User talk:GregJackP/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Just to let you know...
That as an uninvolved admin I regard the use of words like "faction" [1] as battleground mentality which could be included in evidence seeking enforcement. Therefore I suggest you strike the language. Up to you, I know another uninvolved admin is using that term but I do not think it reflects well on him either. --BozMo talk 06:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is not to be confrontational, but what word or phrase should I use? There are two distinct groups, and as has been noted elsewhere (and as evidenced by these talk pages and the persistent edit-warring, etc., it does appear (at present at least) that this area is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am open to suggestion and I am quite willing to change the phrasing of my statement. GregJackP Boomer! 11:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Newspeak: if there's no word for it, we can't talk about it, where "it" is the factional behavior exhibited by a small group of editors to push their collective POV. They practice factionalism, but we're not allowed to talk about it. Faction has now been removed from the language, as was cabal, bloc, group, etc. Let's round up all the forbidden words and document them: clique, band, partnership, coalition, club, team, gang, clan, crew, partnership, mob, crew -- ban them all! Remove them from the language so we are absolutely incapable of describing what has been happening for 3-5 years here. ATren (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we are asked to deny reality. Naming the behavior does not create the behavior, nor does it encourage it. It can reasonably argued that the denial of the behavior encourages its perpetuation. Minor4th 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Viewpoint and behaviour are different things of course in delineation. Certainly, there is a distinct group of people who broadly speaking think that the sceptic CC point of view is understated on Wikipedia. That group can easily be identified by assent to the statement "broadly speaking the sceptic point of view is understated on Wikipedia". I would be in another group "broadly speaking sceptic BLPs on Wikipedia are not respectful enough" into which others would fit as well. That's a credo definition of a group and is ok. The counter credo "broadly speaking the technical content of these articles is about right" does not identify the group you are looking for since it includes many technical editors across Wikipedia (passively at least) and people like Lar, for example, by his own declaration. Lar is not, I take it, part of your "faction". So the group you are trying to identify is contentious because it is a subjective behavioral characterisation. You are not defining them by objective belief but looking at the group of editors who are most commonly resisting attempts to move the perspective of the articles and seeking to call those editors a faction. In the absence of a defining credo, that causes offence (okish) but also encourages other editors to regard them as a collective group in disputes (not ok; thats battleground). We should be seeking to treat groups like this as individuals by reasoning each point with them, not the opposite. As I say I look dimly on use of "faction" etc. You should treat them as individual editors and speak of them in those terms.--BozMo talk 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you're not providing a lot of helpful input here, BozMo. WP:BATTLE specifically uses the term "faction" and describes factional behavior. It also points out that such behavior is unhelpful. If we see factional behavior, what should we call it? If we see editors acting as if they are in a faction, how should we characterize them? You cannot make the problem go away by disallowing mention of it. There ARE factions active here. One less powerful, and one more powerful and entrenched. That the more powerful, more entrenched (and more egregiously badly behaving) faction happens to be right about the science does not excuse the behavior. That faction needs breaking. As does the other one too, but that's not nearly as hard. If factionalism is not uprooted, root and branch, the moderate non factional editors will not return to the topic area and things will restart. Since you're chums with WMC, (I can find diffs of chumminess easily enough, so let's not have any denial of that) that point may not be one that you're willing to concede, but it's true nonetheless. Your participation in CC enforcement has been very helpful, WMC at least sort of listens to you some of the time... but this is your big blind spot. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Viewpoint and behaviour are different things of course in delineation. Certainly, there is a distinct group of people who broadly speaking think that the sceptic CC point of view is understated on Wikipedia. That group can easily be identified by assent to the statement "broadly speaking the sceptic point of view is understated on Wikipedia". I would be in another group "broadly speaking sceptic BLPs on Wikipedia are not respectful enough" into which others would fit as well. That's a credo definition of a group and is ok. The counter credo "broadly speaking the technical content of these articles is about right" does not identify the group you are looking for since it includes many technical editors across Wikipedia (passively at least) and people like Lar, for example, by his own declaration. Lar is not, I take it, part of your "faction". So the group you are trying to identify is contentious because it is a subjective behavioral characterisation. You are not defining them by objective belief but looking at the group of editors who are most commonly resisting attempts to move the perspective of the articles and seeking to call those editors a faction. In the absence of a defining credo, that causes offence (okish) but also encourages other editors to regard them as a collective group in disputes (not ok; thats battleground). We should be seeking to treat groups like this as individuals by reasoning each point with them, not the opposite. As I say I look dimly on use of "faction" etc. You should treat them as individual editors and speak of them in those terms.--BozMo talk 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why we are asked to deny reality. Naming the behavior does not create the behavior, nor does it encourage it. It can reasonably argued that the denial of the behavior encourages its perpetuation. Minor4th 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)FWIW I do not think I would have any difficulty providing diffs to demonstrate non-chuminess as well, say [2] or over blocking him etc. I hope I act in a chummy way to everyone who aims to improve the project. Anyway I have said what I believe here and I will continue to argue in enforcement that characterising a group as a faction by behaviour (without immediate and direct provision of diffs to substantiate the claim) is a battleground attack. If you want to accuse, produce the diffs on the spot. That's just the same as any other form of accusation of that ilk. That you use faction language on behaviour all around the place, Lar, is a sign of your rather personally involved viewpoint. I make no claim for neutrality myself of course, just for uninvolvement. But the extent of any personal feelings I have for WMC (such as chuminess) I would say do not even get on a log graph with your apparent personal involvement with him. Sorry bout that but apparently you think I should call them as I see them. --BozMo talk 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- You get points with me for blocking WMC, even if you are WMC's chum, I will say that. As for diffs, plenty of diffs have already been introduced in evidence of the problematic factional behavior. Asking for the same thing over again is a common tactic. But if you want evidence, look at my own talk page... and the archives. For 6 months now, there is a consistent and repeated pattern of the same faction members turning up on my talk, giving me a hard time, and then protecting their co-members by attacking further when I rebut.,, LHvU withheld one bit of the blanket voluntary standaside from CC when he said I may comment at Lar's page if I feel the hectoring is becoming too onerous. Just what did you think he was talking about? Note also that you attack me as "personally involved" merely because I am pointing out what many know but quite a few other folk have been cowed into not saying. So how many messengers did you want to shoot before the message gets through? The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough... what are you going to do when ArbCom acknowledges that there are factions, and that your faction is the most problematic? ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't provide diffs. I was warned by another admin that if I mentioned those items, I would be blocked for disruptive editing. This places me in a Catch-22 position. To describe behavior, I have to provide diffs that will get me blocked, to use the word faction I have to provide diffs to support it. I'm sorry, but no matter what I do, I get hammered, and as far as I can tell, I haven't been warned not to use the word faction (as far as facing a block). GregJackP Boomer! 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Well I am not mentioning blocks. I am just saying if someone raises a WP:Battle enforcement and the f word was on the list I would include it in the calc. I don't go looking for fights, just try to tell people how to avoid them.
