Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Use of blog comments

In this edit, since undone by me, Marknutley references a blog comment - not even a blog posting, to assert that the purported "author" of that blog comment said something. I suggest that a blog comment is not a reliable source, even for it's own content, and I suggest that a blog comment is not notable without independent third party sources of unquestionable reliability commenting on it. I further suggest that those of you who have denialist credibility in Marknutley's eyes inform him that his continued use of blatently unreliable sources presents a serious problem with his continued editing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some blogs clearly mark comments by the blog author(s). Anything other than that clearly fails verifiability. RealClimate, for example, does not require login. And, of course, I agree that blog comments are even less notable than blog content. Guettarda (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My comments were posted just before this section was created in this edit. I'm not sure if your offensive use of terms like "denialist credibility" is meant to include me, but for the avoidance of doubt I have told Mark repeatedly and clearly that he is completely wrong on this issue. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk)

I don't mean to use denialist credibility as a offensive term. Allow me to state for the record that I don't consider denialist a slur at all, and I apologize if anyone took it as such. As someone who spent a great deal of time with proudly revisionist historians (not holocaust deniers) and unabadishly heterodox economists, I understand that people have phrases they like to be called. I'll try my hardest to use those phrases in the future. Do you know what phrase I should be using?

In the context of this discussion I think the phrase "credibility with Marknutley" is perfectly adequate. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, believe it or not you have credibility with me. I made an assumption, you have pointed out i was wrong. I`m going to follow your advice and ensure i do not use blog comments again mark nutley (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Restored POV tag

Guettarda, I would be grateful if you could identify which issues you feel remain. Given the complexity of the sections above it would be helpful to have a clear list, rather than a "see above" comment. As usual it would also be particularly helpful if you could suggest how your concerns might be resolved. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As per my edit summary I did not say "see above", as you have claimed. I said the "in universe" issues have not been resolved. It's rather tiresome to deal with your misrepresentation over and over and over again. Guettarda (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel misrepresented; I was trying to ask if you could identify which particular "in universe" issues you believe remain, and how you believe these could be resolved. The edit you refer to below is of some help, but I would be grateful, for example, if you could indicate which if any parts of the text "describe the minority view" without making clear that this is a minority view. As I have said in previous sections I think the caveats and disclaimers already included cover this objection, but since you don't agree I am sure you will be able to point to some specifics. I believe this would help us make progress. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If this was the first time you'd engaged in this sort of behaviour I'd be more than willing to assume good faith. But we are long past that stage. I'm willing to let the past be the past. But you need to stop making these false claims. Simple honesty isn't too much to ask of contributors. Note: "I am sorry if you feel misrepresented" (classic notpology) when, in fact, if you look over this page, I never said "see above" or anything of the sort. When you make words up and put them in other people's mouths, the normal thing to do would be to apologise and strike the comment. You see, first you need to stop. Then you need to establish your ability to communicate in an honest fashion. If you can demonstrate your ability to do that, then I'm willing to extend the assumption of good faith. Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am of course prepared to accept your statement that you believe my comment above misrepresents you, and have therefore struck out the section which I believe you are objecting to; if you would like more struck out then just let me know. Please rest assured that I will attempt to always assume good faith in all my dealings with you. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per MN's comment on my talk page, see [1] Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So were back to that again, this is not a minority view, it is a factual account of the hockey stick`s history. How many times does that need to be said? mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero; because it is wrong. Your bald assertion that it is a factual account of the hockey stick`s history is obviously meaningless. Why are you bothering to repeat it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not meaningless as i have shown refs to prove it. You on the other hand have provided nothing but opinon, either provide refs to support what you say or the tag goes mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, seee my comment of 09:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem - it's written as if it were a factual account. That's what the whole "in universe" problem is about. That's one of the problems with writing from primary sources. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all very fascinating, but could we get back to what's actually in the article? There seem to be two phrases we might be arguing about. One is in the lead where the article says "The book states that it covers the history of the "hockey stick graph"". The other is in the synopsis where the article says "In its seventeen chapters, The Hockey Stick Illusion relates the story of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes's "hockey stick graph"." Are we agreed that the sentence in the lead has enough caveats? If so, are we arguing about the second sentence, or about something else entirely? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda, we have secondary sources saying this is an accurate account of the hockey stick. The primary source being the book, the refs being secondary sources. @WMC please provide a diff or write what your issues is, i do not intend to search the page for a comment. As i have said, we have ref`s saying It is the biography of a graph A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team" and judith curry has said have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative now we have yet to see a source from any editor which says otherwise. Why not? we just get vague complaints about "in universe problems" and whatever WMC is alluding to mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't they used in the article then? The synopsis, for example, is entirely unsourced. And I can't find any mention of Curry among the refs. Of course, it's not just whether something can be supported, it's also how and by whom. But it's not much use to say sources exist if they aren't being used. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok the synopsis is a brief account of the book, so it is of coursed unsourced, the source is the book. For refs which say this is an account of the hockey stick here are two which are used as refs in the article It is the biography of a graph,A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team" Judith curry posted her comments on RC, so they can`t be used as a ref. I think however they can be used in this discussion to show that this book is a factual account of the HS mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, lets get this sorted, we have notable refs stating this is a factual account of the hockey stick. We have none to say otherwise, it`s put up or shut up time. mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i know everyone has been online and no refs having been provided, i`ll remove the tag mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

