Talk:350.org/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Oversight of this page

I will be making an appeal for outside help if admin buttons are used by any involved editor on this page during content disputes. ► RATEL ◄ 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, remove trivia. Why is the list of affiliated agencies and events notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You removed a hell of a lot more than that. You're rejecting my offer of collaboration, Arthur. ► RATEL ◄ 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It's still trivia. Listing of "friends" should not be here, listing of events by country should not be here. Listing the types of events supported, with references, seems reasonable, but the list of 5 tree-planting events that I removed previously should never have been here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add the trivia unless you can find consensus that it belongs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You decided on these major deletions of material (that I added a while ago, and cited properly) without any discussion or consensus seeking. You are now edit warring the page. You have a long history of blocks for edit warring, but you seem to have learned little from it. You need to find consensus to remove, not to include. It's all been there for a while. YOU are the only editor removing the data, so saying I am the only one trying to add it back in is risible. ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, "events by type: and "events by country" should not be both present. Please clear out one or the other. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this your idea of consensus-seeking? ► RATEL ◄ 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are the only editor adding the data. I fail to see consensus either way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Need for 350ppm article

It's obvious that wp needs a page on 350ppm. There are thousands of references to it in the media that do not belong on the 350 (org) page. That's something for someone here to do, someone who is not adding to this page, perhaps. Hint. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's notable. I'm almost convinced that this organisation is not notable. If the anon editor would stop adding wikilinks whenever one organisation mentions another, there would be time to verify substative edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thousands of current references to the desirability of 350ppm means that we either should have an article on "climate change and the ppm question" (you can think of a better title, or the "350ppm goal", or somesuch. I think that while the notability of 350 (org) was marginal for a while, it will gain impetus and notability over time. It's certainly notable enough for it's own page now. I have a GNEWS alert on 350.org and I get big lists of links every day. ► RATEL ◄ 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Arthur, we can turn our disastrous meeting into a success if you start a new article and edit it fairly. I'm prepared to help you set it up and maintain it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to split out some of the sections about the 350 ppm goal from this article to a new article. As a title, perhaps it would be wise to seek comments from the appropriate wikiproject(s), but I would generally lead toward "Climate change and CO2 targets". (Yes, it is possible for the 2 to display as a subscript, even when the article name is Climate change and CO2 targets.)
As for notability; because of what might charitably be called spam here and on blogs, it's difficult to focus on discussion in reliable sources about the organisation and goal, as opposed to sources about the spam. But I'll defer comment, although some of the auxilliary organisations and slogans linked here probably should be merged to an already-existing article, or the new 350 ppm article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for merging offshoots and slogans into this article. But despite the blogspam, PR and McKibben's shameless self-promotion, 350.org is a notable organisation, if only because so many people are getting involved in its activities. I suspect notability will soar later this month and post-Copenhagen. We'll see. If it does not, and the GNEWS alerts fall to little or nothing in the year ahead, I'll join you in suggesting a merge with McKibben's page. About the more general article: I like the title you have there; perhaps pass it by someone senior in the wikiproject and let's see where it goes. ► RATEL ◄ 04:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This [1] is a sobering source for the new page. Note the sentence The current focus on CO2 concentrations like 450 ppm or 350 ppm is the not the right approach since it is the total cumulative emissions that determine how warm the planet will get, Allen told the conference. . ► RATEL ◄ 06:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Marketing campaign/ lobbying group

The cited trivia that is being disputed can be seen as a part of a marketing campaign, and really, at the end of the day that is largely what the 350 organization is. They are marketing their idea about 350 ppm of CO2 being a reasonable amount of CO2 for sustainability. Their efforts to spread this message are their objective. I would suggest rewriting the lede to make this clear... as in using terms like "marketing campaign" and so on. The lede makes them sound like a scientific organization, which they are not, rather a lobbying group, and that is why the trivia causes content problems. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this clear: you want us to tell readers that a promotional organisation is promoting something? Oookaaay. But the use of the word marketing is absurd. The concept of marketing involves commerce. ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting stuff to make the article more neutral. Above all, I believe following the sources closely is the right thing to do. On the 350.org website they state in their mission statement: "350.org is an international campaign dedicated to building a movement to unite the world around solutions to the climate crisis--the solutions that science and justice demand." The term "Marketing" is nowhere to be found in relation with 350.org, so no need. BTW, why not call the organization 350.org as everyone else seems to be doing? Varks Spira (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you are onto something with suggesting a rename, if that's what you're doing, of this article to 350.org. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I wasn't suggesting that. You mean 350 (organisation) to 350.org? Might be a good idea, though. Varks Spira (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Rename done. I thought it was a good idea a couple weeks ago, but now there seems a clear consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't read this carefully before I posted. The idea that "marketing" implies commerce is absurd, just as much as the idea that non-commercial links cannot be spam or WP:SPAM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope the links around wikipedia to 350 (organisation) have been updated. Or are you letting them redirect through to the new page? The word "marketing" derives from Latin word mercātus meaning trading, and relates to sales. To use it in the context of what in some senses amounts to an anti-industrial lobby group is grotesque. ► RATEL ◄ 09:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to update the links, in most cases. I'm afraid it's not automatic, and I can't seem to use AWB, probably due to a IE version incompatibility, but the 10 or 15 links probably should be changed. Certainly, any #See also's should be changed. I'll see what I can do. Done (I think).
It appears that there isn't a good word for actions which would be "marketing" except that the "product" is an idea, rather than a commercial concept. After checking some dictionaries, I'm forced to agree that "marketing" refers only to commercial products and services. The expression "I'm not buying it" suggests that that word applies to ideas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Add *Rajendra Pachauri endorses 350 ppm, not as IPCC chair but “as a human being”