- I still object to this erroneous idea that there are two competing factions. There are three: one which engages in advocacy for AGW, one that engages in advocacy against AGW, and one that simply wants to follow WP:NPOV. As far as I can tell, there were only three editors in the latter faction: one has dropped out completely, one only posts on talk pages and I'm the only one left still editing articles. (NOTE: this isn't to say there aren't other neutral editors, but the articles have been so skewed in favor of AGW advocacy, it's hard to tell whether an editor is engaging in advocacy or is simply trying to balance out the article in accordance to NPOV.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The third one isn't a faction, except in name only. Factionalism includes bad behavior. Editing to NPOV calmly and collegially, without indulging in sniping, harassment, etc. isn't bad behavior, it's the standard. But it (the third "faction" ) is too darn small. The other two have driven the moderate editors of good faith out of the topic area. It's a wonder the articles are as good as they are given the process. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)FWIW I do not think I would have any difficulty providing diffs to demonstrate non-chuminess as well, say [2] or over blocking him etc. I hope I act in a chummy way to everyone who aims to improve the project. Anyway I have said what I believe here and I will continue to argue in enforcement that characterising a group as a faction by behaviour (without immediate and direct provision of diffs to substantiate the claim) is a battleground attack. If you want to accuse, produce the diffs on the spot. That's just the same as any other form of accusation of that ilk. That you use faction language on behaviour all around the place, Lar, is a sign of your rather personally involved viewpoint. I make no claim for neutrality myself of course, just for uninvolvement. But the extent of any personal feelings I have for WMC (such as chuminess) I would say do not even get on a log graph with your apparent personal involvement with him. Sorry bout that but apparently you think I should call them as I see them. --BozMo talk 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't think it's really possible to remain a purely NPOV editor in this area because even adding NPOV edits or trying to balance an article draws accusations of POV. The AGW faction considers it POV to edit in a neutral way -- if you're not actively advancing the superiority of the scientific consensus, then that faction will say you are by definition pushing a fringe POV bias. Like this: [3] where Fut.Perf. calls my edit [4] a blatantly tendentious edit that is blockable because of its refusal to strive for NPOV.
But let's look.
This was the existing text:
The e-mails prompted a major controversy and five separate inquiries – three in the United Kingdom and two at PSU concerning Mann's work. Both of the PSU inquiries cleared him of any wrongdoing. PSU's final investigation report concluded that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.
I added this:
The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a "whitewash" because the investigations failed to adequately address the issues of CRU scientists withholding temperature data, deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests, and subversion of the peer review process.
This is the result:
The e-mails prompted a major controversy and five separate inquiries – three in the United Kingdom and two at PSU concerning Mann's work. Both of the PSU inquiries cleared him of any wrongdoing. PSU's final investigation report concluded that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann. The various investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have been criticized as a "whitewash" because the investigations failed to adequately address the issues of CRU scientists withholding temperature data, deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests, and subversion of the peer review process.
