople" to confuse people really got going with the tobacco wars, in which Heartland is very experienced, so they know how to do it well. They've gotten a big boost in funding over the last few years, although the money-laundering makes it hard to know exactly where it comes from, but tobacco funding has been lower, so they needed a new market. Without a doubt, his review in a local Hawaiian website, in effect is one of the more credible seen so far, certainly subject to clear editorial scrutiny.JohnMashey (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "money-laundering" above (H/T Sphilbrick): this was not a criminal complaint, i.e., of transferring illegally-gained money around, but of the colloquial use of obscuring sources of money, commonly executed by some thinktanks and front groups. If there's a more precise/understandable phrase, I'd use it. The most extensive study I know of (I wrote it) is not an RS, but it has a large number of references that are, in that report I mentioned. This is so complicated and purposefully obscured that it took many pages of analysis, graphs and table to make any sense of that, and trying to duplicate that here makes even less sense. Specifically, look at Section 2, and Appendices A2, A.3, and A.6 in the report I mentioned. I've identified some of the publicly-known money flows. If I knew one RS taht did all this, it would have saved a lot of work. It is very hard to track flows that went from {ExxonMobil to the American Petroleum Institute} OR from the Kochs to some thinktank or front that then cosponsors a Heartland conference, which among other things pays for government people to come and sometimes speakers. For example, some of Joe Barton(R-TX)'s staff members have attended Heartland conferences. Exactly where did that money come from? Heartland does not say whence came the recent boost in donations synchronous with their big expansion into climate anti-science. Sooner or later the piece above will get updated to reflect Heartland #4, but similar effects are seen in the earlier ones. Unfortunately, unlike the superb Tobacco Archives, in which heartland is oft-mentioned, we do not have an equivalent source for climate anti-science. JohnMashey (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Judith Curry

Once article protection is lifted i intend to insert some comments made by Dr Judith Curry on this book.

This is the proposed content Dr Judith Curry in an interview with Keith Kloor has recommended the book saying "I am not so much defending this book as recommending that people read it. Climate scientists can learn a lot from Montford’s book. Not in terms of who is “right” or “correct” in terms of the science (that is still being debated), but how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate. While the hockey stick is not of any particular scientific importance, Montford’s book explains why the hockeystick became a big deal, owing to the IPCC’s choice to make the hockey stick a visual icon for the IPCC in its marketing of the IPCC. Therefore, in the public’s mind, challenges to the hockeystick metaphorically became challenges to the entire global warming argument. And the Climategate emails, while not illuminating any actual scientific misconduct, provided a view into the underbelly of how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints".

Make your suggestions for modifications to the text so we have a consensus before protection expires

mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not. It does not meet standards for RS and is not notable. TFD (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RS noticeboard says otherwise regarding reliability. How is it not notable? Curry is the first climatologist to review the book, you kept complaining about no science reviews, now we have one mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is your interpretation of the discussion. It may be a reliable primary source for Curry's opinions and in that case may be added to her article. But it is not a reliable for this article. TFD (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Mark -- you say RS noticeboard says otherwise. Can you please point me to a section of RS noticeboard where this has been discussed. As The Four Deuces suggested, I think this commentary from Curry should be added to her page, and for the moment I'm reserving judgment on whether I think this is a reliable source for this article. Has Curry not made similar statements elsewhere? Minor4th 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RS board discussion. This interview is just fine for this article, i really don`t see an issue with it`s inclusion mark nutley (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, Mark, I don't think you're going to be in a position to include anything in this article when protection is lifted. I suggest leaving it alone and awaiting the outcome of the arbitration. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully expect to be topic banned Chris, but until the ni shall continue to try and improve this article. mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As it's protected for the next three weeks, I really don't see the point. Other editors are taking a voluntary break from the topic area (as I think you're aware) so there isn't going to be much discussion of this, nor can anyone make any edits for the next three weeks, whatever happens. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the info to Curry's article. I will go look at the RS link you provided. Thanks. Minor4th 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Having looked at the RS noticeboard and read the interview by Kloor, I do think this is an appropriate review for this article. The source is being used to cite Curry's own words, not some reporter's interpretation of them or even a third-party quote. There is no reason to question the authenticity of the interview. The interview appears to be a reliable source for Curry's own words, whether it's in this article or Curry's article or otherwise. Minor4th 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, when protection expires will you insert the content? I`ll more than likly be topic banned :) mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you're topic banned, I will add it. Minor4th 21:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source for what Curry said but it is not a reliable source for this article, anymore than an interview with you or me that happened to be published would be RS for this article. TFD (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Your comment doesn't even make sense. Minor4th 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, you may not be aware, but making edits on behalf of topic banned editors is not permitted - it counts as ban evasion and could result in you being topic banned as well. A topic ban means that an editor is not allowed to edit in a topic area, whether directly or indirectly through others. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New Review: Scottish Review of Books