Add Joseph J. Romm comments on the potential to achieve "350" Rajendra Pachauri endorses 350 ppm, not as IPCC chair but “as a human being”

Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al November 9, 2008

An open letter to James Hansen on the real truth about stabilizing at 350 ppm November 23, 2008

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated) March 26, 2009 99.184.231.155 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read it, and its links. Also check out the now & future USA vision [2] Obama at MIT today. 99.184.231.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

I see no potential significance to this article, but some to a possible article on the 350 ppm target. (One of those links failed my virus scanner, so I'm not going to look at it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The first one is not notable to either Romm nor Pachauri, and it's not a credible source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it was the link, and not some other cause? Better see someone who knows what they are talking about. 99.184.231.155 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already, look into Honeypot (computing), etc ... 99.184.231.155 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

http://climateprogress.org generates improper HTML, which causes my primary browser (Opera) to correctly report the document is corrupted. It appears not to be a virus, but WP:ELNO suggests that links that don't work in a number of broswers should be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN views 350.org website as a Reliable Source ... [3]

CNN views 350.org website as a Reliable Source ... [4] .... International day of demonstrations on climate change; October 24, 2009 1:10 p.m. EDT

The Wanaka Wastebusters gather at a local ski mountain in New Zealand to call for 350 to protect their snow.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS Global demonstrations taking place calling for climate change action + In all, more than 5,400 rallies scheduled around the world + '350' refers to the parts per million of carbon dioxide considered safe upper limit for our atmosphere. ... London, England (CNN) -- From seabeds to mountaintops, people around the world were staging a day of demonstrations Saturday to call for urgent action on climate change. The events were being coordinated by a group called 350.org, whose name refers to the parts per million of carbon dioxide it considers the safe upper limit for our atmosphere. The group said it wants to "inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis" ahead of the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. Divers at the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and in the ocean off the Maldives held banners with the 350 logo. Skiers and snowboarders formed the number 350 on a snow-covered slope in Wanaka, New Zealand, and hikers unfurled a 350 banner atop Vinson Massif, the tallest mountain in Antarctica. Other events around the world were planned for Saturday, from Britain and Zimbabwe to Bermuda and Guatemala, according to 350.org. In all, more than 5,400 rallies and demonstrations were scheduled to take place around the world, all of them centered on the number 350, the group said. "We had no idea we would get the overwhelming support, enthusiasm and engagement from all over the world that we're seeing," said Bill McKibben, a writer and environmentalist who founded 350.org. "It shows just how scared of global warming much of the planet really is, and how fed up at the inaction of our leaders." I believe climate change is the 21st century's greatest human rights and security challenge --Mohamed Nasheed, President of the Maldives [5] The number of 350 ppm originally came from a NASA research team headed by American climate scientist James Hansen, which surveyed both real-time climate observations and emerging paleo-climatic data in January 2008, according to 350.org. It concluded that atmosphere containing carbon dioxide above 350 ppm couldn't support life on earth as we know it, the group said. "It's a very tough number," McKibben said. "We're already well past it -- the atmosphere holds 390 ppm today, which is why the Arctic is melting and the ocean steadily acidifying. To get back to the safe level we need a very rapid halt to the use of coal, gas and oil so that forests and oceans can absorb some of that carbon." McKibben and Hansen are "messengers" for 350.org, along with prominent leaders and climate change campaigners including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Bianca Jagger and David Suzuki. "I believe climate change is the 21st century's greatest human rights and security challenge," said Maldives President Mohammed Nasheed, who is one of the messengers. His country, an archipelago of 1,200 islands, is threatened with disappearing under water if sea levels continue to rise. "If we cannot save 350,000 Maldivians from rising seas today, we cannot save the millions in New York, London, or Mumbai tomorrow," he said in a recorded statement released by 350.org. "Climate change is happening, and it is happening faster and with greater severity than previously thought." 99.155.145.26 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote (which is almost certainly a copyright violation) doesn't support the statement that CNN views 350.org as a reliable source. Furthermore, reliability is not inherited; we must make the decision as to whether sources are reliable as we define it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If CNN quoted the 350.org website for their story, they checked its reliability, thus CNN found 350.org to be a Reliable Source. Myself, among CNN's viewers, would certainly take their word and reference over you, which you strangely call "we". 99.190.91.212 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, and wrong. If CNN quoted the 350.org for their story, (and it's a real news story, and the author isn't a 350.org messenger), then they belive that the parts of 350.org that they quoted are reliable sources for what they (CNN) wrote. It does not mean that they consider any other part of 350.org reliable, nor that we may consider any part of 350.org reliable; if the CNN article is "real", we can quote that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your list of Reliable Sources, User:Arthur Rubin? 99.190.91.212 (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:RS. WP:RS#Usage by other sources suggests guidelines for the sort of thing you're proposing, but it also states that we must be careful that other guidelines are followed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You often assume too much; just curious to "your list" as you seem to have strong opinions, as evidenced by your bolded letters, italics, pejorative, self-lofty comments; deleting without discussion ... so it seems you have a quick cut list, or an agenda maybe ... if you have a partial list of the sources you are partial to it would save time, as "you" have pre-approved them ... but maybe you just delete capriciously? Or is that an [[aka] question. No "we" questions for you here. 99.190.91.212 (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it clear that 350.org's statements as to their lists of supporters are inherently not reliable, even if reputable organisations believe them. (Those statements would be unreliable even if the were otherwise a reliable source.) . As to other statements, they don't meet any of the specific sections of WP:RS; they can be used as a source for their goals, per WP:SELF, but not really for anything else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Event NYT [6]