I included two references for my edit, one was Fox News and the other the Wall Street Journal. Fut.Perf. however says it's blatant tendentious editing and is blockable because I included negative reaction without including positive reaction !!!!! The whole point was the fact that the exisiting text was too positive, and the omission of the negative reaction left the reader with the mistaken belief that the reports were definitive and conclusive on the issue of Mann's behavior. So now I'm a POV pusher because I tried capture all significant viewpoints rather than allowing the statements to be misleading in favor of the AGW POV. Minor4th 01:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your changes much improved matters, and FPAS is quite incorrect to have complained about the content. I think FPAS is showing their partisanship. When they went farther and threatened to block you, they were completely out of line. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The Real Global Warming Disaster
Thanks for taking the trouble to review the article. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Beating dead horses
Greg, you have now brought up that RfC comment by Chris how many times, and on how many occasions? Ten? Twenty? On each and every one of these occasions, your reference to Chris was off-topic and served nothing but a lame tu quoque argument to evade some different issue. Stop this. If you have a problem with Chris criticizing Marknutley's historical knowledge on Pmanderson's RfC, there is exactly one legitimate place where you should have raised this concern: the talk page of the RfC/U. I understand mighty Bishzilla watches over that page and will pulverize with hear atomic death ray breath anybody who dares to behave badly there, so I'm sure you'll find an ear for any legitimate complaint. But if I see you bringing up that issue in any other, off-topic, place again, I will block you for harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- You left up derogatory comments about me, while deleting all the comments by those who agreed with me or that were defending me. You have reprimanded users on one side while ignoring misconduct on the other side. If you continue, I will take you before ArbCom. Please do not continue to use your admin tools or threaten to use your admin tools to harass me. Other admins have pointed this out to you. Please stop. GregJackP Boomer! 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Fut. Per: If you block him for raising the abuses of others (which have gone unchecked for far too long), I will raise it all the way to arbcom. You are way out of line here. I already have evidence of you selectively removing comments on Hipocrite's talk, and I'm sure I will be able to dig up more. ATren (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Selective removal of comments, especially without notification to the commentators, is quite against Wikipedia policy. Alas this policy is selectively applied by some admins in this area. Nonetheless it remains against policy and Fut Per should be immediately reverted should he attempt to do so again. I would support sanction against Fut Per, either at the CC enforcement page or at arbcom. Weakopedia (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Crossref: User_talk:Lar#Gratuitous_swipes has some discussion on various comment removal topics. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment
Hi, as you know I've commented here. I am trying to get information from editors that work in this area so I'd appreciate you being patient with me. Also, please if I forget to get back to this would you mind leaving me a message with the dif so it's easiest for me to get there? If I said anything inappropriate or wrong I will acknowlege it. I'm not exactly sure what it is you want me to refacto and apologize for though to be honet with you. My main problem is that the two of you have acknowledged on stie of being friedns in TL. If I looked at everything correctly, your friend is the main editor. I can't go back and look right now becaue I'm having troubles seeing. No big deals. just those drops in your eyes for an exam hasn't worn off like I though it did. L( I'm leaving my computer now to shut my eyes because just typing this up has been almost impossible. PLease let me know, I'm off to the counch to shut my eyes, sorry for the delayk--CrohnieGalTalk 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not a problem. SA clarified it here. My point is that I did not write nor edit the article in question, nor did Minor4th. I merely assessed it after seeing it on the GAN board. SA then began a reassessment, and Minor4th disagreed, so he took it to a community reassessment to get neutral, uninvolved editors to look at the article and whether it should be a GA or not. While SA and I disagree on whether the article should be a GA or not, he indicated in the diff above that there was nothing out of line with how this got to the community reassessment.
- There is no hurry on a response, whenever you get a chance, and I hope that your eyes are fine - I hate those drops myself and always end up with a headache from my eye exams. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- First thank you for your patience. Yes those drops are hard to deal with and the headache is lingering. It's a little better since I went and laid down and fell asleep. I suspect the headache are here for awhile, two weeks until my new glasses arrive. I had to use high doses of prednisone starting both time at 60 mg and weaning down when I was hospitalized. This has happened to me one other time when I lost a lot of my eye sight, I'm dealing with that now and can't wait until I get my new glasses. :) I do owe you an apology and I am sorry. I didn't mean it as in assumumption of bad faith type of way but I can see how it could be read that way. It doesn't happen too often that how I am feeling in RL shows in my editing because I usually walk away sooner than I did today. Again my sincerest apologies for putting you on the spot like I did. I would put something there but from reading SA's dif you supply, he's archived it with a good explanation. If you would like, I will strike or remove my comments from it though. Again, please except my apology and thank you very much for your patience, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is OK - I've been putting out fires at work, so I wasn't at my best either. I don't think you need to correct it, since it has been hatted off and explained by SA. No need to draw any additional attention to it. Thank you for responding - I appreciate it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- First thank you for your patience. Yes those drops are hard to deal with and the headache is lingering. It's a little better since I went and laid down and fell asleep. I suspect the headache are here for awhile, two weeks until my new glasses arrive. I had to use high doses of prednisone starting both time at 60 mg and weaning down when I was hospitalized. This has happened to me one other time when I lost a lot of my eye sight, I'm dealing with that now and can't wait until I get my new glasses. :) I do owe you an apology and I am sorry. I didn't mean it as in assumumption of bad faith type of way but I can see how it could be read that way. It doesn't happen too often that how I am feeling in RL shows in my editing because I usually walk away sooner than I did today. Again my sincerest apologies for putting you on the spot like I did. I would put something there but from reading SA's dif you supply, he's archived it with a good explanation. If you would like, I will strike or remove my comments from it though. Again, please except my apology and thank you very much for your patience, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Energy & Environment
Hi Greg. I left a comment for you at Mark Nutley's talk page; could you please take a look when you have the time? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Mark Pritchard (music producer)
Hello GregJackP, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mark Pritchard (music producer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: decline speedy, released music on multiple notable labels. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Julian Hook
I have deprodded the subject article because a comment left on the talk page indicates deletion is not uncontroversial. Please take it to AfD. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice
You have been mentioned on User talk:NuclearWarfare Minor4th 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Undone Merge on Global warming skepticism
