Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Geoscientist

The Geoscientist isn't the journal of a learned society. It is just their mag [1] 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 Wikipedia's guideline on reliability. That said, these changes[2] 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" [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

They also answer to the council [4] So although they have editorial control the last word obviously remains here [5] 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.[6]. "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 Wikipedia. This is the kind of stuff Hollywood press agents do, not neutral Wikipedia 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.[21]

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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not "puffery", as so many already have shown. This is very sound reading as a background for the "editing" here: Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles (National Post 19/12 2009): "Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. [...] All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement." Stop use Wikipedia as a propaganda channel for AGW; you only corrupting the work here and give Wiki a bad reputation. 119.31.126.81 (talk) 05:22, 5 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". [9]

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 Wikipedia. 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[7]. 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 [reword it]...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 [Cla68, Marknutley, Peregrine Fisher] 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 [counting Marknutley's change-of-heart and counting Peregrine's comment as only a comment and also counting Kim's "tilt" as a removal argument], 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 [8] 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" [9]. In other words, it is self-declared "skeptic" tripe [nb I had to munge the tinyurl link to get it past the spam filters] 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.[10]

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)

[11] 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 [12]. 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 [13] it is self published. Another link clearlt shows it is a one man band [14] 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.)^[15] 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

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 Wikipedia, 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 [before the upward swing in temperatures in the late 20th century] 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

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 [16]? 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?[17] 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 [editors] 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[y] 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia, 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)

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 Wikipedia entry has been protected from further editing until disputes over it have been resolved." MastCell ^Talk 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 ^Talk 23:32, 23 August 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 [18] 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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[outdent] 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)

Unacceptable behaviour from Marknutley

Editors were given ample time during protection to demonstrate the notability of both footnotes (see above). This request was ignored and no reliable third-party source was provided. Now protection has expired and the text has been removed, up pops user Marknutley to start yet another edit war! Unacceptable behaviour. Wikispan (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? That`s a load of rubbish. There has been no reason within policy to remove them, perhaps you should admonish the guy who removed it again hence continuing his slow edit war? And he did so with a fake edit summary given it has been pointed out on this talk page the the reasons given for said content removal were not within policy. Your section header is also a breach of policy BTW i reccomend you change it mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly see no clear consensus for their removal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Five different editors (including myself) have directly challenged this material. Almost all say the information is not notable. This matter can be resolved quickly if someone (anyone!) can show the information to be notable. Why have editors ignored these concerns until today? Wikispan (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And five have said it`s fine. There was no consensus for it`s removal. Why do you accuse me of edit warring when you have removed this content btw? It is notable for a bunch of scientists to use the book in one paper, this is not just one person citing it, it is 14 scientists saying This work conveniently relates the topics back to a detailed narrative of the major disputes in climate science, and specifically paleoclimate studies, with which much of the Climatic Research Unit archive is concerned. and published by The London School of Economics and Political Science. Of course it is notable i suggest you self revert mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The criterion for notability is not best demonstrated by circular assertions. This is not terribly difficult to follow. If the book is the subject of a scientific paper then notability would be easy to establish. Instead, it rather unremarkably appears as a footnote. We list more contributors to the paper here on this page than The Hartwell Paper article itself! Simply absurd. Users are flagrantly embellishing a stingy footnote to bolster the credibility of the book. Wikispan (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly unusual for a popular science book to be used as a source in academic papers; whether it is notable is a more subtle question. I don't like the way we use this material at the moment, but it is not unreasonable to argue that the use of the HSI as a source in The Hartwell Paper does bolster the book's credibility every bit as much as a positive review - hence, I suppose, the inclusion in the review section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we have a review that mentions the printed note, all well and good. Otherwise the footnote stands as a personal observation, sourced to the paper in which the footnote appears! A can of worms. Wikispan (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Logically someone will have to update articles on Chomsky with the thousands of citations his work has attracted.[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.255.80 (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing science papers

Last time I checked we had a policy of using scientific papers as some of the best notable and reliable sources backing a text: What is wrong with the very vel cited information removed here Revision as of 2010-08-25T15:28:17 William M. Connolley William M. Connolley (→Reception: (rv) rm puffery, per previous talk) and Revision as of 2010-08-25T17:40:57 Wikispan (Not notable. Editors were given ample time during protection to demonstrate the notability of both footnotes.)?Not Notable? Puffery? This is bad behavior and should be dealt with by the arb.com hopefully. It's a battlefield attitude that is disturbing to the environment on Wikipedia. I don't like the very bad review done by Bob Ward. Should I remove it then? No off course not as long as the Guardian has hosted this comment. Nsaa (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)