| Revision as of 00:30, 19 July 2012 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Nobody has the right to arbitrarily remove posts from the Talk page. This is not the Article page.: Inappropriate discussion can be removed from talk pages← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:41, 19 July 2012 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits Archiving. No sign of any consensus developing here.Next edit → |
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
{{Clear}} |
|
{{Clear}} |
|
|
|
|
== Biased and selective quoting of Revkin? == |
|
|
|
|
|
StS, I don't wish to unfairly summarize Revkin's point. What nuance has been left out? I am sure that we can find a way to work it in. The main point here is that a knowledgable and unbiased observer has made the observation that in their opinion Pachauri often crosses the line from neutrality into advocacy and is hurting the IPCC by doing so. This is an important point given the charter and importance of the IPCC. Including example(s) of where Revkin believes that Pachauri has crossed that line seems pertinent to helping the reader understand his point. What else do you think needs to be included to compose a fair summary of Revkin's piece? --] (]) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:While Revkin is one of the better journalists on the topic, it's one blog and highlighting it in this way gives a degree of ] that seems rather inappropriate in a ]. While Revkin's indicates he holds a view on these lines, it's obviously contested by the historian Spencer Weart. So, more context and a more authoritative source would be needed. . . ], ] 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for pointing to the follow on post. Revkin represents a knowledgable voice from outside the climate science community. He is a strong supporter of the IPCC view and so his criticism can be taken as unbiased. If you feel that including only Revkin's comments is biased then let us also include Weart's point as well to provide the needed context and balance. Would this satisfy your concern? The fact that Weart responded at all points to the significance and notability of Revkin's point so I think some discussion of this is worth including in a summary form, or do you fundamentally disagree on that point? --] (]) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Revkin wrote a longish piece that mixes advice and criticism. It's clear that the "one way ticket" joke was, in fact, Branson's. You concentrate on the criticism ''and'' repeat the wrong impression about the joke. Moreover, this is one opinion piece. I tend to agree that it is hard to avoid undue weight when introducing it. I also find it confusing to have a "Controversies" section that covers his IPCC work and also add criticism to the general IPCC section. We should keep it consistent. --] (]) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::You haven't answered the question: ''What else needs to be included to compose a fair summary of Revkin's piece?'' It is clear that Branson originated the one way ticket joke and directed it specifically at federal housing authorities. It is also quite clear that but broadened the scope of those to whom it was directed to be "those who are becoming obstacles ...". So to say that the joke was purely Branson's in disengenuous and misleading. Pachauri made the joke although it is unclear exactly toward whom he was directing it at the time. Clearly Revkin and Mark Hertsgaard both felt that he was at least including climate change deniers in his phrasing. So I have not repeated the wrong impression of anything. I originally included this where I did because I don't consider this to be a "controversy" so much as a comment on his work at the IPCC. If you feel it is a controversy then fine we can included it in that section. --] (]) 20:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Accusations of Advocacy and Activism == |
|
|
|
|
|
We need to include some discussion of the accusations of advocacy and activism which are coming from both sides of the debate: |
|
|
* Andrew Revkin: , |
|
|
* Mark Hertsgaard: |
|
|
* Don Surber: |
|
|
* Donna Laframboise: |
|
|
This is more than sufficient material to establish weight for the topic and to provide a cross section of opinion on the matter. I don't want to misrepresent what is being said here so what specifically are the points from all this that should be included to make a fair summary of the situation? |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the key points that jump out at me are: |
|
|
* Revkin is a supporter of the IPCC view and he believes that Pachauri crosses the line into advocacy. |
|
|
* The event that caused Revkin to speak up on this point was the one way ticket joke, among other things. |
|
|
* Hertsgaard is included merely to substantiate that Pachauri actually made the joke. |
|
|
* Hertsgaard can be used to include that Pachauri claims he didn't mean to include climate change deniers. |
|
|
* Surber makes the point that Revkin is more politically aligned with Pachauri than the deniers and still has this opinion of the man. |
|
|
* Laframboise argues that Pachauri's actions are indistinguishable from those of a green activist. |
|
|
|
|
|
These are all sources published in the mainstream media and by people known to be knowledgable of the subject matter involved. What other points should be addressed to make a fair summary in the controversies section? --] (]) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