There's a new review out at the Alastair McIntosh at the Scottish Review of Books . As this is the first RS negative review we should probably do something with it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It`s a SPS and a blog. How is this a RS? Who is the guy who did the review? Alastair McIntosh who is he? mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There no immediate evidence that the site linked is an SPS or a blog. You care to explain your assertion?? BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume he's this Alastair McIntosh. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You assume facts not in evidence jonathan. As for if it is a blog and self published, the whole show is run by one guy, hence self published as he publish`s it himself. The site format is a blog layout, anyone can submit to it. mark nutley (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So .... you're saying that anyone -- even you -- can post a review to this site, and it will show up? I'd like for you to prove that one to us. I honestly see absolutely no basis for your claims that this is an SPS. I've seen you wrongly invoke this before, and it looks like you've done so again. BigK HeX (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Diff showing that please. Launched in 2005, it is published quarterly, and appears with the Saturday edition of The Herald newspaper. Edited by Alan Taylor, the magazine has many distinguished contributors and commentators. The review is also available by subscription, and is published online where there is an archive of previous issues. Thats it, a one man band mark nutley (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a reputable publication. The source you cite shows that very clearly. It's published by the Scottish Herald, a major newspaper (NOT by "one guy"), is supported by a major university and has the normal editorial process that one would expect of a reliable source. I think your reaction to it shows rather clearly that your view of what constitutes a reliable source depends on what POV that source presents. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No it is self published and distributed free with the Herald SCOTTISH REVIEW OF BOOKS VOLUME 6 NUMBER 1, 20 FEBRUARY, 2010 PUBLISHER: Scottish Review of Books Ltd mark nutley (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are being silly. Stop it, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How am i being silly? Is pointing out the truth silly? It is self published and has a staff of one. We have no way of knowing if McIntosh is the one being linked to. This is not a reliable source. mark nutley (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you are embarrassing yourself. Please stop pontificating on things you know nothing about. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) I think not, please comment on content. The link provided clearly shows it is self published. Another link clearlt shows it is a one man band This link proves it is a free handout the viability of a free-standing retail edition” of the Scottish Review of Books “should be actively explored and there is still no proof the the guy whi did the review is anyone of note. Comment on this please mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

According to author Berthold Schoene, Scotland's leading broadsheet The Sunday Herald "launched the Scottish Review of Books in 2004." (The Edinburgh companion to contemporary Scottish literature, p.23, Edinburgh University Press, 2007.) It is not published as frequently as, say, the London Review of Books but clearly qualifies as a reliable source. Wikispan (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Scottish Review of Books. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Review of Books was originally published by Argyll Publishing of Glendaruel, Argyll. It is still managed from Argyll Publishing's offices, but now operates as a separate company Gee waddya know i was right. It is self published by Alan Taylor just like the link i provided says. And i have yet to see a source which says the guy who did the review is Alastair McIntosh mark nutley (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I tend to believe that it's worth knowing something about a topic rather than making ex cathedra claims from a position of ignorance. Try it sometime, please. You are welcome to take this to WP:RSN but I'll tell you in advance that you are going to be laughed out if you do. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You wish to use this, you take it to the rsn board. I stand by the links provided that it is self published and a one man band. I also want a link showing that the guy you are wikilinking to is in fact the guy who did the review mark nutley (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in pursuing this further with you. It will appear in the article when it is unlocked. If you wish to dispute that and if you have somehow managed not to get topic-banned in the meantime, you can raise it at the RSN. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You intend to wikilink to a BLP stating that it is his opinions being given here, please provide your source that this is the person you are linking to or i will revert it out per wp:or and wp:blp i know you like to use self published sources in BLP`s but your not doing in again here. And you require a consensus to insert this into the article, were is that? mark nutley (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't bothered looking at Alastair McIntosh's website, have you? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your still not going to use it for BLP information, to use this to call a BLP a conspiracy theorist is a BLP breach mark nutley (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm going to use it to rewrite the synopsis of this article to describe the conspiracy theory that Montford presents. And this is not a BLP, it's a metareview of a book. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your not going to do that either, you can`t use a brief review to write a synopsis on an entire book, not use it to cast aspersions on conspiracy theorys on the author, which is a blp issue mark nutley (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your objection isn't relevant, so there's no point arguing further. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

{od} Your just another activist, and i`ll tell you now. Should you try and rewrite a book a synopsis based on an interview will not happen, and i`ll revert you. You will require a consensus to do what you propose and i can`t see it happening somehow mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN this article and you don't get to exercise a veto of its content, so please don't presume that you do. Just leave it for other editors to deal with. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nor do you and your activist buddies, you can`t link Alastair McIntosh to this review without engaging in wp:or so you can drop that wikilink. You can`t use a review to rewrite a synopsis about an entire book, which i see is pointed out to you below, in short this review can`t carry as much weight as you wish to grant it mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I find mark nutley's objections to completely lack merit, and see no reason to exclude brief text based on this source. BigK HeX (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What brief text? Chris0 is using this one source to rewrite the synopsis how is that brief? mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of SRB review

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, criticised the book as only being able to "cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists." Noting that Montford has not made any relevant scientific contributions, he commented that the book "might serve a psychological need in those who can't face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it's exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog" and criticises it as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."

