Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 15

message: These two edits (here, and here) represent a form of creeping bias that violates NPOV, IMHO.  I don't know if this is conscious or not, so I wish to raise the group's awareness on this point.  Note that I do not mean to single out these particular authors for anything other than to illustrate my point.
I have noted a tendency on the part of some editors to feel that if material which somehow "helps" the skeptic's case has been summarized or repeated in this (or any GW related article for that matter) article that the argument is made that such material is "only a click away for those who are interested."  A similar exchange occurred on the Fred Singer page regarding my characterization of George Monbiot as being an "environmental and political activist" which is a term I took directly from his BLP summary.  On the other hand, when the material in question "helps" the AGW proponent's case it is termed "brief and very relevant" and the argument is made to leave the material in the article in question.
Do people feel that this double standard serves WP:NPOV?  Should we have a consistent position on this topic or do you want to simply continue to argue about it on a case by case basis?
--GoRight (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain to me the reason that we in a WP:SUMMARY of another article have to use 3 times as much space on the participants instead of on a description of the actual article? Give a description of TGGWS - let the interested reader go to that article to get the details. Frankly i can't see why we have to have a summary of TGGWS on this article at all. Your arguments about NPOV seem rather strange - since from my point of view, the only reason to add the peoples details is to bolster the "importance" of the TGGWS argument. (which is entirely POV). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain to me why we should include here a list of those parties criticizing the film but not include a comparable list the film's contributors when the information is, as you say, only one click away?  As you have just pointed out including such a list is a clear POV push.  The difference between the current state of the article and what I included is that the current article already suffers from this kind of a POV push whereas my addition only seeks to balance that POV push out.  Given this, would you not argue equally as strongly that the list of organizations disputing these claims should be likewise removed under your same logic?  --GoRight (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What i was arguing against was the Peacock part of using 3 times as much space on the credentials and titles of the contributers to the movie - than on actual content. If i'm not entirely mistaken there is not much space used on credentials in the current version. There is a subtle difference between 'John T. Houghton' and 'Sir. John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE former co-chair of  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group, former professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.', guess which version of these have been used by the regular editors - and guess which version your list of parties most looked like? (hint: one of these is unnecessary use of space - the other isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is fine I guess.  But why then do you simply delete the entire passage rather than simply stripping out the "Peacock" portions?  And I would argue that it is necessary to give some indication of the credentials of the individuals rather than simply listing their names as most readers won't know who these people are.  Do you honestly feel that listing the names (and in some sense therefore their credentials) of their critics is not doing exactly what you are accusing me of?  Why should the critics get to express an air of authority while stripping the names and credentials of the contributors thus leaving the clear impression that those claims made in the film are not backed by legitimate scientists? This is clear POV pushing as far as I can see.  --GoRight (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "its one click away" argument. 

message: There's an ongoing discussion / vote relating to this article at /Stephen Milloy. I've moved it to a sub-page just now so it doesn't interfere with other discussion. Once consensus is reached it will be archived. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fair and accurate" sounds uncomfortably like "fair and balanced", but do what you like. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to get to this later today.  I understand your reticence at letting me write your position which is why I invite you and the others to modify the text to meet your approval.  I only offer to make the first attempt so as to minimize your efforts.  If you prefer to write the summary yourself please feel free to do so.  --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer for now and may (or may not) contribute later. It would be most interesting to see your views of what you think the position would be. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Stephen Milloy discussion 

message: Removing talk page content that is clearly relevant to improving the article is a gross violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette.  I don't want to make personal attacks, but I'd expect better from an administrator.  There is no reason in the world this should be removed, and frankly it is a slap in the face to the editors that worked hard on that section.  Why should any of us be in the business of removing the contributions that others make to the talk page? Oren0 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oren0 - everything is still on Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Some_Google_Queries_to_Provide_Objective_Data_on_Purported_Levels_of_Controversy where exactly the same information was copied. There is no reason to keep the exact same discussion in 2 places. (Nb: if i'm not mistaken - i count 3 admins as removing that section). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that it's relevant in both articles.  Any time someone tries to bring up AIT at Talk:TGGWS or vice versa, you're always one of the first people to jump up and say that we should keep the treatment of these articles separate.  Since it's relevant to both articles, I don't see why it can't be in both places.  Also, I don't see why this shouldn't have been discussed on the talk page before being reverted back and forth 15 times. Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly i find that discussion irrelevant on both articles - its an attempt to use google to prove point. But unfortunately that point isn't as simple. (it btw. might have been, if it had been possible to sort away blog postings and other false positives). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to not participate in the discussion if you find it irrelevant.  Others are particpating and your attempts an censoring the discussion in light of your repeated calls to discuss things on their respective pages is quite telling.  --GoRight (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have given my input on your WP:GOOGLE attempts - it was just on the previous attempt. But you can mostly find my opinion in the same corner as Stephan's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring on removing Google data