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/24/world/20091025-THREEFIFTY_index.html New York Times additional events of "24-October-2009": 1) At the Sydney Opera House in Australia, activists form a human "350," which some scientists call the upper limit for heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in parts per million. Over 4,300 similar demonstrations were organized around the world on Saturday in a campaign to rein in the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. ... note see above for over-5,000 events ... Photo: Tim Cole/European Pressphoto Agency 2) A woman in Hong Kong's central district. In a campaign organized by the environmental movement 350.org, activists are pressing the world's leaders to reach a climate change accord at talks in Copenhagen in December. 3) Boats in Srinagar, Kashmir. Organizers said their goal was to illustrate the urgent need to cut emissions by pointing out that the world passed the 350 mark two decades ago. The current concentration of carbon dioxide is 387 parts per million. Photo: Danish Ismail/Reuters. 4) Ukrainian women in traditional costumes sang folk songs at a demonstration. Photo: Efrem Lukatsky/Associated Press 5) While agreeing that unabated emissions pose serious risks, some scientists and economists focusing on climate policy said the 350 target was so unrealistic that the campaign risked not being taken seriously — or could even convey the wrong message. Left, Vietnamese students streamed through Hanoi's streets on bicycles. Photo: Chitose Suzuki/Associated Press 6) To signal that time is running out for a warming planet, French activists clutched alarm clocks and mobile phones at a protest at the Bourse, the former stock exchange in central Paris. Photo: Francois Mori/Associated Press. 7) Greenpeace activists formed a warning sign at the Circus Maximus, the ancient stadium in Rome. Photo: Riccardo De Luca/Associated Press. 8) Wearing masks imprinted with the image of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, roughly 350 demonstrators gathered in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. They declared that they were "looking for a climate chancellor" who would push for a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Photo: Caroline Pankert/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images. 9) Kathleen Jordan, of New York, left, and others participate in an International Day of Climate Action rally on Saturday in New York's Times Square. Photo: Tina Fineberg/Associated Press. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.145.26 (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Add 350 in Scientific American, example [8]