Hi Greg, I was just wondering why you undid a 3 year old merge. I looked at the discussion and it looks like consensus agreed with the merge. I had a quick look at the Climate change denial archives too, but could not find any discussion. I am not sure what you mean by the last comment, could you provide a link. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I just became aware of it due to a discussion on another page about the difference between skepticism and denialism, and the other editor stated that Wiki said they were the same thing. Well, they aren't, so I reverted the move to fix it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it is here. Last comment. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree they are different, but I have no intention of getting involved in the AGW debate here. I came across it when it suddenly appeared in the Category:Articles to be merged. Looks like you will have your work cut out on that one, it needs a complete rewrite. I will give it a couple of days to see what happens before I remove the old merge template. AIRcorn (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, you may not want to do that - there is currently a prohibition on adding or removing tags to AGW/CC articles unless there is clear consensus to do so (or I would have yanked it off already). This whole AGW/CC area is up for an ArbCom case, and had I not been drug into it inadvertently, I wouldn't be here. I guess I'm just too pig-headed to run away. :D Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why do this? I don't want to get into the issues but rather than just ploughing ahead yourself discussion first is best. Editing because you are reacting to a dispute with ScienceApologist is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Could you consider signing back up to the ceasefire and waiting until an arbcom decision. Polargeo (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Primarily because "skepticism" does not equal "denialism." It really has very little to do with SA and the sourcing problem. I'm not faulting WMC either, although I would have AfD'd the old article - it really was junk, no refs, not even coherent. The problem is that to write a new, good article on skeptism, the old page would have to be deleted to make way for a new page. So it was easier this way, and several editors in the thread spoke of someone rewriting it. So that's what I'm doing, and I'm incorporating the scientific consensus view. Look at the changes please. I'm not looking for a fight, just to build a better article. That is the same reason I held off on filing the RfE when NW asked to wait - it's better for everyone if we work it out. Otherwise, I would have just filed it. As for signing back up? No thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS, I do write good articles (I know the one was crap, but look at my other work, like my latest, Ex parte Crow Dog). I can fix this one, and maintian NPOV. All I would ask is to give me a little time to fix it, and if it's not any good, I'll ask for it to be deleted myself. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I accept your motives as good. But what about Climate change skepticism as a name for the article? The original redirect by WMC was not to "denialism" at all it was this to Global warming controversy. It was an IP who decided to change the redirect to denialism 3 months ago and nobody noticed. Why not restore the redirect to the controversy article and then make suggestions for a split if necessary. The way you are doing this is not the right way and could end up detracting by content forking. This sort of thing needs to be viewed from a higher level than the individual article level. Polargeo (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS, I do write good articles (I know the one was crap, but look at my other work, like my latest, Ex parte Crow Dog). I can fix this one, and maintian NPOV. All I would ask is to give me a little time to fix it, and if it's not any good, I'll ask for it to be deleted myself. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Primarily because "skepticism" does not equal "denialism." It really has very little to do with SA and the sourcing problem. I'm not faulting WMC either, although I would have AfD'd the old article - it really was junk, no refs, not even coherent. The problem is that to write a new, good article on skeptism, the old page would have to be deleted to make way for a new page. So it was easier this way, and several editors in the thread spoke of someone rewriting it. So that's what I'm doing, and I'm incorporating the scientific consensus view. Look at the changes please. I'm not looking for a fight, just to build a better article. That is the same reason I held off on filing the RfE when NW asked to wait - it's better for everyone if we work it out. Otherwise, I would have just filed it. As for signing back up? No thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Good article reassessment
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Perry v. Schwarzenegger/1 --Destinero (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Global warming skepticism
I have nominated Global warming skepticism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming skepticism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ChrisO (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
 | On 14 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
27th Transport Center
Wow! That'll need cutting down and reorganisation, but great work!! Do you know of any similar resources for infantry regiments? Oh, and yes, I do know the roughly standard org of an average infantry division, but you had no particular reason to know I knew that. Do you have access to any deadtree resources we might utilise? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also may I ask why you deleted my vote?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
Your addition to 27th Transportation Center (United States) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I have reverted your addition of an enormous amount of material which was copied and pasted from here. Copying and pasting from sources is not how Wikipedia articles are created. SnottyWong verbalize 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- A few points... eustis.army.mil (note the top level domain) is a site operated by a branch of the US government. The assumption, absent evidence to the contrary, is that all material on it is therefore PD since it's a work of the US government. Note also that the document is sourced to http://www.3coscom.army.mil/27trans/oif.asp ... another US government site. GregJackP, the thing to do is put the source document on Wikisource where it's welcome, and then use it as a reference to put the material into your own words. Snottywong is incorrect to imply we "never" use material as is. Many of our early articles started out as verbatim lifts from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. So I think this particular notice was ill advised. A more gentle request would have been a better approach. I think if Snottywong doesn't reply here I may remind them of that on their talk. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Lar, I was just about to reply. I have restored the material, as it is clearly within Public Domain, and I also note that I identified that in the reference section. I typically do not cut and paste material, but have observed a great number of articles in the WP:MILHIST area have started in the same manner. I have also made the same mistake that Snotty did in the past, so I understand how it happens, and bear no ill will - I'm sure that he did it in good faith. I've never used Wikisource before, so it quite honestly did not cross my mind - my focus was to get more detailed information into the article per the AfD discussion, and then hope that a WikiGnome would whip it into shape. I don't have a great deal of interest in the article, other than to note that it is a notable unit and worthy of inclusion. Again, thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, the .doc file that you've linked to gives no indication that it is in the public domain (or that it is even a government document, for that matter). You can't assume that it's in the public domain just because you got it from a .gov site. You don't know if it's a government document or, for example, private records kept by a former soldier which were retransmitted with permission on the army site. I realize this is a stretch, and the documents probably are public domain, but you can't assume these things. Secondly, copying and pasting large sections of public domain sources is not how Wikipedia articles are created (it may have been back in the beginning of WP, but it surely isn't now). It's great that you have an informative source, but using it the way you have used it is worse than not using it at all. If you want to use this source, the right way is to insert it already wikified, with links to appropriate articles, with all of the lists formatted, with material that is not useful deleted, with appropriate section and subsection headers, etc. If you don't want to do this or don't have the time, then the appropriate thing to do is provide a link to the sources on the article's talk page and see if someone else wants to do it. I'm not going to revert the addition again because I don't want to start an edit war, but I'd strongly urge you to either fix the large addition you've made, or self-revert. SnottyWong confess 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The Ft Eustis library and history website states that "Additionally, it is possible that copyrighted works owned by others may be posted to government web sites. Copyrighted works that are not owned by the Government should be included on government web sites only with permission of the copyright owner and should include an appropriate copyright notice." There was no such notice on the article, and the material in question was linked from the page that had the copyright info. In addition, I have contacted the Ft Eustis webmaster and he confirmed that it is public domain, created by Army personnel and not subject to copyright. If you want, I will provide you with the name and phone number of the individual off-Wiki so you can confirm that information.
