Jump to content

Talk:Addicted to oil: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Add "Also see limited scope of addiction in Substance abuse." to clarify from the specific usage of the term?: Why? It's unsourced, and a self-reference, referring to the content of the wikipedia article, not the common usage of the term.
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
Add "Also see limited scope of ''addiction'' in [[Substance abuse]]." to clarify from the specific usage of the term? [[Special:Contributions/99.181.129.120|99.181.129.120]] ([[User talk:99.181.129.120|talk]]) 06:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Add "Also see limited scope of ''addiction'' in [[Substance abuse]]." to clarify from the specific usage of the term? [[Special:Contributions/99.181.129.120|99.181.129.120]] ([[User talk:99.181.129.120|talk]]) 06:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:Why? It's unsourced, and a self-reference, referring to the content of the wikipedia article, not the common usage of the term. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 06:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:Why? It's unsourced, and a self-reference, referring to the content of the wikipedia article, not the common usage of the term. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 06:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
::''Addicted'' does generally have a specific meaning, and "[[fossil fuel]] ''addiction''" is a casual slang usage. Clarification would be helpful to the reader. No need to "muddy the waters" even more for the English language, I'd say. [[Special:Contributions/209.255.78.138|209.255.78.138]] ([[User talk:209.255.78.138|talk]]) 19:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
:::It's still unsourced, and ''would'' "muddy the waters". We're referring to a phrase in Bush's speech. Our interpretation of the phrase is [[WP:OR]]. With the present focus of the article, only reliable commentary about that phrase in that speech is relevant. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
:::: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/addicted [[Special:Contributions/99.109.126.27|99.109.126.27]] ([[User talk:99.109.126.27|talk]]) 01:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::You have not refuted, or even ''attacked'', my previous statement that it's [[WP:OR]]. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

== Related use of "''addicted''"? [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html Get the Energy Sector off the Dole] ==

From [[The Washington Monthly]] Jan/Feb. 2011 ... [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1101.leonard-2.html Get the Energy Sector off the Dole] excerpt:
{{quotation|
This provides great hope that, with a level playing field, and if they do not get “addicted” to subsidies like so many other energy industries are, solar and wind will be able to compete and grow to generate some 20 to 25 percent of America’s electricity in the next few decades.
}} [[Special:Contributions/99.181.155.158|99.181.155.158]] ([[User talk:99.181.155.158|talk]]) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:Relationship to the article? — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
:Add links to [[Renewable energy]]/[[Sustainable energy]] ([[Solar power]], [[Wind power industry]], etc... ), and the [[Fossil fuels lobby]] in your quote ''99''. [[Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188|97.87.29.188]] ([[User talk:97.87.29.188|talk]]) 19:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:18, 1 August 2011

Mr. Bush did not create the term "Addicted to oil"

[edit]

This article implies that Mr. GWB coined the term. By the time the referred speech took place, it had been widely used. --Zedgim (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article merely states that Bush used the phrase, which is true. It makes no claims about who coined the phrase. Your reading more into the article than it actually says is not a reason to cast aspersions. If you have sources that document prior usage of the phrase, by all means please add them. 71.219.245.172 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

Otto4711 asked for "reliable sources that are substantially about this phrase, not just use it."

The article now cites two such sources: 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4665758.stm is titled "Bush urges end to oil 'addiction'

2. The first subsection of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4669870.stm is titled, "President Bush's State of the Union speech might well be remembered for his phrase that 'America is addicted to oil'". The second subsection is titled "Oil addiction."

Addition question ... Merchants of Doubt and Carbon pricing

[edit]

Addition question ... Merchants of Doubt and Carbon pricing 99.155.148.69 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Do you have a rationale for addition? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Also see limited scope of addiction in Substance abuse." to clarify from the specific usage of the term?

[edit]

Add "Also see limited scope of addiction in Substance abuse." to clarify from the specific usage of the term? 99.181.129.120 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's unsourced, and a self-reference, referring to the content of the wikipedia article, not the common usage of the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addicted does generally have a specific meaning, and "fossil fuel addiction" is a casual slang usage. Clarification would be helpful to the reader. No need to "muddy the waters" even more for the English language, I'd say. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still unsourced, and would "muddy the waters". We're referring to a phrase in Bush's speech. Our interpretation of the phrase is WP:OR. With the present focus of the article, only reliable commentary about that phrase in that speech is relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/addicted 99.109.126.27 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not refuted, or even attacked, my previous statement that it's WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

From The Washington Monthly Jan/Feb. 2011 ... Get the Energy Sector off the Dole excerpt:

This provides great hope that, with a level playing field, and if they do not get “addicted” to subsidies like so many other energy industries are, solar and wind will be able to compete and grow to generate some 20 to 25 percent of America’s electricity in the next few decades.

99.181.155.158 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add links to Renewable energy/Sustainable energy (Solar power, Wind power industry, etc... ), and the Fossil fuels lobby in your quote 99. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]