References

1. McIntosh, Alastair (2010). "Reviews - The Hockey Stick Illusion". Scottish Review of Books. 6 (3).

Comments? I think we could also draw on the review to flesh out our description of Montford's conspiracy theory claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No it is self published and we have no way of knowing if that McIntosh is the one you are wikilinking to, please stop with your wp:or mark nutley (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not self-published. It was established by Argyll Publishing in Glendaruel and is still managed from AP's offices. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposal is roughly right. I don't think there's much more flesh in the review to draw out to be honest. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though I think the material that he mentions about Montford's conspiracy theorising is worth mentioning in the summary. It's something that is clearly a key theme in the book. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - would have to see the proposed text to comment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the synopsis, not the summary. I'll address this below. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, your proposed addition looks good to me. The quotation, "The captain of the ‘Hockey Team’, Montford writes, is the renowned American climatologist, Michael Mann, and at least forty-two named co-conspirators, all acclaimed scientists.", is a good summary of Montford's conspiracy theory claims, I think, and may provide additional balance to the current version of the article. Also, I've read the arguments of Marknutley above. I think they are without merit. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. I'm going to post a rewritten version of the synopsis shortly, so please check back - I'd appreciate your views. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Even with the addition of this review to the article, it will remain unbalanced (please see WP:UNDUE). I think trimming the non-notable reviews, e.g., those by reviewers with no articles on Misplaced Pages, would improve the article. Thank you for your work on this. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree; it would certainly benefit from some trimming. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of Mark's comments are without merit, and this review is certainly usable. However I would be very chary about using it as the basis of rewriting the synopsis, as it's a very cursory review by an environmental activist and theologian. I agree with Walter that a partial trim of the positive reviews would be a good idea, though we should not loose sight of the fact that so far the great weight of the reliable sources about this book are undoubtedly positive (bizarre though it might seem this is the only RS negative review anybody has managed to turn up so far!). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've explained below why a rewrite of the synopsis is necessary. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of synopsis

The current synopsis is not very satisfactory - it's drawn directly from the book, in effect being an individual editor's summary of a primary source, rather than reflecting reliable secondary sources. I therefore propose to rewrite it as follows, drawing on McIntosh's handy summary of the book:

The Hockey Stick Illusion focuses on the so-called "hockey stick graph" of the reconstructed temperature record of the past 1000 years, published in Nature in 1999, and the subsequent controversy. Promoted as the "definitive exposé", the book portrays the controversy as being driven by a conspiracy among climate scientists.

In the opening pages of the book Montford describes his own introduction to climate science, which came about by reading the Climate Audit blog of Canadian mining consultant Stephen McIntyre. He argues that the American climatologist Michael E. Mann and at least forty-two other scientists, whom he dubs "the Hockey Team", conspired to distort the graph in order to generate a scare about global warming.

Montford asserts that the scientists aimed to flatten the "handle" of the graph by erasing the Medieval Warm Period, a 300-year phase of unusual warmth in the North Atlantic region, from the global temperature record. According to Montford, the "Hockey Team" cherry-picked and distorted statistical data derived from tree rings in order to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear from the graph. He claims that without the Medieval Warm Period, the graph would have had more of a U-shape, diminishing the case that the current episode of global warming is man-made. Montford supports his argument by citing the emails stolen in late 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia that sparked the so-called "Climategate" affair.

The motive for what the book's subtitle calls "the Corruption of Science" is, according to Montford, a desire on the part of scientists to obtain political prestige and research grants. He argues that "the flatter the representation the scarier were the conclusions." He attacks the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which featured the graph prominently in its 2001 Third Assessment Report, as "corrupt, biased and beset by conflicts of interest" and argues that "there is no conceivable way that politicians can justify this failing to their electorates. They have no choice but to start again."

References

1. ^ McIntosh, Alastair (2010). "Reviews - The Hockey Stick Illusion". Scottish Review of Books. 6 (3).

Comments? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A pile of activist crap, your using a single source from an unknown person to rewrite the books sysnopsis, not a chance mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "Comments from anyone other than Marknutley?"... -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use his language, but I'm afraid I broadly agree with Mark. Too POV. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem with it? The current synopsis doesn't even mention Montford's line of argument. That is a fundamental omission. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ec As soon as you point out were in the source that the reviewer is the guy you are wikilinking to we can talk about the rest, we`ll have no wp:or if you please mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You've already been shown that. I don't propose to engage any further with you on that issue, as it's resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No it has not were In Here doew is say the reviewer is Alastair McIntosh It does not and as such you are engageing in wp:or mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So take it to the OR noticeboard, where you can get told that you're wrong by a whole new set of editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, nope. wp:or do not use more than one source to reach a conclusion not stated in one of the sources, that is what your doing here mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I think the proposed rewrite of synopsis reads much better than the currect content. Perhaps, "claiming to be" might be replaced with "promoted as" or "self-described as", depending on which fits better. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think "promoted as" works best. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Still no, you are providing to much weight to one source, why not use some of the other sources in the synopsis? mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This use of a source is highly controversial and as Jonathan A Jones points out above "as it's a very cursory review by an environmental activist and theologian.". Writing a full synopsis on that basis is not acceptable, and now you still have the points made by Mark nutley that I don't see ChrisO and others have answered fully. Nsaa (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