the synopsis is a brief account of the book, so it is of coursed unsourced - "Of course"? Do you not see that as a problem? Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" was never going to be a very successful strategy. In its seventeen chapters, The Hockey Stick Illusion relates the story of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes's "hockey stick graph". is as bad as it ever was William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is that "Bad"? That is what the book is about mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're just not reading things. Go ask Cla or someone who can William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you meant by "Bad" It is a factual statement as has been described by the refs i provided above. You on the other hand have provided no refs, just your point of view and vague assertions about "stuff being bad" please either be clear in your meaning, and provide refs to back your claims mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Refs for what?

Refs to state that this is not a factual history of the hockey stick. We have refs to say it is, none to say it is not. mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I ordered one from Amazon US, but it hung in "Temporarily out of stock", and Amazon Canada said "usually ships in 2-4 weeks". I happen to have an Amazon UK account as well, so I finally gave up and ordered it from there, and am told ~April 29. I'd guess that relatively few people in USA/Canada have it, unless they ordered it almost instantly from Amazon.uk or someone sent them one. The latter reputedly happens, i.e., some entity buys a bunch to give out to people likley to comment favorably.

Speaking from the side of the pond more relevant to this story, a necessary, but hardly sufficient condition for this to be a "full and factual account" would be "full and factual" explanations of the roles in the creation of the Wegman Report of:

1998 GCSCT meeting; American Petroleum Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute; Myron Ebell, Jeff Kueter, William O'Keefe, James Inhofe, Aloysius Hogan, Joe Barton, Ed Whitfield, Jerry Coffey, Peter Spencer, Antonio Regalado, William Perhach(for starters, there are more).

Presumably, a full and factural account would explain why the Wegman Report seems to contain ~10 pages of unattributed text (plagiarism) from 3 separate books and 2 Wikedia pages. It would explain why (paleo-expert) Ray Bradley's classic text was "adjusted" by non-experts to weaken or even reverse his conclusions. It would explain why some distinguished statisticians would be motivated to do that, or if handed to them by someone else, would have done such a poor job of review in a high-profile report that spent 10 pages attacking paleoclimate peer review. It would explain the surprising number of "grey literature" references. It would explain some fairly strange testimony and many other puzzles.

This whole hockey stick "controversy" would have been gone long ago except for the whole Wegman episode. People still cite Wegman to this day, including McIntyre to Parliament recently.

So, I haven't read the book yet, although not for lack of effort ... but maybe someone who has read it, can assure me that all these are at least covered (even if to explain them away) because if not, the book *cannot* be a full account. Factuality can be assessed later. In the long term, I speculate that the history of this page will make a nice case study.JohnMashey (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying again...

For starters, we need to bear in mind an important part of the WP:NPOV policy

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

It seems pretty safe to say that Montford is espousing a minority viewpoint here. Whether you agree with him or not, the "hockey stick" has been examined by various panels as have the CRU email messages. And it's safe to say that the Montford's take lies outside of the mainstream view of the science. There's nothing in this article that makes it clear to readers that they are reading about fringe views and conspiracy theories. As long as this isn't apparently, it's going to fail NPOV.

In addition, of course, the synopsis is unsourced. That's a problem. Two of the four reviews also come from dubious sources - Booker, who's ability to report on science has been questioned, and Gilder, who co-founded and remains associated with a creationist think-tank. Again, it should be evident to the reader that praise is coming from the fringe. Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a minority viewpoint, it is a factual account of the history of the hockey stick. Even Dr Judith Curry agrees with that assessment. And again, this is not about the "science" it is the telling of the events about a past event. This is a blatant attempt to insert a POV to try and make the book appear fringe, and as such not accurate. If you can provide some ref`s to show that this book is not accurate, or fringe, then you can continue with this line, until then you can`t. We have ref`s to say it is accurate, none saying it is not. mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See my discussion under "Restored POV tag". You've read the book, I haven't, yet. Please tell us if it discusses the topics I mentioned and perhaps summarize. If it fails to address these, it will be seen as an "instantly-obsolete" "history" book. So, does it address them or not? Does it ascribe any serious credibility to the Wegman Report and process that led to it?JohnMashey (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This may take some time :) Chapter 9 Senator Barton Takes An Interest- He writes to MBH asking loads of questions, i assume you know what they were. Then the reaction, with all manner of people yelling at barton for asking mann questions. the manns reply to barton, saying his code is his ip and he won`t give it up. then the nas panel is covered. loads of stuff from that, it seems to cover the lot. Next up is the wegman report, can you tell me what exactly it is from this section you want to know? mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you didn't mention the campaign by Myron Ebell et al to recruit and nurture this, via Cooler Heads, CEI, and GMI, in meetings 2001-2005, that led to the Barton/Whitfield letters? Did it explain why Ebell had the letters before some addressees could be guaranteed to have them? Which of the names I mentioned earlier are in the book?