Add 350.org in Scientific American, example [9] ... October 23, 2009 Can A Number Solve the Climate Change Conundrum? Organizers of 350 Day aim to stabilize the planet and prevent disaster. Turns out many more are paying attention than expected. By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate "As of Thursday morning some 4,317 actions and rallies are planned in 171 countries, with 300 events in China, 1500 across the United States, 500-plus in Central and South America." ... with examples ..."The Earth last saw 350 ppm in 1987, when President Reagan was in office; the molecule hangs in the atmosphere for centuries; ..."Momentum is building for a lower target, particularly as more data and better computer models become available. Last month several of the prominent climatologists and ecologists published a study in the journal Nature calling for the need to set planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed. The 350 ppm threshold was one. "These are rates of change that cannot continue without significantly eroding the resilience of major components of Earth-system functioning," they wrote." ... "This article was first published at DailyClimate.org." Also of interest to readers of this article maybe http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag/ as this month's issue ("November 2009") is entitled "A Plan for a Sustainable Future" with articles such as A Plan to Power 100% of the Planet with Renewables, The Future of Climate Policy Could Be Found in Copenhagen, and Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph, A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures. Per the main article (renewables) are/will be "As Cheap as Coal". 99.190.91.212 (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. That might (I said, might) justify putting that Scientific American as an external link for the nonexistant 350 ppm article. ("350 Day" needs to be references, as we don't have anything about it in or related to 350.org.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Add 350.org in Worldchanging http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010656.html ...

Add 350.org in Worldchanging http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010656.html ... 99.190.91.212 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not likely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Traverse City Michigan event, example coverage: http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_297005552.html

Add Traverse City Michigan event, example coverage: http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_297005552.html 99.190.91.212 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly non-notable, even to Traverse City, Michigan. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave in Greenfield, MA 350.org Event Incident

Since there are a whole list of *future* "positive" things listed, such as kids making pretty things, people on bikes with fancy armbands, and people planting trees, I thought it would not be out-of-line to list a negative event that *actually* occurred at a 350.org demonstration. It's hard on the one hand to say that this event wasn't related to 350.org but then include all these other events that are just as related. There are plenty of mentions of negative signs in the articles on Tea Party and 9/12 demonstrations. Did the organizers of those events intend for those signs to be there? No. Are they worth mentioning? Yes. It's pretty notable that one of these events featured a threat to a person. Bounties on private citizens don't go up every day. This article is a lot like an ad, but I guess that's the intent of the most persistent Wikipedia editors. If it puts them in a positive light, it's totally relevant and notable. If negative, it's not notable and totally tangential.Moonbatssuck (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If all the "positive" results of the demonstrations are listed, so should the negative. I could go either way, dropping all details as to the planned and actual events, or including relevant, interesting details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, lookee lookee, an admin agreeing with a vandal who 3RRed the page today and now wants to smear 350.org with the unrelated actions of a sociopath. FFS, this has nothing to do with the group and will not stay. ► RATEL ◄ 07:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears he did violate 3RR, but the edit is appropriate. I'm not going to say it violates WP:BLP to exclude it, but it does seem WP:UNDUE weight to include all the events which have only positive coverage and exclude an event with negative coverate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If it is to be removed, then any actual activity from 2009-10-24 should be excluded, leaving only the planned activities. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence this had anything to do with the organizers? Because if not, you are smearing the organization by including it. There is also the issue of undue weight. There were around 5000 events, and you want to shoehorn the satirical actions of some imbecile at one event onto our short page? You have got to be kidding! ► RATEL ◄ 08:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think the event listings were notable, anyway, but ecoterrorism (yes, it is appropriate) at a 350.org event is notable, even if it's clear the organisation didn't encourage it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This needs a RfC, I think. ► RATEL ◄ 09:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably more than one question in the RFC. Whether the "event" listings are appropriate, and whether the incident is appropriate, are two different questions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Taxpayer March on Washington and Talk:Taxpayer March on Washington. This discussion has been had. Negative actions/signs by attendees or semi-organizers are included. It appears that User:Ratel has an agenda to keep anything that "smears" this organization out, even if it is notable/verifiable. The FBI is investigating the crime because there have been several "direct actions" (i.e. eco-terrorism) at biomass projects throughout New England. We also do not *know* that 350.org organizers were not behind this. They simply denied it once a reporter and police officer got on their case. The anti-biomass activists are motivated by the 350.org-type goal of reducing carbon emissions. There seems to be a large enough nexus of facts (signs *at* 350.org event, carbon-related, similar crimes, etc.) that it bears inclusion. Somehow I find a federal investigation being sparked at *this event* to be slightly more notable than some kids with chalk or people with armbands. Again, this article seems like an advertisement from start (the worship of this NASA guy) to the end (gratuitous self-praise). --Moonbatssuck (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated info