His "points" have been answered fully. He is wrong in every particular - not for the first time. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are POV pushing again, not for the first time. ATren (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I did not realize this was a talk page, and I have signed the voluntary restriction, so I am striking it out. ATren (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. McIntosh is an academic (Visiting Professor of Human Ecology at the University of Strathclyde), not just "an environmental activist and theologian". Even if he was "just" that, it wouldn't make any difference to his suitability as a source, unless you are suggesting that this somehow disqualifies him from commenting. (He's certainly a good deal more expert than a failed banker.) I don't mind looking at the other sources to see if they can be used in the synopsis. But whatever else happens, the current synopsis needs to be revised to bring it in line with WP:V. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis is a synopsis of the book and is not the place for critique. There's no reason to cite a critical reference in the synopsis section. If the synopsis correctly summarizes the book, then it is in line with WP:V and the only references in that section need to be to the book itself. Place the book review in the area designated for reception and review. Minor4th 01:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Minor4th on this. This review deserves a prominent place in the reviews section, reflecting its key status as the sole RS negative review anyone has been able to turn up, but to use it as the basis for a complete rewrite of the synopsis is entirely unjustified, particularly as large parts of the review seem to have only the most cursory resemblance to the book itself. Oh, and the "failed banker" you are so unhappy with happens to be a internationally famous writer of popular science books; since this article is about a popular science book he is by far the most qualified reviewer we have got on our list. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're coming from with that line of argument. Synopses should be written using reliable third party sources to summarise the key points of the work, whether it's a book or film. Using the book itself is unsatisfactory, as an editor-written synopses amounts to original research based on a primary source (as it relies on the editor selecting which content to mention). Nothing in the revised synopsis posted above is a "critique" - it's a straightforward summary of the contents of the book. I'm open to adding further sources to it, but we have to move away from using the book itself as a source for the synopsis if we're going to avoid WP:OR and meet WP:V. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That text seems fine, ChrisO. BigK HeX (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Still junk, and wp:undue weight to just one source. It already meets wp:v as it is cited from the book. There is no wp:or as it is cited from the book. mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We should use more than one source, all agree, however I find the outline (above) quite satisfactory. You assert it is "junk". Why exactly? Wikispan (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it junk? Well apart from the fact it is written to make Montford appear to be a swivel eyed conspiracy nut it is pure POV pushing and as stated to much weight to one source, a synopsis of a book should not rely on reviews, it relies on the actual book. This review should be in the reception section, not used to source the synopsis mark nutley (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Montford contends that a group of scientists are actively engaged in distortion and deception, that has taken in numerous international bodies, including the IPCC. This is exactly what the book describes (scientists conspiring to manipulate and conceal data). You can't have it both ways at once: Allege a scientific conspiracy but reject reliable sources that summarize the conspiracy and corruption described by the author. Furthermore, where is it written that we must use the book to provide a summary of the main points? That is not my understanding at all. Wikispan (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Describing a group of scientists as distorting data and make deceptions, is of course not the same as claim it is a conspiracy. I am sure you understand this very well, if you only think a little about it. 119.31.121.87 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the perfectly reasonable interpretation of one book reviewer. What motive does Montford assign? Scientists deliberately falsifying data, for what purpose? Wikispan (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a little busy at the moment handling A level results for university admissions, so this conversation is likely to be slow. I have no objection to rewriting the synopsis from third part reliable sources; indeed I support it. However such a rewrite should reflect the balance of third party reliable sources, not just one of them.

Can we take this a sentence at a time?

"The Hockey Stick Illusion focuses on the so-called "hockey stick graph" of the reconstructed temperature record of the past 1000 years, published in Nature in 1999, and the subsequent controversy." Fine.

"Promoted as the "definitive exposé"," I guess you taking this from the Stacey website ? In any case it needs a reference.

"the book portrays the controversy as being driven by a conspiracy among climate scientists." First major problem. McIntosh believes that, but you need more sources before making such a suggestion, since a cursory examination of the book suggests the opposite. The only use of the word "conspiracy" I can find is the footnote on page 60 denying that the use of the phrase "hockey team" implies an accusation of conspiracy. I can't find any uses of "conspire", "conspires", "conspired", "conspirator" or "conspirators".