Did it mention the way Barton bypassed the NAS offer and used Jerry Coffey to contact Wegman? Did it talk about Coffey's views on climate science? Did it mention that Wegman and co got much of their reading material through Barton staffer Peter Spencer? (Surely, an expert, unbiased source on paleoclimate?)

Did it mention the seeming plagiarism of Bradley(1999), including changing his text to discredit tree-rings? To add "confounding factors" numerous times, when Bradley's text explains how those factors are dealt with? How about the seeming plagiarism of Wasserman&Faust(1994), deNooy, Mrvar, and Batagelj(2005), and two Wikipedia articles?

This doesn't have to take much time: which of the following are mentioned in the book:

1998 GCSCT meeting; American Petroleum Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), Fraser Institute; Myron Ebell, Jeff Kueter, William O'Keefe, James Inhofe*, Aloysius Hogan, Joe Barton**, Ed Whitfield*, Jerry Coffey, Peter Spencer, Antonio Regalado, William Perhach, and I'd add the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife.

The *'d ones seem likely. How about the rest? Presumably the book has an Index and they can be looked up quickly.JohnMashey (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

JohnMashey (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Look yourself Here Just thought of that :), dunno if the index actually covers everything in the book. What does the CEI the API and the CHC have to do with this btw? mark nutley (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was useful. Editors can peruse Front Flap, Back Flap, ToC and Excerpt to form an opinion whether or not this is a minority view. The absence of various relevant names from the Index makes it unlikely this book is a "full and factual" account. The whole hockey-stick "controversy" is one step of a 20-year climate anti-science effort, using the same methods (from 1954) and some of the same people as the previous tobacco campaign. The whole thing was *manufactured*, but some key details have only come to light recently. All that is laid out in the 185-page Report[[2]], which has many pointers to transcripts of meetings, FOI emails, and files people shouldn't have left around. V1.0 was March 15, but there is more coming soon, because Canadian blogger Deep Climate keeps finding things... For this discussion, see Figure 2.1 for context, then read Section 5, A.10, and A.12. Online, the easiest way is to have two copies open, using one for the mainline narrative and one jumping around in the Appendices. Although some has only been found in last week, the seeming-plagiarism count looks to be about 10 pages of 90, although the most egregious cases are already out there.JohnMashey (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The intro sez, that M&M have comprehensively discredited the hockey stick. That is, obviously, not the mainstream (science) viewpoint. So I don't see how the book can be considered other than fringe (I notice I get more refs in the index than that James Annan. Perhaps I should buy a copy :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the index say? "William Connolley...writes for RealClimate". Is Montford saying you still do? Is that why all these people land here with their hair on fire spouting that line (as "proof" that there's something wrong with you being here) Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What intro are you looking at? The intro I see doesn't say anything about M&M comprehensively discrediting the hockey stick. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The blurb perhaps - I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Front flap: "...the tireless scrutiny by Steve McIntyre, Professor Ross McKitrick and others which has completely discredited it". Also from the back flap: "The book also covers the leak of the email archives of the Climate Research Unit which led to the resignation of its Director, Professor Phil Jones, and indicated the degree to which climate scientists on both sides of the Atlantic have hidden and manipulated data to support their claims". Sounds like he's not only pushing a fringe view of the hockey stick, but also that he's pushing the (thoroughly discredited) spin on the email. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even more obvious is page 27-30 (search for Huang) which is the good old-fashioned sceptical conspiracy theory. The book runs the narrative "The MWP was inconvenient and thus it was made to disappear", rather a strong contrast to the mainstream view, which is that as more and more data-sets became available so that the spatial and temporal resolution increased, the MWP faded as a single global event. (it amuses me every time i read this - since the sceptics haven't realized that a warm MWP => high climate sensitivity => IPCC's projection are underestimating future warming). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to the book, Kim? Or are you getting a slightly different excerpt than I am? (Mine ends at page 24). Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Search for Huang - that will place you on pg 29 with the possibility to go back :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it only works if you've purchased something from amazon.co.uk, so I'm out of luck. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mailed the 4 pages to you --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