If and when the page is reopened for editing, this may be useful: http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/wwlp_local_FBI_probes_biomass_wanted_poster_200910282030 It updates the number of posters.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I see that edit warring has resumed and that multiple parties are involved. The article is protected for at least two weeks, or until you all figure out a consensus version. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. (Without checking which version was protected. If I added after you set the protection, please feel free to revert.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I pulled back last night to see what would happen. Hard to have a "consensus" when things are split 2-2 in a sense. It's a pity that no "outside" editors got involved on this RfC thing. Seemed like a neat idea. I still think the middle ground here is one sentence on the incident, to avoid too much weight or excluding it altogether. Anyway, hopefully some people others will drop by and give it fresh eyes.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, everyone here (except Jerochman) has been locked in an edit war. We've all been reported. I think we all have our opinions but we need to find something that at least a little for all of us. Not sure what reporting anyone for 3RR does in this situation besides "getting back" at the other person.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend not reporting each other. There are multiple editors here who could be blocked for edit warring. You may get hung on your own petards. It would be better to establish a consensus. The current version has a short summary of the incident. I personally don't read that content as a smear on the organization. It tells me that the organization is involved in something where feelings run high, and probably this is an important cause to people on both (or more) sides. Does anybody think that content needs to be expanded or removed entirely? If so, why? Jehochman Talk 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about my 3RR report of Ratel, which was only a technical violation of 3RR, although still clearly an edit war. Still, the loony batty editor was clearly in violation of 3RR, so balance suggests all violators on the same article should be considered, although I recommended no action be taken, per your (Jehochman's) recommendation that no action be taken against batty. I did also violate 3RR, because I wasn't paying attention after Ratel clearly violated what I thought we had agreed to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I read the current text as a smear on 350.org. By saying that ecoterrorists associate with 350.org, Wikipedia is implying that 350.org associates with ecoterrorists. The incident (viz., at an event sponsored by 350.org, anonymously created posters were found, and 350.org disavowed the posters) is notable, but it belongs on the ecoterrorism page. --Dr.enh (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I consider that nonsense, but I've said that earlier. The fact that (actually, it doesn't say ecoterrorists, so we can't say it in the article) those people were at a 350.org-associated event was reported in reliable sources, and it seems appropriate for balance. Unlike another page where I'm arguing for exclusion, a single reliable source reported both the activity and such association is correct, so there's no potential WP:SYNTH or WP:OR violation. One could argue WP:UNDUE weight, but I don't think two sentences among about a dozen paragraphs about events of that day is WP:UNDUE. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
How is it a "smear?" It happened at a 350.org event. Things happen at these events and they're not always good press for the organizers. I'm just suggesting that's silly to suggest that this is a smear. It's as much as smear as (and I know other stuff exists, etc. etc.) putting up the nutty yet unofficial 9/12 signs. This is especially so because the posters in question are related to C02 issues. If these posters talked about saving the whales, then I could see them as totally unrelated. I argue for including it in a brief, neutral fashion and letting readers draw their own conclusion. As Arthur Rubin notes above, it violates no policies and is actually better sourced than much of the other info in the article. By the way, no one is suggesting that the term ecoterrorism be included anywhere in the article. That is a strawman. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There seem to be three main sticking points on this article:

1. Is the article too long? 2. Is the article too promotional of 350.org 3. Does the inclusion of positive events take precedence over negative events. Specifically, can a possible criminal "wanted poster" be mentioned in this article?

All ideas welcome and respected. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Comments

Previously involved editor MoonHoaxBat

My position on number 3 is that negative signs have gotten significant ink on the Taxpayer March on Washington page and certain other demonstrations. I feel as if the consistent efforts to remove an incident associated with a 350.org event demonstrates bias. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Red herring. This talk page is not about Taxpayer March on Washington. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editor Ratel