- Firstly, the .doc file that you've linked to gives no indication that it is in the public domain (or that it is even a government document, for that matter). You can't assume that it's in the public domain just because you got it from a .gov site. You don't know if it's a government document or, for example, private records kept by a former soldier which were retransmitted with permission on the army site. I realize this is a stretch, and the documents probably are public domain, but you can't assume these things. Secondly, copying and pasting large sections of public domain sources is not how Wikipedia articles are created (it may have been back in the beginning of WP, but it surely isn't now). It's great that you have an informative source, but using it the way you have used it is worse than not using it at all. If you want to use this source, the right way is to insert it already wikified, with links to appropriate articles, with all of the lists formatted, with material that is not useful deleted, with appropriate section and subsection headers, etc. If you don't want to do this or don't have the time, then the appropriate thing to do is provide a link to the sources on the article's talk page and see if someone else wants to do it. I'm not going to revert the addition again because I don't want to start an edit war, but I'd strongly urge you to either fix the large addition you've made, or self-revert. SnottyWong confess 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Lar, I was just about to reply. I have restored the material, as it is clearly within Public Domain, and I also note that I identified that in the reference section. I typically do not cut and paste material, but have observed a great number of articles in the WP:MILHIST area have started in the same manner. I have also made the same mistake that Snotty did in the past, so I understand how it happens, and bear no ill will - I'm sure that he did it in good faith. I've never used Wikisource before, so it quite honestly did not cross my mind - my focus was to get more detailed information into the article per the AfD discussion, and then hope that a WikiGnome would whip it into shape. I don't have a great deal of interest in the article, other than to note that it is a notable unit and worthy of inclusion. Again, thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've also explained why it was inserted as is, and there is no prohibition on what I did, nor is it uncommon - I've seen it happen repeatedly, especially on MilHist articles, this year alone. WP:COPYPASTE specifically notes that public domain is an exception to copy/paste, and the addition was properly cited in the reference area as public domain. I am well aware of how to write articles, and the ones that I create are wikified, with proper section breaks, etc. It is entirely appropriate for the material to be included. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC Teeninvestor
Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Nature
With regards to [5]: Nature is a (perhaps even "the") leading scientific journal, and every scientist would say the same. Nature has the highest PageRank+ISI Impact Factor number out of any scientific journal, just barely beating out Science. (Bollen, J.; Rodriquez, M. A.; Van De Sompel, H. (2006). "Journal status". Scientometrics. 69 (3): 669–87. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0176-z.) NW (Talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- 'Tis a bit silly to dispute the fact that Nature is a "leading" science journal. It falls under the category of things that could be sourced, but really shouldn't have to be thanks to common sense. On the other hand, since Nature is widely recognized as a leading science journal, perhaps the adjective is unnecessary and redundant in the first place... MastCell Talk 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- My main issue is with calling a brand new editor a Scibaby sock on their first edit, after the ArbCom PD came out. Absolutely no change in behavior. I don't have an issue with Nature - I attempted to use it to source some info on WMC, but was told by an admim that it was not a reliable source, even though the same cite was used on the Wikipedia article. BTW, it is unnecessary and redundant to label it as leading, but I'm not so concerned as to edit-war over it. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Ex parte Crow Dog
| On 25 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ex parte Crow Dog, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision
Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. If you need to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please remove completely all your Support or Oppose comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've had to go ahead and do this as others have started to add them. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice
Ping ....Minor4th 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hide the decline
- @Boris, I think that the "Hide the Decline" video spells it out about the scientists... I think that many of them are not very honorable people, and I don't trust them. I also have a bad taste left in my mouth over the way that I was treated by the activists. Don't trust 'em either. GregJackP Boomer! 04:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think activists are a pain in the ass, to put it bluntly, and that they get in the way of public understanding of science. Unfortunately in some circles "activist" has become a term of art for those who simply do the best they can to analyze data and build explanations in an objective way. I don't care for extremists, no matter which side they're on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It depends on what you mean by "analyze"... The satire on youtube sums it up fairly well... (from the sequel version so I don't get sued...lol)
- Making up data the old hard way,
- Fudging the numbers day by day,
- Ignoring the snow and the cold and the downward line.
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- I just completed Mike's nature trick
- And now my chart looks like a hockey stick
- By deleting the treering's data downward line.
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Oh Climategate,
- I think you have sealed your fate.
- It isn't about truth at all,
- It's about sounding plausible.
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- The treering data was very thin,
- You should of chopped more trees
- Instead of hugging them.
- Ignoring the snow and the cold and the downward line.
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Oh Climategate,
- Those hacked emails are really great.
- Midevil warming now is gone
- And the Maunder Minimum.
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- Hide the decline (hide the decline)
- What else needs to be said? GregJackP Boomer! 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Greg, I know you're just joking around, but I watched those You Tube videos and they don't really explain what was really going on with that "hide the decline" incident. As, I'm sure you know, it's a lot more complex than the videos let on. Also, from what I understand, taking tree ring measurements does not entail chopping the tree down. It can be done without seriously damaging the tree. That Fox news clip in which they discussed the You Tube video was ridiculously partisan. They didn't have anyone on there to defend Mann's and the CRU's side. I know I sound like a stick in the mud, but when it comes to discussing these issues in Wikipedia, we should try to keep the debate real. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what the "hide the decline" email meant and "Mike's nature trick" -- at some point I had read some of the emails. Are we allowed to source any of those emails in articles yet? Minor4th 06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- NVM -- I think I get it -- "Hide the decline" is talking about the divergence between the proxies and the actual temperature data, where the proxies failed to show the temperature increases in the last half century. "Hide the decline" it seems is the method of hiding the divergence in the proxy data by substituting the real temperature data for the uptick in the last half century. Or something like that ....which begs the question -- if the proxy data is unreliable compared to real temperature data, why is it thought to be reliable for the last 1,000 years for the period in which there is no real temperature data to compare it to? Head scratcher ....but I'm no scientist. ;) Minor4th 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- (...resisting urge to comment on your final clause....) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- NVM -- I think I get it -- "Hide the decline" is talking about the divergence between the proxies and the actual temperature data, where the proxies failed to show the temperature increases in the last half century. "Hide the decline" it seems is the method of hiding the divergence in the proxy data by substituting the real temperature data for the uptick in the last half century. Or something like that ....which begs the question -- if the proxy data is unreliable compared to real temperature data, why is it thought to be reliable for the last 1,000 years for the period in which there is no real temperature data to compare it to? Head scratcher ....but I'm no scientist. ;) Minor4th 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what the "hide the decline" email meant and "Mike's nature trick" -- at some point I had read some of the emails. Are we allowed to source any of those emails in articles yet? Minor4th 06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It depends on what you mean by "analyze"... The satire on youtube sums it up fairly well... (from the sequel version so I don't get sued...lol)
- @Cla68, no, it really isn't more complex than the video shows. Data was manipulated to show what they wanted it to show on the hockey stick graph. There have been a number of scientific reviews that have discredited the graph, including by the National Academy of Science and a new one coming out in a peer-reviewed journal sometime this year. It shows no respect for the scientific method, just that they are pushing an agenda. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
← You're welcome to believe what you like about climate change, but I take issue with your presentation of fact. Your statement that the National Academies of Science "discredited" Mann's work is flatly incorrect. The NAS panel which reviewed the "hockey stick" found:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward. Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
The Academy expressed less confidence than Mann et al. in the temperature record prior to 1600 AD, but that is not equivalent to "discrediting" his research. Of course, the Academy also noted that large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years are not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, that human activities are contributing, at least in part, to this warming, and that the Earth will continue to warm over the next century.
If you haven't actually read the National Academies of Science report, I would highly recommend it (here is an entry point). It's harder to digest than a song parody, but the payoff is correspondingly greater as well. MastCell Talk 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- GregJackP: If you're interested in creating an article about the "Hide the Decline" parody video, I collected a list of sources which are available in my talk page archives.[6] A previous attempt to create such an article was made by Marknutley but was deleted for lack of notability. Since it's deletion, 3 new reliable sources have been identified.[7][8][9] A saved copy of his article is available here.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- @MastCell: I have read the entire report. There is a significant difference between Mann's claim that it is valid for the last 1,000 years and the NAS' statement that it is good for the last 400 years. The Little Ice Age hit its lowest temperature during the Maunder Minimum, which just happened to be about 400 years ago. The highest temps were during the Medieval Warm Period, about 1225 or so, and which was higher than the current temps. Other studies also support this. See Loehle, Craig; McCulloch, J. Hudson (2008). "Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies". Energy and Environment. 19 (1). Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.: 93–100. ISSN 0958-305X. (peer-reviewed); and Holland, David (2008). "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and its Implications". Energy and Environment. 18 (7/8). Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.: 951–983. ISSN 0958-305X. (peer reviewed). Holland in particular notes "A full reading of the comprehensive report of the NRC panel, rather than the 4-page summary and press reports, leaves no room for any doubt that the Mann et al. “hockey stick” studies are invalid." (Holland, p.960). I stand by my statement, and if you would like, I can provide other references to support that position. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you think the NAS report "discredited" Mann's research, you are either reading a different report, or our comprehensions of written language are so different as to make finding common ground extremely unlikely. What you're actually contending is that a couple of pieces from Energy & Environment claim that the NAS report discredited Mann. I think you'll find the amount of credence attached to claims in Energy & Environment to be substantially less than that attached to the National Academies of Science, so it's best to be clear. MastCell Talk 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Both of which were peer reviewed. The NAS/NRC report is also clear - Mann's research failed to follow sound procedures - one doesn't cherry-pick data unless one is pushing an agenda. The report was clear. GregJackP Boomer! 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the NAS declined to endorse Mann's certainty about the temperature record prior to 1600 AD. However, the report was also clear that Mann's findings were plausible, that they have been backed and replicated by numerous other groups, and that in any case the "hockey stick" is rather secondary as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. These conclusions were not buried in the report, but are part of the abstract. It seems like cherry-picking to ignore these conclusions, to mine only the most negative material about Mann, and to give it the most negative possible spin. And as you said about cherry-picking... MastCell Talk 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- MastCell, what the NAS basically said was that Mann's methodology was wrong but it doesn't matter because his results were right. Remember, when the NAS panel chair, Dr. North was asked in the committee hearing whether he disagreed with Wegman's findings North said, "No, I don't." One of the real controversies with the "hide the decline" is, of course, that it makes it fairly clear that there are some issues with using tree rings as proxies for temperatures. One question that McIntyre has asked, and I think it's a valid point, is why haven't the paleoclimatologists made more effort to strengthen their tree ring data sets by taking more samples of more trees, or at least tried to update more of the tree ring data series which ended around 1980? To show that it wouldn't be that hard, McIntyre and a friend went out and updated one of the Colorado tree data sets themselves and it only took them about two days to do it. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point me to where the NAS panel said that Mann's methodology was "wrong"? It's not a trick question; I'm not intimately familiar with the report and I may not be looking at the section you have in mind. I'm less interested in off-the-cuff remarks from individual panel members than in the written report, which was presumably written to a higher standard of diligence. MastCell Talk 00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have all my books in front of me at the moment, but I'll try to give a complete answer later. If we're going get into a deep discussion on the North report, we'll need to some good sourcing to help us out, because, IMO, the North report used very indirect and vague language to criticize Mann's research, in contrast to Wegman's report, which was much more direct and clear in its conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Take your time - I'll look through the report as well. As to "indirect and vague language", that was sort of my point with GregJackP. The National Academy was mildly critical of some of Mann's assumptions, or rather his degree of certainty about them, while affirming the plausibility and reproducibility of his findings. That's a far cry from "discrediting" his research. MastCell Talk 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Wegman report had the advantage that substantial parts of its text had been, erm, "very closely paraphrased" from other sources (including a Wikipedia article, of all things). It's easier to fine-tune than to write something original. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but was Wegman wrong, however? I've seen similar criticisms to yours elsewhere but I haven't seen anything which directly challenges his findings, except maybe on RealClimate, and that's to be expected. Remember, North as the NAS rep declined to repudiate, or even criticize, Wegman's report during the congressional hearings. We can get into North's report here, but Greg should expect the resulting dicussion to get rather long. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Wegman report had the advantage that substantial parts of its text had been, erm, "very closely paraphrased" from other sources (including a Wikipedia article, of all things). It's easier to fine-tune than to write something original. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Take your time - I'll look through the report as well. As to "indirect and vague language", that was sort of my point with GregJackP. The National Academy was mildly critical of some of Mann's assumptions, or rather his degree of certainty about them, while affirming the plausibility and reproducibility of his findings. That's a far cry from "discrediting" his research. MastCell Talk 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have all my books in front of me at the moment, but I'll try to give a complete answer later. If we're going get into a deep discussion on the North report, we'll need to some good sourcing to help us out, because, IMO, the North report used very indirect and vague language to criticize Mann's research, in contrast to Wegman's report, which was much more direct and clear in its conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point me to where the NAS panel said that Mann's methodology was "wrong"? It's not a trick question; I'm not intimately familiar with the report and I may not be looking at the section you have in mind. I'm less interested in off-the-cuff remarks from individual panel members than in the written report, which was presumably written to a higher standard of diligence. MastCell Talk 00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- MastCell, what the NAS basically said was that Mann's methodology was wrong but it doesn't matter because his results were right. Remember, when the NAS panel chair, Dr. North was asked in the committee hearing whether he disagreed with Wegman's findings North said, "No, I don't." One of the real controversies with the "hide the decline" is, of course, that it makes it fairly clear that there are some issues with using tree rings as proxies for temperatures. One question that McIntyre has asked, and I think it's a valid point, is why haven't the paleoclimatologists made more effort to strengthen their tree ring data sets by taking more samples of more trees, or at least tried to update more of the tree ring data series which ended around 1980? To show that it wouldn't be that hard, McIntyre and a friend went out and updated one of the Colorado tree data sets themselves and it only took them about two days to do it. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the NAS declined to endorse Mann's certainty about the temperature record prior to 1600 AD. However, the report was also clear that Mann's findings were plausible, that they have been backed and replicated by numerous other groups, and that in any case the "hockey stick" is rather secondary as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. These conclusions were not buried in the report, but are part of the abstract. It seems like cherry-picking to ignore these conclusions, to mine only the most negative material about Mann, and to give it the most negative possible spin. And as you said about cherry-picking... MastCell Talk 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Both of which were peer reviewed. The NAS/NRC report is also clear - Mann's research failed to follow sound procedures - one doesn't cherry-pick data unless one is pushing an agenda. The report was clear. GregJackP Boomer! 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, I don't have a problem with it being discussed here. MastCell, here are some of the statements of the NAS/NRC report about the Hockey Stick Graph stating that Mann's methodology was wrong:
- "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium'" (NRC, pp.4, 21)
- "For instance, a focus on variations of decadal or longer timescales with the 45 years of validation data used by Mann et al. (1998) would give statistics with just (2 × 45 ÷ 10) = 9 degrees of freedom, too few to adequately quantify skill. This discussion also motivates the choice of a validation period that exhibits the same kind of variability as the calibration period. Simply using the earliest part of the instrumental series may not be the best choice for validation." (NRC p. 95)
- "As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions." (NRC, p. 113)
- " The RE validation metric used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) is a minimum requirement, but the committee questions whether any single statistic can provide a definitive indication of the uncertainty inherent in the reconstruction." (NRC, p. 116)
Fairly clear cut. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that what they're saying is fairly clear-cut, but not that they're calling Mann's methodology "wrong". If you take the 4 lead articles from this week's New England Journal of Medicine and hand them over to the National Academies for intensive scrutiny, then no doubt you'd generate a lot of questions about the choices made by the study authors. There is no "perfect" study, and the design of any scientific experiment involves trade-offs, simplifications, and assumptions. These should be evident upfront, as they were in Mann's paper, so that other scientists can appraise the work critically and fully, and take into account the assumptions made by the study authors.
There are always "flaws" in a study, and alternate approaches which might have yielded different results. Questioning aspects of a paper's methodology, or spitballing ways in which the study could have been conducted differently, are basic parts of the scientific process. People familiar with science understand that. However, when scientific work enters the political sphere, then suddenly any critical thought or analysis of a study's trade-offs becomes evidence that the study is "discredited", "flawed", or "wrong".
That's a function of the difference between a scientific and a political mindset. Scientifically, it makes sense to tear down the paper in order to see what we can take away from it, with what degree of certainty, and to think of ways to build on it. Politically, it makes sense to tear down the paper for the sake of tearing it down, because its implications are unpalatable. I'm not sure I'm expressing myself clearly, but I think these sorts of perspectives might be at the root of the differing interpretations of the NAS report. MastCell Talk 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The NRC report confirms what other reviews of Mann's Hockey Stick chart have shown.
- McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out in their study that Mann's research "systematically underestimated" data errors or uncertainties, a point which was also agreed to by the NRC (p. 107). M/M pointed out that there is no statistical significance to Mann's data, and that it was no better than a table of random number, also accepted by the NRC (p. 91), that strip-bark data was invalid and if removed, reversed the conclusion that the current warm period is unprecedented (NRC, p. 106-107).