JohnMashey, thank you for the link to Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony[3] What a fascinating and disturbing history. Before reading it, I didn't understand the scale and sophistication of this attack on science. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Walter. You may find Deep Climate's newest post relevant to this topic as well, as it bears on the most well-known attack on credibility of the paleoclimate community[[4]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMashey (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So now it`s anti-science to ask questions and write a book about a controversy? It is anti science to not ask questions. This is a factual account of the controversy, tell me does A History of the World in the 20th Century cover every single part? Does Churchhill`s A History of the English-Speaking Peoples actually cover every single aspect? Lets keep on topic and keep the anti science junk for blog posts, it does not belong here mark nutley (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So in your opinion it is factual that the MWP was "disappeared" by fraudulent science? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion. Why do you ask? mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked because you stated that the book was factual and hadn't any conflict with how the mainstream science (and others) see the issue. Since that is your opinion - then it explains why you think that it is so. Unfortunately you are letting your personal point of view interfere here - Since mainstream science does not see it this way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

This RFC was interrupted, another shall have to be done mark nutley (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The neutrality of this RFC is disputed, as well as the improper moving of comments by the RFC creator. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. {{rfctag|media}} This RFC is due to an ongoing dispute over the neutrality of this article. Several editors say it should be written from a minority or wp:fringe viewpoint as the author is a sceptic of AGW. Others say that this book is a factual account of the Hockey stick controversy There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account of the history of the hockey stick. It is the biography of a graph A.W. Montford's book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre's pursuit of the self-denominated "hockey team" And Dr Judith A. Curry has posted a comment on Real Climate saying,the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative I seek input from other editors to look through the article to judge if the article already meets wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments from uninvolved users What exactly is this RfC asking? Is it simply whether the article, in its current state, warrants a {{pov}} tag? Yilloslime TC 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) One of the articles cited in the RFC is a publication of the Discovery Institute, an anti-science, "intelligent design" organization.[5] Praise from such an organization would suggest to a fair-minded reader that this is fringe or agenda-driven material. That such a source is cited may imply that this editor is unable to evaluate the quality of sources for this and similar articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Reductio ad Discovery Institutum? Really?--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) That is rather a point of view, it is a review of the book by George Gilder the question is, is this an accurate account of the hockey stick? The ref`s say it is. The other question is, should there be a POV tag on this article as it currently stands? I believe it already meets wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comments from involved users Just as before: you really are too close to this to write a neutral RFC. Find someone you trust, and ask them to look at this *before* you post it. Hint: Several editors say it should be written from a minority or wp:fringe viewpoint is not a position I've heard anyone advocate; and There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account rather begs the question William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I have undone your change and moved your comment to the correct section. As to your points, KDP says this should be written in a minority viewpoint in-universe and again we must describe that this is a minority viewpoint Guettarda in universe and from WMC edit comment, in-universe That is several editors as stated in the RFC. The ref`s speak for themselves. This RFC is written in a neutral manner and covers both sides of the debate, please do not interfere with this process again mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Mark the next time you try to describe what i say, would you at least attempt to describe what i say correctly? This isn't even remotely close to what i've said. +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ Redo from scratch +++ --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Kim you did write what i have written above, are you now saying you do not think this article should reflect a minority viewpoint? mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I have never said that "this should be written in a minority viewpoint". Please do not misrepresent what i say - if you have trouble understanding my argument: Then ask - do not assume. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I can't tell what this RfC is really asking for. The RfC needs to provide specifics as to what the issue is and what has been proposed to resolve it. Discussion on the POV tag was ongoing and hadn't reached a deadlock yet, as far as I could see, so I'm not sure if it was time for an RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC) It has reached deadlock, i keep asking for refs which say this book is not a factual account of the hockey stick, none are ever provided. We have editors saying this article has to be written t oshow it is a miniority viewpoint, thus inserting their POV into the article. I want uninvolved editors to read the article and decide if it is already wp:npov If those who wish to say this is a minority viewpoint do not have refs to back what they are saying then i say this article is already wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I'm with Cla on this. The discussion has been difficult recently, and there are some early signs of deadlock (possibly due as much to mutual incomprehension as to genuine disagreement), but we're not there yet. Furthermore MN is too involved (and probably too inexperienced) to write a useful RFC. I agree with WMC (below) that Cla would be a good person to write an RFC should this eventually prove necessary, and that this RFC should be withdrawn, though I think discussions of sanctions against MN are inappropriate at this stage. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I think that it is regrettable that MN has learnt nothing from his previous experiences. This RFC is not written in a neutral manner and so is unacceptable. I had hoped that MN might ask one of his friends to rewrite it but an unexpected problem has arisen: the RFC is incomprehensible to Cla, who would be an obvious candidate. I think this RFC should be withdrawn for the moment until some sense can be made of it. Given that this is MN's second inappropriate RFC in a row, and hos existing ban on bringing complaints, perhaps a further santions (against RFC's) would be in order? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I'd like to go on record here by noting that WMC is currently following Mark's comments around to other forums and appears to be trying to bait him, including the comment above, into an emotional reaction. If it doesn't stop soon, I'll be filing an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) That looks like trying to bait me, old fruit. MM is spammng requests for "advice", so don't you think it would be a good idea to offer him some? Perhaps you could be explicit here: do you think MN has phrased this RFC in a neutral manner? Do you agree with MN that There was nothing wrong with this RFC? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lede

It currently reads;

The Hockey Stick Illusion (subtitle Climategate and the Corruption of Science) is a book written by Andrew Montford, who is skeptical of man made climate change. Stacey International published the book in 2010.