  1. This editor has used 3 sock accounts (MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs), Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs) and Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs)) to edit war over information unrelated to 350.org, namely this incident [10] Including this minor, non-notable event perpetrated by someone unknown to 350.org violates undue weight concerns.
  2. There are no peacock terms in the article and no sentences that can be called "promotional" in the article.
  3. Citing the Taxpayer March on Washington article as reason for doing anything on this page is just wp:otherstuffexists and not relevant. ► RATEL ◄ 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Thank you, Ratel, for correcting this first RfC. I have never done one before and realize that I did not format it correctly. I appreciate you fixing it.
  2. These are not sockpuppets. Two senior administrators suggested that I change my username, which was unintentionally offensive to some. My first change was not enough. I changed it once again and they both agreed that this would work. They wished me well. The name changes were at the requests of admins, so I don't think this should be held against me.
  3. I agree that the relevance of other pages to this page is limited, but not nil. The standard used at the Taxpayer March on Washington was well-argued on its talk page and is the most contemporary example to follow.
  4. The larger issue for me, is whether the incident I added is notable in the context of all the other events done by 350.org. If chalk drawings, tree plantings, and bike riding (all local, discrete events) are included, then this possibly criminal event should be included. If it is not, then none of the local events should be included.
  5. The threat happened at a 350.org event. Nowhere else. Even if the organizers claim not to know, the 350.org even attracted the people who did this. We're talking about a threat to a person, posted in a school. If anti-abortion groups held an anti-abortion rally at a public school and ten abortionist "dead or alive wanted posters" showed up, it would definitely be notable. The posters about this man targeted him because biomass creates C02 emissions, which is not tangential to the mission of 350.org.
  6. Ratel's argument is that we shouldn't "smear" (his word) this noble organization by including something the organization claims not to have done. The standard he posits is along the lines of only printing what the organizers of a demonstration say, not what happens there. That doesn't work for me. The organization has 350.org to express its views. This is a factual encyclopedic article. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to protect anyone's reputation from notable and verifiable information.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You have 3rr-ed this article twice in 2 days. That is not good faith editing but POV-pushing, as your pejorative choices of usernames indicates. You now ignore the wp:otherstuffexists guidelines with a display of wp:HEAR. Epic fail. ► RATEL ◄ 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ratel. Thank you for joining the discussion. I know that you and Dr.enh basically planned on his talk page to avoid the 3RR rule by spitting the reverts between you two. I could assume bad faith, here but I won't. I notice that almost all of your edits are in defense of global warming organizations, but I won't assume bad faith. I am not POV-pushing. If this does not rise to the level of notability, what would? Would someone need to actually be killed at one of these events? Come on, you know that a death threat towards someone involved in the CO2 industry at an anti-CO2 rally is noteworthy. If the posters said, "Bob Dylan: Wanted Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Pittsburgh" I would agree. But they said the biomass developer's name, then "Wanted Dead or Alive for Crimes Against The Environment..." and then ranted about CO2. Adding to the notability is that this is the latest in threats/violence against biomass development in New England, hence the FBI involvement. As for the "epic fail" thing, try some civility. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
MoonHoaxBat, please stop making unjustified accusations. WP:CIVIL I planned nothing. Ratel placed text on my talk page, not me. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I should have phrased it differently. The fact remains though that he wrote on your page that his plan was to keep "persevering" until an RfC could be opened, where you would prevail. "Persevering" sounds a lot like POV to me, but I don't assume bad faith.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You two don't appear likely to convince the other. Why don't you both stop, and wait and see what some uninvolved editors say. You might also try WP:3O. Jehochman Talk 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't want to get labeled a sockpuppet and then banned. Was gonna let it be until I saw the first response. Agree that we need outside input. That's why I support not doing any more edits to the page itself until some consensus can develop.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless you want to claim that User:Ratel and User:Dr.enh are the same, there are more than two editors, so WP:3O is not appropriate. This RfC looks as if it is the proper venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editor User:Arthur Rubin

Actually, there aren't many WP:PEACOCK terms, but most of article is promotional, partially due to the attachment of anything related to the number 350 by the 99.* IPs who don't speak (or, at least, write) English very well. However, I see no reason why the section MoonHoaxBat wants to add is not relevant and adequately sourced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include garbage, but I see no reason not to include information on possible ecoterrorists associating themselves with 350.org, even if the organisation didn't encourage them. One sentence in an otherwise promotional article doesn't seem to constitute WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