That's the first paragraph. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where ChrisO is coming up with the idea that the synopsis has to be sourced through third parties and not referenced to the book itself. That is incorrect. For an example of a WP:BOOK article that meets Good Article criteria and has passed Good Article review, see The Real Global Warming Disaster. Note that the synopsis is sourced entirely to the book itself. The only requirement is that it be presented accurately according to the book and not editorialized. Minor4th 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The current synopsis seems fine to me. ChrisO's proposed rewrite, as others have noted, has POV problems. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris O's proposed re-write is nonsense. Montford does not claim a conspiracy, nor does McIntyre. The sentence about the MWP and the U shape makes no sense at all, and the references to McIntosh are completely inappropriate,as pointed out by Minor4th.Poujeaux (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense. Jonathan A Jones have already shown very well that the book do not claim any conspiracy. So I hope this discussion is over. Right? 119.31.121.87 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus here for the synopsis to stay as is. The McIntosh review can`t be used to rewrite it. The review however as the first critical one should be added to the reception section, although we should make it clear that the reviewer was commenting more on his perceptions on the science than on the book itself. As he admits himself below. mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is that, consensus by magic wand? Four different editors have expressed an interest in improving the section, preferably using multiple third party reliable sources. Wikispan (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And eight have stated that the synopsis is fine as is and reviews should not be used to rewrite it. Perhaps i should have said a clear consensus against using reviews to source the synopsis, it should be sourced from the book not from reviews. mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you pick that figure at random? It sure looks like it. Wikispan (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1 User:Marknutley
• 2 User:Nsaa Writing a full synopsis on that basis is not acceptable
• 3 User:ATren Actually you are POV pushing again (reads like a no to me)
• 4 User:Minor4th If the synopsis correctly summarizes the book, then it is in line with WP:V and the only references in that section need to be to the book itself. Place the book review in the area designated for reception and review
• 5 User:Jonathan_A_Jones I'm with Minor4th on this
• 6 User:Tillman The current synopsis seems fine to me
• 7 User:Poujeaux Chris O's proposed re-write is nonsense. Montford does not claim a conspiracy, nor does McIntyre. The sentence about the MWP and the U shape makes no sense at all, and the references to McIntosh are completely inappropriate,as pointed out by Minor4th
• 8 User:119.31.121.87 Yes, it's nonsense. Jonathan A Jones have already shown very well that the book do not claim any conspiracy. So I hope this discussion is over. Right?
• 9 User:Cla68 I think the current book synopsis in the article, however, is fine as is

I was wrong, it`s nine against chris0`s proposed changes, and the most seem to say the synopsis should be from the book, not reviews mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, I wonder if you might have overlooked my comment above? On the narrow question of the use of the word "conspiracy", Montford's footnote denial strikes me as disingenuous. However, I'm comfortable with the words "'hockeyteam' led by climatologist, Michael Mann" replacing "conspiracy among climate scientists" in ChrisO's rewrite. Poujeaux, describing the work of a fellow editor as nonsense is unkind; please try to be more civil in the future. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not overlook your comment at all, why do you think i did? mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I assumed you were providing a complete tally, not just those that you perceive support you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate no, the tally above was in reply to a post by wikispan mark nutley (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't move the goalposts. You wrote "eight have stated that the synopsis is fine as is" when, in fact, some of the same people on your list expressed an interest in improving the section providing we do not rely too heavily on a single critical review (a basis for objection). This does not translate into "everything is fine", as you wish to suggest. Wikispan (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I`m not moving the goalposts, look again at what i wrote, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not a satisfactory reply. Wikispan (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok i`ll copy it again for your ease it`s nine against chris0`s proposed changes, and the most seem to say the synopsis should be from the book, not reviews mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between what you wrote originally ("There is a clear consensus here for the synopsis to stay as is") and your recent rephrasing ("it's nine against chris0's proposed changes"). As I pointed out, correctly, the first is a sweeping statement that ignores the openness of some editors to make progress, such as Jonathan, who actually wrote: "I have no objection to rewriting the synopsis from third part reliable sources; indeed I support it. However such a rewrite should reflect the balance of third party reliable sources, not just one of them." Therefore there are five editors who have expressed an interest in making changes and only two who have gone on record saying the section is "fine" as it stands. Now, are you done wasting my time? Wikispan (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I stand by my opinion that a rewrite from properly balanced third party reliable sources is preferable, although as Minor4th has cogently argued there is no absolute necessity to use such sources. However, given a straight choice between the current version and ChrisO's proposed form, the current version is my strong preference. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikispan, if you don`t want to waste time then try reading what i write. I said there is a clear consensus against chris0`s pov rewrite. Of those opposing it the majority say the synopsis is fine as is or can be sourced from the book and not from reviews. So yourself and chris0 can either accept this consensus and we can expand the synopsis from the book or we leave it as is. mark nutley (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I read and understood what you wrote perfectly well. Your words are archived, for all to see. Wikispan (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There not archived yet, and my comments were correct, you need to respond to the points i made mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Response by review author, Alastair McIntosh

Hello ... this is Alastair McIntosh speaking - the one who wrote the review in Scottish Review of Books. It is not fitting for me to comment on most of this debate. Suffice to say that I am delighted to see the rigour with which it is being conducted. It is, however, fitting for me to say that I am indeed the Alastair McIntosh that your links have identified. Also, that the Scottish Review of Books is Scotland's leading such journal and is not a self-published work or a blog. It is distributed in the Herald newspaper, one of Scotland's two newspapers of record, and this particular edition is also being distributed in some sort of link with the Edinburgh International Book Festival. Alan Taylor may be the overall editor, but he is not the staff member who commissioned the review from me.

