Talk:Oregon Petition

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: I wrote the original comment that the article was biased.  I see now that it has been cleaned up, the POV removed, and it is much better.  Well done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.10.90 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much Better 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Oregon Petition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601110230/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/309/Scientists_don_t_agree_on_global_wa.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html?view=print
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603094408/http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html to http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: NPV – by Appeal to Motives Logical Fallacy
Re summary: “It is commonly considered to be a political petition designed for disinforming and confusing the public about the scientific results and the consensus of climate change research.” This headline summary statement violates Wikipedia's foundational NPV (NPOV) policy. It commits the Logical Fallacy of “The Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives)”. See Master List of Logical Fallacies #18
This NPV should best be corrected by 1) Deleting it from the summary and at best editing and putting it further down. OR  2) Correct it to: “Others assert it disinforms the public about climate science and a consensus on climate change.” This removes Wikipedia from making the logical fallacy assertion imputing moral turpitude, to noting that others have made this illogical Argument from Motives.DLH (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So you disagree with the reliable source quoted in the article. Tough. Your own thoughts on the matter are not relevant here. See WP:OR. If you publish those thoughts in a reliable source, that is another matter. Do that, and we can quote you contradicting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My disagreement is the breach of NPOV committed by the sentence having Wikipedia make the illogical fallacy "Argument from Motives" rather than noting the article author states it. PS How is an author committing an obvious logical fallacy a "reliable source"? DLH (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLH (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disinforming and Confusing"

message: I believe the sole purpose of this entry was meant not to provide a straight forward unbiased description of the petition and other relative facts but to add his own spin to discredit a petition which the author vehemently disagrees with. The author has carefully  phrased sentences and inserted passive aggressive verbiage to influence the readers opinion on the subject matter. A proper encyclopedic entry should not so clearly convey the beliefs of the author. 98.114.241.198 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "the author". The article is based on reliable sources and reflects their stance. Their stance is the the Petition is pseudoscientific bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon Petition.