The book states that it covers the history of the "hockey stick graph", the first version of which was published by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes in 1998, from then to its prominent use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Criticisms of the graph and the methods used by its creators by Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, as well as the ensuing hockey stick controversy, are also included in the book.

I'd like to change it to;

The Hockey Stick Illusion (subtitle Climategate and the Corruption of Science) is a book written by Andrew Montford, who is skeptical of man made climate change. Stacey International published the book in 2010.

The book covers the history of the "hockey stick graph", from its first publication in 1998 to its prominent use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It discusses criticisms of the graph and the methods used by its creators, as well as the ensuing hockey stick controversy.

I think the use of "states" in the first line of the second paragraph is unnecessary as the article is about the book anyway. I think the mention of MBH in the lede is unnecessary as they're mentioned in the text of the article. I use the same logic in removing the specific reference to MM, although I note that McKitrick is not mentioned in the article itself and maybe this should be remedied.

The first sentence mentions that Montford is skeptical of man made GW, which should provide even a casual reader with some context. Is that OK? Thepm (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timg156 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite's version

Many thanks to Hipocrite for his bold edit, which gives us something to work from. I've corrected a typo. Beyond that I have three comments/questions:

1) In the background section the phrase "nothing to help people get up to speed on the skeptical perspective of the science" reads as a paraphrase of a quotation - did Montford use a phrase that could be paraphrased as "skeptical perspective"?

2) The figure looks clunky because of its similarity to the book cover. This is a purely aesthetic comment!

3) I like having the "Main article: Hockey stick controversy" link but I'm less sure about the following two sentences, and in particular having this in its own section. My preference would be to move the link to the top of the synopsis section, and delete these sentences, but I suspect that view may prove controversial.

Regards, and thanks again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, since I did no research on who said what when, I can promise you it's not a paraphrase of a quotation. Regarding 3, I think the key point in keeping the two sentences is to provide the mainstream perspective on the science (IE, that it's sound) in opposition to the fringe perspective presented by the book. If there's a better way to integrate it, I'm all ears. I don't think your post above is a request to self-revert, so I haven't, but if I understood wrong, please correct me. Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not a request to self-revert; indeed I think some of your changes are excellent. More later when I have checked a few things. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bold edit to show more clearly what I mean. Will self revert on any request. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty well indifferent, so I leave it to the aggreived parties to express their thoughts. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

More on Background

A lot of background material leading up to the writing of the book was just removed. I can't see why we shouldn't cover the background. Roger Pielke , Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado is quoted saying about the book: "I've seen no single better reference than the engaging narrative by Andrew Montford.". Nsaa (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A parenthesised comment on a blog. Hmmm. And all other references are either to blogs or to an Op-Ed - which can't be used for factual information. There is a good reason it was removed. Perhaps a revisit of WP:RS is in order? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Nsaa's statement where he defends

“ In 2005, Andrew Montford, a Chartered Accountant who also works in science publishing, and is author of the blog, Bishop Hill, after following a link from a blog posted by Tim Worstall to Climate Audit changed the blog's focus to Climate Change from a skeptical viewpoint. Montford`s layperson's explanations of the Hockey Stick debate have received favorable comment from readers such as Anthony Watts, Roger A. Pielke, Jr. and in The Spectator, specifically his summaries of posts from Climate Audit which he called "Caspar And The Jesus Paper" and "The Yamal Implosion" ”

as having anything to do with a book - please, illuminate us. Hipocrite (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be background information. If it's sourced reliably, it's ok to include it. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is background information which i had added, and hipocrite reverted it out, It should of course go back in mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

references

I've indicated an oppose to the merge above on the basis that the book appeared to be fairly notable in its own right. Having said that, I've since gone through the references in more detail. Most of them seem to be about Montford or, more commonly, Bishop Hill. So then I've gone looking for an RS that discusses the book specifically, or discusses the impact that the book has had on the debate (yes, I know I should have done that first). There don't seem to be any. Unfortunately I spend far too much time on my day job and so maybe I just haven't been looking in the right place? Apart from blog sources, are there any references to indicate that the book (not Montford or Bishop Hill) is particularly notable? Thepm (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are pretty much correct. That is why I said that the material for all 3 articles is exceptionally weak. The book has basically been ignored by everyone but the regular sceptics and op-ed writers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The strongest references are probably the two by Matt Ridley who is a leading writer of popular science books. The Prospect article is clearly about the book, but the Spectator article is more varied. The Courier article is basically about the book. But yes, the three topics are clearly intertwined: Montford is really only known as the author of the book and the blog, and the book seems to be a development from posts on the blog. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If this blog is known enough for Dr Judith Curry to read and post on, then it is a notable blog mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the blog when I was asking about the book. I don't think the book is especially notable. I think it's about as notable (in a wiki sense) as Dire predictions: understanding global warming. In the case of that book, we have no more than a listing on the author's page. Maybe it warrants a paragraph (or maybe not) but no more than that. I think the same would apply here. Thepm (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted libellous content (about a person), not about the subject (a book)