May I comment on the proposals to use what I have said towards a summary of what Mr Montford's book is about? I think it would be fair to draw on my material as a partial source, but my review, for which I only had 700 words, does not attempt to be a comprehensive summary of his arguments. Instead, I used most of my space to demonstrate that Mr Montford is a non-starter as far as I am concerned because he, and for the mostpart, the people whose blogs he is using as his source material, are not peer reviewed in this area of science. My review is therefore more about what constitutes science than it is about what Montford actually says. It's bottom line is that while the book might represent Mr Montford's opinion, it does not represent science, and therefore I'm not interested in engaging very deeply with his arguments even if I were suitably qualified so to do, which, as a human ecologist, I am not.

I was alerted to this discussion happening by Mark Nutley's comment on Montford's blog, "Bishop Hill", where he wrote on 15th Aug: "Martin A, i hate to have to tell you this but they are delighted at this review over at wiki. One user has stated he will use it to rewrite the synopsis and also use it to call Andrew a conspiracy theorist, this sadly is honey for the worker bee`s over at wiki :( ". It was either on that blog or in the SRB's comments section that I noted somebody questioning whether I would have been paid for writing this review. For the sake of transparency, let me answer "yes." I get paid the standard book review fee that, as I understand it, the SRB as a literary journal offers to all its reviewers.

Most of the bloggers attackint the review (over 50 on the Bishop Hill site so far) are making the assumption that I did not read the book. On the contrary, it took me a week's work to read it, check out Montford's arguments without attempting to judge them beyond what the peer reviewed science supports, and write the piece. This need to write with extreme caution is why, I think, you have been finding that most serious climate change researchers just ignore the contrarians - to engage with them is costly in time, unproductive of results, and potentially risky on the legal front if they happen to say something in error. I have engaged with both Montford and Peter Taylor (author of Chill) because I have been concerned at how parts of the media have amplified their arguments, but it is not a form of engagement taht I intend to make my hobby, and forgive me if I do not engage with the ongoing discussion on this fascinating page. Best wishes,Alastair McIntosh (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for commenting here! There is an article on the SRB on Misplaced Pages (see Scottish Review of Books) which sets out what kind of journal it is; Marknutley's claims about it are clearly wrong and haven't been supported by a single other editor. The reaction to your review is, I think, a rather good demonstration of the point that you made about denialism meeting a psychological need - you do very much get the impression that people are seeking reassurance by latching onto anything that comes along to help them deny the facts, and conversely lashing out at anything that undermines that denial. I've been reading the other (pro-denialist) reviews of the book and I've noticed an interesting trend. They take a very different approach from you. Instead of actually discussing Montford's arguments and attributing them to him, as you do, they present what amounts to a long rant against the hockey stick graph and the IPCC, then tack on the book at the end in support of their claims. I would guess that the reviewers, who are all denialists themselves, see the book as validation of their existing views and therefore approach it rather differently from a general reader who is looking for information on a subject they may not know much about. Your review seems to be directed much more at the latter. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Second those thanks to Alastair for commenting! Discussion here is muted as many of us are avoiding the topic while an Arbitration case is in progress, but I think it's fair to say that the earlier book reviews put forward opinions which may or may not have been informed by the book. Goes off to continue reading Hell and High Water, which has brought back sad memories of the news about a car full of people getting swept of a causeway when a storm hit the Hebrides. . . dave souza, talk 08:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another thanks. I think this very helpful summary of the nature of the review is fully consistent with my position that this review should get substantial billing in the reviews section, but that it cannot be used as the basis of a major rewrite of the synopsis. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Like Dave, I'll briefly break my voluntary topic ban to welcome Mr. McIntosh to Misplaced Pages, thank him for his comments, and add that I don't see any problem with including a paragraph on his review in the reception section of this article. I think the current book synopsis in the article, however, is fine as is. Cla68 (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the synopsis still needs significant editing to move away from the wikipuffery that got it locked, but the inclusion of this review and the Guardian one below would help to bring some much-needed balance to the article as a whole. StuartH (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New Guardian review mentions this article

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

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

References

1. Ward, Bob (2010-08-19). "Climate sceptics mislead the public over hacked emails inquiry". The Guardian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how about this as a possible text?