  1. I don't think the article is too long. The event listing may not be suitable for the article, but not because of length.
  2. The article is promotional.
  3. The "negative event" in question is adequately sourced, appropriate for the article, and doesn't seem to be WP:UNDUE weight, as it's only one sentence. I'm not sure all the "positive events" are adequately sourced. I'm now leaning toward many of them being notable, although not all. The #Tree planting section needs to be trimmed. Sorry, that was done last week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to include text on ecoterrorists, put it in ecoterrorist. This article is about 350.org. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
We include information on murderers associating themselves with anti-abortion groups, without a claim being made that all of them (or even, the ones the murderers associate themselves with) encourage murder. Why is it inappropriate to note that ecoterrorists associate themselves with (at least one) 350.org events? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Dr.enh, please clarify. Assume this does go on the ecoterrorism page. Are you saying that it would make sense to list 350.org as the sponsor of the event? Or should it be some anonymous, spontaneous event with no organizer or sponsor given?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Stick to the reliable source. Put it on the ecoterrorism page. The posters were created anonymously. The posters were found at an event sponsored by 350.org. 350.org denied any involvement. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It was not an event "sponsored" by 350.org. It *was* a 350.org event. I think it's notable that a federal investigation was started because of something at a 350.org event. Certainly more so than some of the other "notable" planned events listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonHoaxBat (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The festival was organized by someone unconnected to 350.org [11] In addition, you have no proof that the FBI have started an investigation. ► RATEL ◄
  1. The calendar entry is not proof, or even strong evidence, of anything more than that the person who submitted the calendar entry believed that Sandra was organizing the event. (It isn't proof of that, but it is evidence.)
  2. The 3200-3500 events which 350.org claims credit for were also (probably) organized by persons unconnected to 350.org. If this argument were to apply, only those events organized by 350.org should be included in the article, both in the count (although I have no idea who to verify those events) and in the body of the article.
  3. I concur that we don't know, at least with respect to sources I've found, that the FBI has started an investigation, only that they were requested to do so by the local police.
  4. We actually don't have a statement that 350.org has disclaimed responsibly for the placards (yet) in the article, only that Sandra has disclaimed responsibility. That would require a separate source, although I don't doubt it will appear shortly if required.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Ratel is wrong. See http://www.350.org/about/blogs/i-said-below-were-still-trying-understand-what-happened-saturday and http://www.350.org/action-list?country=All&city=greenfield. Clearly coordinated with 350.org. Ratel seems to not want any "smear" that could harm Bill McKibben. First he (Ratel) claimed that the signs were not put together by the organizers. Now it's that the event itself was not associated with 350.org. The truth is that the posters were at a 350-affiliated event (pics of it on their website, AFTER the posters were found, showing some level of event endorsement) and that's an inconvenient truth. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(takes deep breath) Every one of the 4000-5000 events was logged by the person organizing it on the 350.org site. I could have done the same thing. The psychologist who organized the Greenfield event has no link to 350.org other than visiting their website. Pictures are also uploaded by the public. You are wrong on every score. ► RATEL ◄ 16:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If accurate, this would prove one of my other points; http://www.350.org is not reliable. Hence we could not use it (or even legitimate sources quoting it), even in this article. I'm not sure which of you is correct, but this article has serious problems either way.
On the other hand, the 350.org webmaster would have had plenty of time to remove references to the Greenfield event if they wanted to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editor dr.enh

A possible criminal "wanted poster" be mentioned in this article if there is a reliable source indicating that 350.org was somehow involved in the creation or distribution of the poster. Otherwise, no. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion to RfC

  • In light of the clear evidence I presented in my previous comment of the Greenfield High School event being organized by a private citizen (Sandra Boston, who is "the founder of the Conscious Communication Institute, a community organizer, a psychotherapist, and a member of the Global Civic Society." [12] ) and with her having no known connection to 350.org other than that she supports the 350.org cause, and since consensus is with me thus far, I say we strike the wanted poster incident from the page and otherwise leave the content as is. Comments? ► RATEL ◄ 07:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    1. Consensus is not at all clear.
    2. I see clear evidence there that whoever submitted the calendar entry believe(d) Sandra is organizing the event, nothing more.
Hence, I oppose this "conclusion". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
We know you oppose the conclusion, we expect that. But this is a smear that attempts to link 350.org and therefore McKibben and his colleagues with terrorism, death threats and FBI investigations, so it must not stand. Do you need more confirmation that this lady organised the event? Here it is. I think we need to move on now. ► RATEL ◄ 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
So, we would then need to remove all other events from this article which were not organized by 350.org itself. I don't know how many that leaves; probably none. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me help you here: the subtle difference is that the items organized and co-ordinated by 350.org, even if at arms length (some of them, we know not how many), should be mentioned since they reflect the clearly stated efforts and intentions of the group. However, this reflection of intention does not extend to smears by association. I can't see why you'd have difficulty understanding this. ► RATEL ◄ 09:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a plausible difference. although I think it inappropriate. However, it follows we must remove the claims are not so restricted, including the counts of associated events, even if adequately sourced. If this event was one of the 3500 planned events, and incidents at the event are not included, then neither should the "3500". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not averse to rationalizing the many events listed for a past Day of Climate Action into a summarizing paragraph. But I think the ongoing activities, like getting 350 trees planted at a time in hundreds, if not thousands, of places around the world, represents a lot of human effort, time and cost and should not be excluded or downplayed. ► RATEL ◄ 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Who cares how much "human effort" went into certain events? That's not a measure of notability. There are plenty of people who run landscaping companies that plant thousands of trees a year. Also, as there are pictures, event listings, and other information for the Greenfield event (i.e. http://www.350.org/action-list?country=All&city=greenfield) from before AND after the posters were put up, it's fair to say that the 350.org Climate Carnival was a 350.org event. Just as much as the Friends of the Earth of the Middle East event listed was a 350.org event. They claim credit for the Greenfield event as one of their thousands of events. The use of a local coordinator does not suddenly make it a non 350.org event. Every large movement uses local coordinators. Do you think the Tea Party people or Code Pink organized every local event from a central office?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
When people donate time and money to plant tens of thousands of trees around the world, and this is reported in reputable sources (as here), it is notable. I've corrected your misapprehensions about the connections to local organizers above. Lastly, your tendentious editing of the page and your clear crusade to nail 350.org makes you unsuitable for editing here. The page needs dispassionate and collegiate input. Please change your attitude or bow out. ► RATEL ◄ 16:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Shorten that. Things are notable when reported widely. How much effort people apply is irrelevant. We are not motivated by sympathy for effort. We have to take the entire body of reliable reporting on this organization and summarize it into an article. When summarizing we need to keep different issues in proportion to the original coverage by reliable sources. We don't pick and choose small issues and turn them into big issues. I have no conclusion on the right amount of coverage, if any, for the ecoterrorism coincidence. Most likely it should get very minimal coverage, if any, given that it is tangential to the main coverage of the organization. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you want "widely" reported on the tree plantings? Try that. ► RATEL ◄ 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As per comments above, trivia removed and slur too. ► RATEL ◄ 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. One two-sentence paragraph is minimal coverage. I tend to think that it shouldn't go over 2 sentences, even if an FBI investigation were held. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You have no consensus to include, AR. I have tried to meet you half way, but you are seemingly not trying to co-operatively edit this page. ► RATEL ◄ 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was going to remove my comment, but, thinking it over, more sections need to be removed. Perhaps one section covering all activities, with no individual activities listed, would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't see the point. Those are low level subheads that break the page up, and without them it may become a jumble. I've already excluded lots and lots of reports that simply replicate the data on the page with other examples, so don't imagine that's all there is. The page reads fairly well as is. I'm sure there are other pages elsewhere in dire condition ... in fact, I know there are. Aren't you wasting your talents here? ► RATEL ◄ 17:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You've trimmed only events related to the International Day of Climate Action, not other activities of the organization. That is unreasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's all I offered above, and you said nothing then, so don't start singing a new tune now. I get updates in my mailbox about 350.org every day and I can and will add more and more notable data about them as time passes. So far from cutting this page down to a stub, it will be growing. ► RATEL ◄ 17:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't assume bad faith, but that sounds a lot like POV to me, Ratel. So are literally waiting for their newsletter to roll in each day so you can add to their Wiki page?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That 'is POV; you've agreed to trim the only notable thing that they've done, the International Day of Climate Action, because including that would require inclusion of the terrorism reference. I'm going to revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There is certainly no consensus to exclude the reference to Greenfield. I would have accepted a signficant trim in all of 350.org's activity listings, but not a directed trim in order to exclude what might be called non-postive material. It's not negative, as there is no visible claim that 350.org or the local contact was involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of order. You can't open an RFC one day and conclude it the next. If you want true outside opinion, you need to let the RFC run its full course. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons to delete posters incident