Tchannon made the following edit[6] explaining "Deleted libellous content (about a person), not about the subject (a book), used cloaking text to point to a denial article and link to a Guardian newsp. article which does not support the assertion.)". I checked the cited article[7] and it seems to support the content, so I'm not sure what's libellous. However, the cited article isn't about this book. This might be an example of WP:SYN to advance a position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We can't call state the obvious, that Montford is skeptic? C'mon. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Think it's the "denial" link. I changed it to a less controversial target, and one that's probably closer to the source (feel free to undo me if I'm wrong, working from memory as to the content of the sources). Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You've linked "denial" to his blog, not his book. Still seems like WP:SYN to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

I've done what? What the heck are you talking about? Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to undo my edit, that's fine. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm sick of your nonsense. If you prefer that link, I'll self-revert. Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Either way, "skeptic" or "denialist", you need a source to connect them to the book. Otherwise, it seems like a violation of WP:SYN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing what your talking about re:WP:SYN. Care to elaborate? Yilloslime ^T_C 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's just the old "let's make everything into a fight" attitude again. AQFK, I strongly recommend you read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't make up WP:SYS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I agree with Guettarda that AQFK is being spectacularly unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In order for something to be synthesis there needs to be

1. A source
2. Another source
3. A combination
4. A conclusion not explicitly stated.

Please provide these 4 elements and we can determine what is being synthesized. Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What is this about? there is no problem with having him described as a sceptic, that is about the author, not the book. Really guys this is not syn, i had that in the lede when i wrote this article with a ref to the guardian to back it. mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it seems like WP:SYN because we're specifically stating something that's not in the sources about the book. Or perhaps this might be WP:UNDUE? It seems questionable to me. But let me think about it and read over the policies again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Redo of lede.

Took out 'skeptical' appearing twice in same paragraph (spelt differently each time). Tried to make this unnecessary by being explicit that the book is Montford's view of the history of the HS and that Montford is a skeptic and therefore the book provides a skeptical viewpoint.

Included short sentence explaining what the book is about (ie the history of the HS).

If anyone asks, I'll self revert. If someone else reverts, please change the spelling of 'sceptical' to 'skeptical' so that it's consistent. cheers Thepm (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