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

References

1. "Bob Ward - Institute Staff - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment". Retrieved 2010-08-20.
2. Ward, Bob (2010-08-19). "Climate sceptics mislead the public over hacked emails inquiry". The Guardian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. "Bob Ward - Institute Staff - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment". Retrieved 2010-08-20.
2. Ward, Bob (2010-08-19). "Climate sceptics mislead the public over hacked emails inquiry". The Guardian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HSI pp.23-30, 421 ... dog astrology

Let's examine HSI's core proposition ...

Why, and why here on a Talk page? Original research done here has even less weight in the world than a blog post. FChE (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm ignoring this section completely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Background refers to montford's original manuscript as a paper. Since this is about science could we be clear that it was a manuscript, paper sounds like it's been peer reviewed which it obviously hasnt. Reception reads like a hagiography. There are no critical reviews mentioned in the wikipedia page. How about this one from Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/ —PrecedingHmcst1 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) unsigned comment added by 86.134.189.108 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The page is currently protected, so no edits can be made, but if you'll see above there is discussion about including reviews from the Guardian and McIntosh, both critical reviews, once the page is unprotected. Those are appropriate reviews to include. Your link is to a blog that is not a proper source for book reviews, in that it is self-published and not considered reliable by Wiki standards. Minor4th 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I realise the page is protected. Tamino has his own blog but RealClimate is a website run by working climate scientists, it's a guest post , therefore has been approved by an editorial process. Tamino is not a regular contributor to Real Climate. My link is not to a blog nor self published. There are plenty of other book reviews mentioned on Misplaced Pages that are from exclusively online sources, indeed The Register is an online resource. Why is The Register's gushing review quoted here and RealClimate's critical review excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.189.108 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hmcst1 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because RC is self published, and is not wp:rs it is also not usable as it written by tammy, which is a pseudonym. There are two wp:rs critical reviews now for use in the article mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, You say RC is self published I say it is not. It lists 11 established working climate scientists as contribitors, it is clearly not the opus of one person . We do not know exactly how it's editorial process works but we can be sure that this piece from a guest contributor was subject to some editorial review. Suggesting it is self published is misleading. What makes RC self published whilst The Register is somehow different? Please could you direct me to the wikipedia guideline which disqualifies a pseudonymous contribution.

Yes I note above that there are two critical reviews for use (when the lock is lifted), I'm left wondering if there is some relevance to that remark. There are many more than 2 favourable reviews in this article , are you going to delete all but 2 of the favourable reviews? Hmcst1 —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

The Tamino review is discussed quite extensively above in the section "The RC review"; while there was some debate the consensus was that it was probably not usable. Now that we have two uncontroversial reliable sources for negative reviews I doubt you will get much support for including it. With regard to positive reviews, there is some support for trimming these down a little, and I would have thought that the Register review is ripe for removal, with the Maui news being another likely victim. Regarding the balance, note that the reviews in reliable sources are almost entirely positive (the McIntosh and Ward reviews being the sole exceptions), and the article quite properly reflects this fact. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):No we will not remove the favourable reviews, I am not being misleading Surreal Climate is a self published blog. It is not a reliable source. please read wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct -- we're not removing notable, reliably sourced reviews and we're not including blog posts from anonymous individuals. And please be a little more collegial and civil, Hmcst1. Minor4th 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Ive already asked this but , please advise where in wikipedia rules does it say anything about not including a pseudonymous source? I think you'll find that writing under a pseudonymous name, has a long history, indeed it was a favourite of ancient philosophers. I note the sarcasm in referring to RealClimate as Surreal Climate . That doesn't seem very collegial to me. It is clearly not a remark that could be considered NPOV either. In what way has my contribution been lacking in civility Minor4th ? Ive already stated above why RC should not be considered self publishing but all Ive had back is opinion not rebuttal. Hmcst1 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read wp:rs yet? It is a self published blog and can`t be used for statements of fact for anything other than about itself. That`s it ok mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have read wp:rs . It does not give a definition of self published does it? Self refers to the individual , if the review was on Tamino's blog (exclusively)I would agree with you , but RC is the work of 11 people who are professionals in the field on which they write. Im not saying we need to rely on the article for for statements of fact. I am saying that we need to make some reference to the opinion expressed by the article, for balance. This summary of reviews is made up of opinions, it is misleading to suggest that the opinion in question is not 'reliable'. If you feel that way don't quote directly from it, paraphrase or summarise and move on. It is also disingenuous to suggest that Tamino's view was never expressed because you don't like the website on which it was published. I think we have to ask ourselves what are we trying to write here? A balanced article about a controversial book, or are we trying to make a favourable review by 'quote mining' the online reviews already published?Hmcst1 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What are we trying to write here? I can't answer for other people, but I am trying to write an article which reflects the balance of opinions in reliable sources about this book, and at the moment that balance is broadly positive towards it (the balance was overwhelmingly positive until the McIntosh review came out, but is now moving towards the middle). Note that I'm not particularly interested in the balance of opinions in reliable sources about the Hockey stick controversy or the Climatic Research Unit email controversy or even about Historical climatology because I am not writing on those pages; I leave those to people with stronger stomachs and more spare time, though I am, of course, glad that we link to them.

