Talk:Global warming skepticism: Difference between revisions
→Dispute on neutrality of article: wiki guideline NPOV dispute |
TeaDrinker (talk | contribs) +reply |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
As per [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]] : ''"If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."''<br /> --[[User:Childhoodsend|Childhood's End]] 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
As per [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]] : ''"If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."''<br /> --[[User:Childhoodsend|Childhood's End]] 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Indeed, I had tried to make it clear on the talk page of the [[Talk:Global warming controversy page]]. My concern is that the inclusion of only material which is skeptical of global warming is inherently biased. If we were to include information which counters the skepticism, it would duplicate the content of [[Global warming controversy]]. While your article does indeed show a great deal of work, I think it would be better presented in context of the global warming controversy article; here is is presented without comment. |
|||
:Additionally, sentences such as "On scientific grounds, the existence of a scientific consensus on climate change is subject to some debate" tend (I think) to give undue weight to an extremely small minority. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:42, 12 January 2007
Archive 1: 2003-2004
Dispute on neutrality of article
I would have thought that along with adding a "neutrality dispute" tag on an article, reasons should be given.
Also, an article whose topic is to present the grounds on which skepticism about global warming has built or builds in the populace cannot, by its nature, be neutral towards global warming. It has to be neutral towards what is legitimate skepticism and what is not. - --Childhood's End 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute : "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."
--Childhood's End 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I had tried to make it clear on the talk page of the Talk:Global warming controversy page. My concern is that the inclusion of only material which is skeptical of global warming is inherently biased. If we were to include information which counters the skepticism, it would duplicate the content of Global warming controversy. While your article does indeed show a great deal of work, I think it would be better presented in context of the global warming controversy article; here is is presented without comment.
- Additionally, sentences such as "On scientific grounds, the existence of a scientific consensus on climate change is subject to some debate" tend (I think) to give undue weight to an extremely small minority. --TeaDrinker 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)