Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 12

message: I think we have reached the point where further internal discussion is futile.  I would like to assess the sense of the community as to their positions on this issue, so I propose the interested parties (including any lurkers) weigh in on the subject below by simply signing the appropriate section:
:Steven Milloy, publisher of the website junkscience.com, noted on Fox News that "The NSTA probably made the correct decision at the time simply because it would be egregiously biased to present just one particular viewpoint about a controversy as heated and important as global warming. Now that the counter-viewpoints are available, however, schools ought to show their students An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle and the Intelligence Squared debate."
All in favor of including the above quote in this article please sign below:
:--GoRight 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Elhector 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: --Oren0 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to exclude it and do not understand any opposition to it. --Blue Tie 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: --Iceage77 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Raymond Arritt 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: --Kim D. Petersen 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Vsmith 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: William M. Connolley 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Gmb92 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry - but this is not the next logical step. The next logical step would be to assess the above discussion, and try to see where opinions lie. And that isn't very difficult. I count a majority that thinks Milloy shouldn't be included - and a fairly active minority who wants to. What is this vote going to change? (and that is why its a rather bogus thing to do). --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that it is unwikilike to be opposed to votes.  I also think it is very wikilike to actually have votes.  wikipedia is not consistent.  Votes are a way to assess positions, but they should not decide the issue. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Elh needs to get out more and read WP:VOTE William M. Connolley 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read WP:VOTE as well as all the other guidelines and I'm very familiar with them.  I strongly believe in Wikipedia and it's mission and as such I will often tend to ignore or bend guidelines if I feel they are being used in a harmful way or at a detriment to the project and community.  This vote was not to actually decide on the change but just to see where we stand and if mediation is necessary or even worth it.  It was a good faith effort on GoRight's part to try and find away around this impasse and I feel the way this was handled as far as adding that 3rd section was very uncivil, in poor taste, and has done nothing to help the situation. Elhector 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then noone is saying that the vote wasn't set up in good faith. We're just saying that votes like these are bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stated my reasons in the UPDATE above.  They seem straight forward enough.  There is no mystery here.  I didn't label this a vote, someone else did.  I don't object to calling it a vote but if that bothers you somehow think of it merely as my asking people to declare which side they are on.  It is not a true vote because it has no binding power.  I just want to have a nice clear delineation of who's where without having to wade through the comments.  --GoRight 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Connolley needs to cease personal insults. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. I suggest that you look back through the archives for each of the two articles - and consider the merits of the arguments on each. In both cases this has been extensively discussed. (on TGGWS - the controversial for instance was voted upon to be used instead of polemic). Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All votes are not created equal. I consider votes of the kind that is proposed higher up as bogus - but i do not consider strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion as bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Abstaining." Nice try. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that's not what you have done?  You section seems to indicate only that you consider this type of vote to be "bogus".  Considering the vote to be "bogus" does not indicate disapproval one way or the other.  What else am I supposed to think? --GoRight (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Milloy quote

message: Wow, the creation of the third section that says "All those who think votes like this are fundamentally bogus please sign below:" really surprises me.  Very un-wiki like.  I know you guys keep a close watch on this article because I've had content disputes here before but this has gotten really sad now.  It speaks much about you're attitudes towards Wikipedia, your belief that you guys own this article, and your inability to remain unbiased.  GoRight is simply trying to improve this article and this was the next logical step in the debate.  I think with attitudes like this mediation is the only way to get around this now... Elhector 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - but this is not the next logical step. The next logical step would be to assess the above discussion, and try to see where opinions lie. And that isn't very difficult. I count a majority that thinks Milloy shouldn't be included - and a fairly active minority who wants to. What is this vote going to change? (and that is why its a rather bogus thing to do). --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that it is unwikilike to be opposed to votes.  I also think it is very wikilike to actually have votes.  wikipedia is not consistent.  Votes are a way to assess positions, but they should not decide the issue. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Elh needs to get out more and read WP:VOTE William M. Connolley 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read WP:VOTE as well as all the other guidelines and I'm very familiar with them.  I strongly believe in Wikipedia and it's mission and as such I will often tend to ignore or bend guidelines if I feel they are being used in a harmful way or at a detriment to the project and community.  This vote was not to actually decide on the change but just to see where we stand and if mediation is necessary or even worth it.  It was a good faith effort on GoRight's part to try and find away around this impasse and I feel the way this was handled as far as adding that 3rd section was very uncivil, in poor taste, and has done nothing to help the situation. Elhector 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then noone is saying that the vote wasn't set up in good faith. We're just saying that votes like these are bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stated my reasons in the UPDATE above.  They seem straight forward enough.  There is no mystery here.  I didn't label this a vote, someone else did.  I don't object to calling it a vote but if that bothers you somehow think of it merely as my asking people to declare which side they are on.  It is not a true vote because it has no binding power.  I just want to have a nice clear delineation of who's where without having to wade through the comments.  --GoRight 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Connolley needs to cease personal insults. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. I suggest that you look back through the archives for each of the two articles - and consider the merits of the arguments on each. In both cases this has been extensively discussed. (on TGGWS - the controversial for instance was voted upon to be used instead of polemic). Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All votes are not created equal. I consider votes of the kind that is proposed higher up as bogus - but i do not consider strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion as bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Abstaining." Nice try. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that's not what you have done?  You section seems to indicate only that you consider this type of vote to be "bogus".  Considering the vote to be "bogus" does not indicate disapproval one way or the other.  What else am I supposed to think? --GoRight (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-on Discussion

message: I would like to construct here a concise summary of the rebuttals presented by those who are in favor of including the Steven Milloy quote.  I will make a good faith effort to construct such a summary but those who are in favor are encouraged to modify this description in place so that it meets with their collective satisfactions.  My purpose is merely to allow any others who become involved to simply be able to read these summaries rather than having to wade through all of the discussion above.  Please do not leave signed comments in this section, but instead update the text directly to your liking as you would an article.  When the section is complete I will remove this comment.
The opposing side is requested to refrain from modifying this section.  --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Rebuttals from Those In Favor of Inclusion