We are now in the happy position of having several reliable sources on both sides (positive and negative) of the question, which means we can start to be quite fussy about the quality of the sources (so dumping marginal stuff like El Reg). In assessing the quality of the sources my approach is to firstly look at their expertise in writing popular science (so Matt Ridley's opinions rate very highly for me) and then to look at issues such as length and depth of review (so the Courier article scores quite well) and stability of the article (which means that Bob Ward's review should be used with great care). As I have said before, in my opinion the leading contenders for negative reviews to be included are McIntosh and the new review by Joyner, while among positive reviews I would initially be looking to cut Andrew Orlowski and Harry Eager. But doubtless other people will have opinions too. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with this. As for the Dutch review, for now I feel we should leave it out since it's neither really negative or positive (and still a proper citation is lacking).But perhaps it's time to start building a concensus on this in a new section? WijzeWillem (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, forgot about this. Actually I quite like having middle of the road sources. Yes, we need a better citation, but I think we have one, as the book review was as far as I can tell published on page 73 of the June 2010 issue of NWT Magazine (I guess you could find a copy in your library?). The article being in Dutch is a problem, but not an insuperable one, though obviously we shouldn't quote from it unless we quote in Dutch. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your points. I'll see tomorrow if we have it in our uni library (if anyone can confirm the ref let us know!). I think the article being Dutch shouldn't have to be problematic indeed.WijzeWillem (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As expected, some people tried very hard to delete or suppress "dog astrology." Nobody has been willing to discuss HSI's firm statement that Lindzen confirms that Deming identified Overpeck. That statement is either:
a) poor scholarship - trivially checkable by simply looking at the cited source and seeing that Lindzen offers an untruth about Deming's paper, which Montford's own writing shows is untrue. OR
b) "culpable ignorance", i.e., the polite legal term for presenting an untruth, where one cannot prove that the writer knew it, but should have. I cannot prove that Montford ever actually read Lindzen's paper to support this major point.
One way or another, Montford's claim is a clear untruth ... about a living person, and sometimes such things are defamation.
So, what seems to be wished here is that laudatory articles about HSI on websites (like the Register) or from local writers in local newspapers are noteworthy and true, but no one is allowed to even discuss anything direct from a book/movie, a bit strange. Many Misplaced Pages discussions are about what's in the source, not just what somebody else says about it. For example, see or or . If it becomes OR in discussion to check one citation to see if it says what is claimed, it appears that no one can check anything, unless it appears somewhere like the Discovery Institute or Maui News. Then it might count. How well would the selected pages of the HSI fare if submitted as a Misplaced Pages page? Part of its core proposition is demonstrably untrue by a simple search in a single citation. I'm perfectly happy to see evidence or discussion and change my mind when data warrants.JohnMashey (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

John, save your rants for timmys blog please. They are not needed here and do not help with improving this article mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your work has been noted

"The book has received fawning reviews from the Spectator and the Sunday Telegraph but its account of events has created so much dissent that its Misplaced Pages entry has been protected from further editing until disputes over it have been resolved." MastCell  22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Any reason not to include that? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See #New Guardian review mentions this article above - I suggest that we keep this discussion in one place. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad for not reading the talk page; back to your regularly scheduled programming. MastCell  23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New review in Prospect Magazine

Yet another new negative review, this time in Prospect Magazine which also published Matt Ridley's review. An interesting counterpoint. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good find, the following quote from the article might be a good summary of his views: "The Hockey Stick Illusion is a McCarthyite book that uses the full range of smear tactics to peddle climate change denial." WijzeWillem (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the first review we've had from an actual scientist. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the case yes. In the end of the article he is described as "emeritus professor of physical chemistry, Nottingham Trent University". I've looked a bit at his Web of Science articles and, for completeness, this seems to be correct: mainly surface / metal catalysis chemistry. Just so it's clear he's not at atmospheric / climate scientist ;). WijzeWillem (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's a zeolite man, solid enough; seems to have been in administration at Nottingham Trent University towards the end. Not that zeolites give him any special expertise in identifying McCarthyism or smear tactics. (I make no comment about administration!) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, just had to laugh at the 'zeolite man' expression :). There's actually a lot of 'zeolite people' around at the conferences I've been at, seems to be a hot topic (especially compared to administration, hehe).WijzeWillem (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This review should be included either in or after the paragraph on the positive Prospect review, showing that it was a couterpoint. This book appears to be gaining widespread attention and I think more reviews will be forthcoming, especially since this book will probably be heavily used as source in the impending books on the Climategate controversy. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Fox, Michael R. (1 August, 2010). "Book Review – 'The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science'". The Hawaii Reporter. Hawaii Reporter. p. 1. Retrieved 3 August 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Start-Class England-related articles
• Unknown-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• Start-Class Internet culture articles
• Unknown-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Start-Class science articles
• Unknown-importance science articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles