Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it would be a big help.
Ed Poor
The 84 countries who've signed the Kyoto Protocol seem to think that global warming is a real issue.
Seems it's largely the oil men who pass for government in your country who think otherwise. Might they have an agenda?
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it would be a big help.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Whatever my personal views of the issue may be, your choice of wording as "the oil men who pass for government in your country" certainly shows YOUR agenda. I hope it's not in the article, which I have yet to read. Zoe tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:The 84 countries who've signed the Kyoto Protocol seem to think that global warming is a real issue.
Seems it's largely the oil men who pass for government in your country who think otherwise. Might they have an agenda?
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it would be a big help.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
Ed, why this personal attack ("speaking of disingenuous answers"), and why on the mailing list? "Step back from your advocacy" - which advocacy? Sheldon has not made a single edit to the global warming article. His last major contribution is from a week ago and unrelated. Since Sheldon joined the project, you have repeatedly attacked him, also on Talk pages. Are you afraid that there's someone who actually sees through the global warming spin and trying to drive him away?
You have made plenty of dubious edits to the global warming articles. For example, you recently replaced the intro with
* * * "The belief that global warming is caused chiefly by emissions of [[carbon dioxide]] and other other '[[greenhouse gas]]es' is promoted by environmentalist organizations and supported by most Western journalists.
"The proportion of scientists who support or oppose any of the various global warming theories is a matter of controversy in its own right. Environmentalists and their allies claim virtually unanamious support for the global warming theory from the scientific community. Opponents maintain that it's the other way around, claiming that the overwhelming majority of scientists either dismiss global warming altogether or merely consider it "unproven" (see [[global warming scepticism]]). " * * *
I have asked you for a reference especially for the last sentence, and the placement of the "promoted by enviros and journos" part as second paragraph of the article was clearly not NPOV. You have rarely defended your edits at all, and not provided references. On the Talk page of [[Global warming]] some people now almost refuse to talk to you at all because of your past edits.
You usually do a good job at maintaining NPOV and a professional attitude. Why does it seem to fall apart with this issue? Is it because your beloved Unification Church is so heavily promoting the idea that global warming is a myth over the church-owned Washington Times and the SEPP PR group / "think tank" and its leading pseudoscientist Fred Singer? Are you, pehaps, complying with "higher orders"?
Regards,
Erik