- Wegman pointed out in his testimony and report that: "Method wrong + Answer correct = Bad science". Although Mann and other climate scientists rely heavily on statistical methods, they do not interact with the statistical community. "[Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics". "Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."
- See Loehle and Holland, above.
- North stated in Congressional testimony that he believed that the NRC report and the Wegman report were compatible and said basically the same thing.
- Later this year, a peer-reviewed journal will publish a report by two statisticians that outline problems with the Hocky-Stick chart.
- There are also plenty of other references stating that the Mann chart has been discredited. This isn't a matter of politics, it is a matter of science, and following proper scientific procedures. Mann did not according to numerous other scientists. GregJackP Boomer! 21:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm not really interested in arguing about the Wegman report, or stuff from Energy & Environment. I was speaking specifically about the report from the National Academies, and it would seem that discussion has run its course.
Speaking of Wegman, I do enjoy the dogmatism which seems somewhat characteristic of statisticians. His equation ("Method wrong + answer correct = bad science") would, of course, condemn many underpinnings of modern knowledge to the realm of "bad science", because they would never stand up to the scrutiny of a critical statistician. I'm reminded of R. A. Fisher, another famous statistician, who campaigned at length to persuade people that Gregor Mendel's data were statistically impossible and likely the result of fraud or incompetence. Fisher likewise argued strenuously against the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. In both cases, he identified what he considered serious statistical red flags and argued that these invalidated the results entirely.
Of course, smoking does cause lung cancer, and Mendel's laws of heredity are rather fundamental to the understanding of genetics. Even though their methodology didn't meet the statistical standards set by Fisher, their work was of profound scientific value. And the ultimate test was not forensic statistical analysis, but reproducibility and explanatory power. But I digress. MastCell Talk 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Greg, if you have North's report in front of you, what did they say about the use of the bristlecone pine data set? The source I read stated that the North report basically repudiated the use of that data set as a reliable temperature proxy. Since Mann's paper placed major emphasis on the use of the bristlecone data, the North report was thus indirectly saying that Mann's conclusions in that regard also, have major issues. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) See what I mean about this conversation becoming long and convoluted?
- Cla, see above. Bristlecone/strip-bark are the same, and removing it from the study reversed the conclusion that the current warm period is unprecedented (pp. 106-107). GregJackP Boomer! 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's it. MastCell, because the NAS report is written with such vague and indirect conclusions, it may not be apparent at first just how scathing a criticim it is of MBH's methodology. But, when you consider the implications of what the NAS/North committee concluded, it's unmistakable. Now, here's the rub, many, if not most of the temperature reconstructions used to produce this chart also used the problematic bristlecone pine datasets. This is part of the larger problem, according to McIntyre and a few others, in that paleoclimatogists are using far too few temperature proxy data sets to come to their conclusions and aren't trying hard enough to ensure that the few data sets the are using are sufficiently robust. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- One other thing. As far as I know, McIntyre and the others who agree him are not asserting that, because there are problems with the hockey stick research, that it means that the theory of human-caused warming is wrong. They are not saying that. What they're saying is that this particular research is not reliable enough to be used as evidence to support that theory, and, as an extension, there is something clearly wrong with the IPCC's review process which resulted in the hockey stick conclusions being given such prominent placement in previous IPCC reports. The recent review of the IPCC's processes (completed yesterday) appears to support, at least in part, this conclusion about the IPCC. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I'm really not interested in discussing McIntyre or the IPCC. I'm interested in the NAS report, and I'm a bit confused. Greg referred me to p. 106-107 for material "discrediting" Mann, but I'm not finding it there (p. 106, p. 107). Greg also indicated that on p. 91, the NAS report calls Mann's data "no better than a table of random numbers". Again, I'm not finding what he's referring to (p. 91 contains a discussion of the sort of trade-offs I mentioned above). So that brings me back to my earlier question: are we looking at the same report? MastCell Talk 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- One other thing. As far as I know, McIntyre and the others who agree him are not asserting that, because there are problems with the hockey stick research, that it means that the theory of human-caused warming is wrong. They are not saying that. What they're saying is that this particular research is not reliable enough to be used as evidence to support that theory, and, as an extension, there is something clearly wrong with the IPCC's review process which resulted in the hockey stick conclusions being given such prominent placement in previous IPCC reports. The recent review of the IPCC's processes (completed yesterday) appears to support, at least in part, this conclusion about the IPCC. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's it. MastCell, because the NAS report is written with such vague and indirect conclusions, it may not be apparent at first just how scathing a criticim it is of MBH's methodology. But, when you consider the implications of what the NAS/North committee concluded, it's unmistakable. Now, here's the rub, many, if not most of the temperature reconstructions used to produce this chart also used the problematic bristlecone pine datasets. This is part of the larger problem, according to McIntyre and a few others, in that paleoclimatogists are using far too few temperature proxy data sets to come to their conclusions and aren't trying hard enough to ensure that the few data sets the are using are sufficiently robust. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cla, see above. Bristlecone/strip-bark are the same, and removing it from the study reversed the conclusion that the current warm period is unprecedented (pp. 106-107). GregJackP Boomer! 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Greg, if you have North's report in front of you, what did they say about the use of the bristlecone pine data set? The source I read stated that the North report basically repudiated the use of that data set as a reliable temperature proxy. Since Mann's paper placed major emphasis on the use of the bristlecone data, the North report was thus indirectly saying that Mann's conclusions in that regard also, have major issues. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) See what I mean about this conversation becoming long and convoluted?
- Thanks, but I'm not really interested in arguing about the Wegman report, or stuff from Energy & Environment. I was speaking specifically about the report from the National Academies, and it would seem that discussion has run its course.
- The NRC report confirms what other reviews of Mann's Hockey Stick chart have shown.
Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |