I have to rise to Ed's defense. I have only seen Ed trying to make sure all sides of the story are represented. Presenting global warming as a scientifically proven "fact" is disengenous, dishonest, and unethical. It is a popular theory, yes. But it is also a controversial one. I have every confidence in Ed's neutrality.

I myself have read a lot of things that call the global warming as environmental disaster hypothesis into question. Two particularly potent pieces:

http://reactor-core.org/summers-lease.html http://reactor-core.org/skeptical-environmentalist-defended

I do not believe Ed's edits are religiously motivated. Ed has shown himself to be very open minded on every topic I have seen him touch. I would hope that those complaining about his edits to the global warming article could learn to show the same open mindedness.

I will reply to specific accusations below.

On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 12:46:28AM -0600, Sheldon Rampton wrote:

I must say, though, that I find it remarkably hypocritical for Ed to accuse *me* of being disingenous with regard to inserting a POV. I'm not going to debate him here about the scientific evidence on global warming, but it's very clear that he has been assiduously lobbying to inject his point of view into the article - a point of view that he expressed quite clearly in the Talk page, where he stated, "The whole global warming thing is a hoax, and 'warmers' have used statistical manipulation (i.e., lied) to bolster their arguments." Clearly, when

I have no religious or ideological motivation for saying this, but I too have read both sides of the story and agree with Ed the global warming as an unprecedented and imminent disaster seems like a grand hoax.

someone resorts to calling other people liars, that's a strong point of view, and virtually every edit that Ed has made to this article is an attempt to inject this point of view by challenging the scientificity of the global warming hypothesis and impugning the motives of its proponents.

If you observed the unscientific and unprofessional way that proponents of global warming have impugned and slandered those who point out flaws in their reasoning, you would be giving Ed Poor medals for his Christ-like mildness and forbearance.

Ed has also injected a point of view into his articles about Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. The article about Moon reads more like worshipful hagiography than a serious attempt at biography. It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of Jesus Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this were a documented fact.

Who are you to say that these are not documented facts? There is nothing fanciful or alleged about them. Ed Poor is in a unique situation to have first or second hand knowledge of those things, since his Messiah is still alive.

The article on "Sun Myung Moon/tax case" consists primarily of Moon's defense arguments and even includes a first-person statement by Ed in which he first states as fact an undocumented claim that the government made an offer to "drop all the charges," and then writes that this is "a story circulated among us UC members." It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual text of articles.

No, it is not POV. And here is why: Ed clearly attributed the story. As has been drilled into my head over the past few months, NPOV doesn't mean that common POVs are eliminated, just that they are stated neutrally and factually.

ostentatious wealth while expecting his followers to live in poverty. I would do this myself, except that I'm not really interested in writing about the Unification Church. And since Ed "believes passionately" in his church, one of the "best ways to attain neutrality" would be to have him be the one who makes these arguments.

You overlook the fact that Ed is putting the facts as he knows them into the Wikipedia, in the most neutral way he can. It is bad form to expect someone to trash their own religion in the name of "neutrality", and I think you should be ashamed to have suggested such a thing.

Jonathan

Everyone take a deep breath. It was pretty out of character for Ed to post a sharp remark like that, and I think he'll quickly make things right with Sheldon.

And Ed has always, more than just about any of us, expressed a firm commitment to NPOV. Attacking his biases is something he will likely welcome, as an opportunity to improve an article.

Sheldon Rampton wrote:

It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of Jesus Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this were a documented fact.

How do we deal with similar claims/stories for other religious figures? It seems pretty easy to fix, for example by saying, "In 1969, Moon said that he had had a vision or revelation of Jesus Christ while praying on top of a tall hill". This is a nice formulation because it limits us to making a simple uncontroversial claim, without projecting any kind of attitude of belief or disbelief.

Another reformulation might say something like "Moon allegedly had a vision or revelation", but I like my version above, better, because the word "allegedly" has some baggage.

It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual text of articles.

Maybe, unless this gossip is documented somewhere as having actually happened. I mean, asserting the content of the gossip as fact isn't good, but reporting on the gossip is fine, if it was important and widespread.

I don't fault Ed for having some ideological blind spots. I'm sure I have my own. However, I strongly disagree with his absurd notion that I have some personal responsibility to do his dirty work for him by inserting arguments with which I do not agree into the global warming article.

But I think this is a misreading. I think that his idea is a very good one. All of us, if we are writing in an area where we know we have some strong feelings, should try *hard* to formulate the arguments of the opponents as best we can.

There are at least two views of how wikipedia articles should be written -- the competitive view and the co-operative view. Ed is merely (and correctly, I think) advocating for the co-operative view.

On the competitive view, partisans go at it and fight until the fight has gone out of all sides, and the result is an article that no one hates too much. On the co-operative view, partisans try really hard to please _each other_ with a presentation that's fair to all sides.

The co-operative method is faster, and also less exhausting in the long run.

am sure that he will set an example for us all by editing his articles about Rev. Moon so that they "focus on making the best case" for arguments... [against Moon]

In my experience, Ed has always set an example for us.

--Jimbo