rv why

I reverted yillowslimes edit back to a NPOV and his removal of a review from a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing, would yillowslime tell me why his view is not notable? mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the guys here is not willing even to discuss it [8]. Topic ban for this guy now? Nsaa (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You would have to do an RFE It is crazy that he keeps reverting stuff out and never comes to talk to explain why. I`m sure that breaks a rule somewere along the line mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources last time I checked. Has the policy changed recently? If it has, I'll happily self revert and offer an apology. Also, how is the opinion of a psychology professor pertinent? Citing such sources seems really barrel-scrapy to meYilloslime ^T_C 19:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A blog post by a notable person expressing their opinion can be used, for instance DeSmogBlog is used quite often as a ref, A blog can`t be used for statement of facts, but with attribution then it is not a problem in an article like this. As Kim has said to me, it all depends on the context. And what is wrong with the opinion of Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are blogs and then there are blogs. DeSmogBlog is very notable blog that focuses on climate change, so opinions expressed on it are often relevant to climate change articles, assuming they are properly attributed. But this is the exception, not the rule. Roberts' blog is not notable (I take the absence of Seth Roberts' blog as prima facie evidence of it's non-notability), and climate change is not a primary or even secondary focus of the blog, nor is Roberts an expert in the field. So, for climate change topics, Robert's blog ≠ DeSmogBlog; it falls under the general guideline against using blogs as sources, not under the exception. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a book about climate change though, it is a narrative of past events. So why do you think a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing is not capable of reviewing what is essentially a history book? mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. He's not a professor of history or anything related to climate. He's a diet expert. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No he is a Professor of Psychology who has written books related to diet. Thats a big difference mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why a professor of psychology has anything to do with this topic. Perhaps you could explain that for me. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above? Did nobody teach you it is rude to answer a question with a question? mark nutley (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Given your civility parole, I would strongly recommend that you refactor that statement. "Are you incapable" skates far too close to WP:NPA. Guettarda (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I answered your question above. I wrote "That's correct. He's not a professor of history or anything related to climate. He's a diet expert." Now, you explain how he has anything to do with this topic. Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our opinions about his competency are irrelevant. The plain language of WP:RS precludes using his blog as a source in this context. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think using exxonsecrets is ok as a source, but not a notable professor of psychology? And yes, a blog can be used for the opinions on the notable person who owns said blog mark nutley (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the way in which they are being used, absolutely. But this is an apples to oranges comparison, and I'll grant you that if exxonsecrets reviewed the book, I would be against including that review here as well. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain but I doubt if exxonsecrets is a reliable source. If we're citing it, it probably needs to be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the larger problem is that when someone writes a book on a controversial topic, mainstream experts mostly ignore it when the topic is not controversial in the expert community. In this instance, an article on a book by an accountant about a topic in the physical sciences, we are left with sources by a biological sciences journalist (Ridley), a founder of anti-science Discovery Institute (Gilder) and a psychologist (Roberts, disputed). The fact that no physical scientist is quoted should tell the reader something, but when I've tried to explicitly note this in a different article, others have complained that I have no sources, despite providing Google search links. Google Scholar, which indexes most of the professional literature, finds only the barest mention of "Hockey Stick Illusion".[9] May that fact be added to avoid giving undue weight to the opinions of people who have no background in climate science? Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, why is Gilder's self-published review notable? Gilder has no specific expertise on the subject. The closest he comes to this subject is his creationist activism; while the growing overlap between creationists and climate change "skeptics" has become noteworthy recently, it's still rather a stretch. If Gilder had published his review somewhere else, I'd say use it. But this a self-published post that, last I checked, wasn't even copy-edited. Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Gilder. If he's a notable in the field of climate science or the surround debate, then including his self published review might be OK. But George Gilder doesn't indicate any major (or minor, for that matter) contributions to the subject, nor is he notable as a book reviewer in general, so I don't think we can include his blog post. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If Gilder's opinions were significant and of general interest, I would think that they would have been published elsewhere. Also, it isn't clear to me that Christopher Brooker's opinion is independent of Gilder's; he has written for the Discovery Institute.[10] I wonder if it would be appropriate to note that fact? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Booker's opinion is far more notable than Gilder's on this issue - he has a history of activism as an "environmental skeptic". The problem is that he doesn't say anything about the book. He simply gives the book a plug (along the lines of 'for a full account, see this book) in an article. (The exact same article was published at least twice, by the way.) Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A review by a notable person is just fine for a book, since when do you have to be an expert on climate change to review a book on past events? mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS disagrees with you, pretty clearly. It seems reasonably clear that it needs not be a notable person, rather a notable review. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

By that token, shall we ask William to comment on the book on his blog, so that we can use that? In fact, why not just include his comments from talk pages into the articles? Self-published is self-published. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Booker's opinion is more notable than Gilder and he barely mentions the article topic, i.e. Montford's book. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Back under "Gilder quote", I detailed some of Gilder's history regarding climate. He thought Arthur Robinson of OISM was an expert on climate. Really, watch the first few minutes of the video to get a feel for Gilder.JohnMashey (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Interviewed

With regards to the interview with Dennis Prager listed in the "reception" section - I'm not sure how that's noteworthy. Is it the only interview he's given? Or do we plan to include every interview he gives? Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an interview about the book, so of course it is noteworthy mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

People normally give dozens of interviews while promoting a book. Do we list them all? They also do book signings. Do we list them all? Public presentations. All kinds of crap. It's called "marketing". Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well why not? If an author is asked onto a notable persons show to discuss his book then that is notable. In fact, i read a lot, i can not recall any time at all when an author has been asked onto a show for the sole purpose of discussing their book, in fact i don`t recall seeing any authors i read being on a show being interviewed about just a book. mark nutley (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That happens quite often, especially for big-name author's or controversial books. Mike and Mike got on Letterman promoting their book, and normally you're not going to see those two there. It, as Guettarda said, it part of marketing. So what makes that interview notable? Or, better, what makes that interview more notable than other interviews done for the book? Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who mike and mike is, i`m not sure i want to. This is the first interview he has had on an american show about the book, which is why i figure it is notable, did mike&mike get invited onto letterman for the sole purpose of their book or was it a plug in an interview? mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, plugging a book is one of the most common reasons for doing an interview. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you might want to take a look at a few wikipedia articles on other contemporary books. We don't have to treat this book exactly the same way, but I think the exercise might demonstrate just how much barrel scraping you're doing in this building this article. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we've gone through the bottom of the barrel and are somewhere in the basement by now... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Kottke Review

I have reinserted this as it appears that he has in fact reviewed books before. [11] I assume this covers the objection of him not being a Book reviewer mark nutley (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, most the addition is a quote used by Kottke. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured he was just quoting a part of the book he liked, i see you took it out so problem solved right? mark nutley (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence in that review that he did anything but read Ridley's article and quote it. Did he actually read the book? Perhaps MN would contact him and see? For a review, it is nice know that someone has a read a book. His blog says he is a web designer and kottke.org "is a weblog about the liberal arts 2.0". Now, he may also be an expert on climate science, but this is not obvious from the topics covered in his blog.JohnMashey (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not need to be an expert on climate science to review a book of past events mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The guy isn't a book reviewer, and the "Morning News Tournamet of Books" is not a book review, it's some kind of blog based bracketing. Not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He has reviewed books in the past. The source is not a blog, The Morning News is an online magazine, published weekdays since 1999 The tournament is a thing they run every year. So what exactly is the issue here? mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that regardless of how many times and how many people and noticeboards tell you, you keep trying to use blogs as sources. Why don't we write up an rfc about it together so that it is written neutrally, or a submission to WP:RSN? Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is you have blogs on the brain, it`s not a blog The Morning News (online magazine)

(undent) No, Mark, the source you want to use in this edit is kottke.org. You think that this random blogger is a good source because once he participated in a blog-based tourneyment of books. You constantly try to insert bloggers with the flimsiest of excuses - and you've been shot down time and time again. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the reason Kottke was removed was because he had not been a book reviewer. Now that i have shown he has in fact been a book reviewer for an online magazine, you say no. It was not a blog based tourny, it was done for a magazine. mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're unfixable. Are you willing to go to RSN or write an RFC with me? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Write up a RFC then, am i allowed to edit it before you post it? And then if i mess it up you ca nrepair any damage :) mark nutley (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kottke's post was a classic blog post - a quote, a link, a few thoughts. Our guidelines on self-published sources isn't aimed at this sort of blogging. Rather, it's meant to recognise the fact that people use blogs to post serious reporting and analysis. When PZ Myers responds to the latest creationist claim, or summarises some evo-devo, this is stuff we might consider using. When he reports that he's being sued, it's a source we can consider using. When he posts a quote and link to a poll for his readers to crash, this isn't something we can use. On the other hand, this would not be used in an article about Perry Stone's Voice of Evangelism. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Editors of this article would like help determining if this edit is an appropriate use of http://kottke.org.

Arguments for

• Although the review is published on Kottke`s blog he has done book reviews in the past. [12] For The Morning News (online magazine). He is also a notable person, and he has reviewed books in the past.

Arguments against

• Kotke.org is a blog. Blogs are not typically a reliable source.
• Even if kotke.org is determined acceptable per WP:SPS, the mention it makes of the book is so trivial as to be little more than a link to the already included Matt Ridley piece. 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Polemic

Is there any legitmate objection to calling the book polemic? What objection is that? Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no ref to support it, find one. Why did you remove non fiction when that is what the book is? mark nutley (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no ref to support it, find one. Why did you remove polemic when that is what the book is? Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a ref saying this is a polemic? You don`t do you mark nutley (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a ref saying this is non fiction? You don`t do you Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact it is not under fiction on the publishers website? Fiction mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the definition in the polemic article is accurate - variety of argument or controversy made against one opinion, doctrine, or person - then yes, clearly. Guettarda (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OED: A controversial argument; a strong verbal or written attack on a person, opinion, doctrine, etc.; (as a mass noun) writing or opinion of this kind. Also: (in sing. and pl.) aggressive debate or controversy; the practice of engaging in such debate. Is this aimed at a "person, opinion, doctrine, etc.? Yes. It is a strong attack? Yes. Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It`s not aimed at anything, it`s a book on past events. You can`t describe something as a polemic without a ref to back it otherwise you are engaging in OR mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's aimed at the "hockey stick" & climate science. Note the title of the book. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No that`s just a title, it is a book on past events. Stuff which actually happened, so give up on your wp:or unless you have found a ref saying this is in fact a polemic? mark nutley (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rv (maybe) why

I reverted the word "polemic" (it seems to fit), perhaps, it isn't clear; who knows what bizarre cooked-up defn of revert LHVU is using nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And of course you have a ref to back that edit then do you? mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a revert of this. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed polemic and added back non-fiction. The former would require a source, the latter is obvious. ATren (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The book itself is not "non-fiction" as a genre - it is, however, obviously a polemic. Polemic is not a derogatory term, though it's obvious that it's being taken as such by people who have fallen into a pure battleground. Is there a word other than "polemic," that would explain fully that the book isn't a history book, but is rather presenting an argument that you'd find acceptable? Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I've returned this article to a "default," state that neiter states it's a "polemic" nor that it is "non-fiction." "Genre" is not a required field, and shame on everyone who reverted the article to their preferred version while discussion was in progress. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I'm OK with keeping both out for now. ATren (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted by participants here that "non-fiction" is not a genre under any definition of the word. One suggestion I'd present is memoir, or perhaps essay, though personally I'd feel those are far more insulting than polemic. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you find out what third parties have called the book? If they have called it a polemic, call it that. If they have called it non-fiction, call it that. But the conflict is fundamentally caused by editors here over-interpreting the secondary sources - or even the primary source. We're merely here to report what other reliable secondary sources have said, in a fair and balanced way, not to publish our own original research WP:OR. We are also not here to report WP:TRUTH - unless of course a reliable source says it first. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)