I have a few concerns about some of the content of this article...
- Relevance of Brian Wilson's post with AMEC Nuclear holdings to this subject?
- Relevance of any reference to Sir Digby Jones, and subsequent comments about him, given that he resigned before the organisation was even launched.
- "Brian Wilson, in his capacity as chair of AMEC Nuclear...". Relevance in an article about Flying Matters?
- "Michell Di Leo was asked what she considered to be a safe concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere(in parts per million by volume) and repied "I’m not a climate scientist,"". Given that even climate change scientists do not seem to agree what this figure is, this is hardly a fair criticism. "A limit of 550ppm for carbon dioxide emissions has been suggested by several bodies … However, it has not been universally accepted: 550ppm is twice the level [of carbon dioxide] that was in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution, and current understanding of the way in which the climate and natural systems work may not be reliable enough to guarantee that the degree of change under these conditions would be safe and acceptable… A lower limit of 450ppm would be a more risk-adverse maximum." p8
- Why the focus on Crosby Textor in the last paragraph of the polling methods section? In particular, what is the relevance of allegataions of previous push polling? If such an allegation has been levelled at the aviation poll, then it is fair criticism, if not it has no place in this article - move it to the (yet to be created) article on Crosby Textor. The MORI poll is enough to provide balance in this part of the article and the comparatively extended discourse on CT is irrelevant.
- "UK Department for transport forecasts show that by 2050 under current policy that aviation emissions alone aviation is likely to comprise between 33% and 70% of the UK's current target" A disingenous use of sources which, if referred to in full reveals that the Government (DfT) disagrees with the 70% figure, maintaining that 33% is the correct figure (BTW independant research from the Tyndall Centre gives the figure as between 24% and 50% - p4.
- Generally, the reporting of a Flying Matters position followed by "however..." and the environmentalist rebuttal tends to leave me feeling that the article has been written with the primary purpose of attacking Flying Matters' position rather than creating an encyclopedic article about the organisation.
PeterIto, I do not want to be disparaging about your efforts here. Some of the problems I see with this article can be overcome with some more careful use of language that provides a balanced WP:NPOV. I'm not so sure that other problems are outright WP:NPOV violations and when I get more time to review this in more detail may tag the article as such. Does any of this sound unreasonable? --FactotEm (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you for your useful and carefully worked comments, let me deal with the issues in order.
- I included Brian Wilson's role in nuclear and his associated enthusiasm for urgent cuts to CO2 emissions ro contrast with his enthusiasm for aviation expansion (and increased CO2 emissions) while wearing his FM hat. I am chasing up a reference to a comparison figure for CO2 emissions savings from 'going nuclear' in electricity generation with the expected increase from aviation which might bind the fact to the article more directly, for now I would like to leave the comment in.
- FM claims that they take 'climate change seriously', but I believe their initial choice or a chairman with such a poor reputation on environment provides a valuable insight into what they mean by that and therefore the actual objectives of the organisation. Is this innuendo? I don't think so but possibly you can suggest wording to bind it in better if you 'buy' my arguement.
- 'I am not a climate scientist'. Agreed, I will remove the reference. it's rather a 'cheap' reference anyway!
- I have made an initial response to your comments on Crosby Textor. I was wavering on the Push Polling one but agree it may well be out of place and have removed it, I have also removed the reference to the book, but have left the Quantas item in because I think the previous activities of the participants is relevant. Crosby Textor certainly justify an article, but I was hoping not to have to write it myself! possibly I am actually well placed to start it and would be happy to do so if you were able to participate to ensure balance.
- Can you fiddle with the section on aviation contribution to climate change so that you are happy with it, it sounds as though this is very much 'your bag'. Personally I would love there to be a section in Radiative forcing about the different values that different governments and government departments use for this effect around the world and within the UK. I know that Defra and the DfT currently recommend different values.
- I was reminding myself about weasle words this evening in another context and agree that 'however' could be used in this way (everything before the 'but' is bullshit etc), however!, it can also be used to genuinely expose a difference of opinion for consideration by a reader and I am not sure how to bind the article together without it; surely the point is that there is a difference of opinion and the article should expose it, reference it, and then allow the reader to make their mind up. Do please see if you can sort this out in a better way, but I personally don't like the idea of just removing the term.
- Overall I think the article would benefit from your making the changes you see fit rather than tagging. If I disagree I will respond to your changes with my own, but do please put your mark on the article and create something you are happy with, I really don't think we are a million miles apart; Currently it is just me and Flying1 (who I suspect is an employee) and it would benefit from a bigger 'genetic pool'. The article is certainly being appreciated as a useful resource by people within the campaigning sector so is certainly worth the effort. Thanks PeterIto (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still without full internet access so I can do little more than offer fly by comments and very little in the way of contributing. To respond to your response in brief...
- I still think that linking Brian Wilson's roles strays too far from the immediate topic at hand and smacks of an attempt to cast aspersions on an organisation by association. The environmentalist view of taking climate change seriously and the industry's view will never be reconciled. Both are valid positions within their respective camps and invalid positions to the opposing camp. It's not for us to try and push one above the other. There are plenty of other counter arguments available to the environmentalist camp and the inclusion of the section on Digby Jones does come across to me as tangental to the subject and more environmentalist propaganda than a reasonable statement with regards to FM.
- I'm glad you removed the 'not a climate change scientist' bit. I didn't want to be antogonistic in my initial comments, but it does indeed come across as a very cheap shot to me.
- You can handle the Crosby Textor issue in this article if a) you source it well, and b) keep it brief and in proportion. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly valid to report environmentalist doubts about the value of a poll and their own preferred poll results. That's what NPOV is all about. As you say, we just need to state opposing positions fairly and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. (BTW I don't have time to review the changes you have since made that section and I'm just arguing a point of principle here).
- I'll have a look at the climate change thing when I get a chance (though I want to get the Future... article up to FAC first, and I do like your idea of a section on public support or otherwise, where I'll be getting into trouble over various polls no doubt). However, from what little I understand of radiative forcing I think you would be a very brave man indeed to go too far down that route. Good luck to you.
- I hear you on the 'however' thing. It was one of the more difficult aspects of writing the Future... article. I agree, it is entirely valid, in fact it is required, to balance an article fairly with all major viewpoints. The use of 'however' makes for better prose but it does come across badly. I don't know whether I have succeeded in the Future... article, but I tried at all times to use words like 'assert' and 'argue', which tend to convey the opposing viewpoint without implying any kind of bias. You lose the easy flow that 'however' gives to the narrative, but you avoid POV traps which seems to me to be far more important. Have a look at WP:WTA if you haven't already had a chance to do so.
- If I had the time I would prefer to make the changes I see fit rather than just tag and run. Unfortunately this would involve a significant amount of research so tagging is the only recourse I have for now if I suspect an article is bias. Having said that, you handle my interventions well and respond positively, so I'm content to throw things in on the talk page for now.
- I would add that as far as I'm concerned when it comes to judging the quality of a contribution, Flying1's real world identity is as valid as your stated opposition to what FM stands for, which is to say, it's utterly irrelevant. It's the contribution that counts, not the personal opinion of the contributor.
- Looking forward to getting some proper internet access... --FactotEm (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have been reading about POV by synthesis, and inuendo, also about biogs of living people. I do agree that the nuclear comments are tangental and I will remove them. I will look to remove the howevers and use other devices. My point about Flying1 was purely that is was good to have 3rd perspective and a reasonably neutral one. Thanks. PeterIto (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