  1. Covered in very few minor news sources [13]
  2. Event loosely associated with 350.org via the rubric "350.org". Nobody who works for the group was present
  3. Even the organizer of the event, who does not work for 350.org, did not know about the posters, which further alienates the posters from any association with the group
  4. wp:undue applies: there are literally thousands of events linked to 350.org that are not mentioned on the page
  5. Fails wp:n because there is no evidence this is anything more than a bad joke followed by an overreaction from an attention-seeking local policeman
  6. Completely fails wp:NTEMP so far. So unless something big transpires, it's just trivial pap.
  7. Opposition from several editors, so no consensus exists to include
  8. Edited in by a clearly POV-pushing wp:TEND editor whose usernames loudly declare his Jihad against the organisations like 350.org
  9. Only strong support comes from Arthur Rubin, whose only actions to this page, ever, have been to delete items or scale them down, and to propose the page for a merge into Bill McKibben. Rubin wants to see this page minimized or deleted or downscaled to a mere section on McKibben's page. That's his only input, for weeks now. This is the first time he's supported an inclusion, and not surprisingly it's negative material that could be considered defamatory-by-association.

The case is clear. ► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if the arguments were consistent with Wikipedia policies, which I don't agree with:
  • Points 1, 2, and 3 apply to most of the events listed in the article.
  • Points 4, 5 (planting 350 trees sounds like a bad joke, also) and 6 also apply to most of the article.
  • Actually, point 8 applies to most of the article, as well, as most of the info was added by the floating 99. anon.
  • Point 9 is also false. I edited in some events which were mangled by the 99. anon, although I didn't think them particularly notable.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Covered by The Republican (Newhouse Newspapers) and The Recorder (Newspapers of New England), two old, liberal, and reputable outfits. Also merited a condemnation from the current editorial board of The Recorder, which is very liberal. The publisher emeritus (who edited the Concord Monitor) also wrote a special column to condemn the posters and their connection to the anti-biomass organization. LIN-owned WWLP Channel 22, an NBC affiliate, also covered the story. The story also got a mention on NECN. In total, hundreds of thousands of readers and viewers across New England heard about the event.
  2. No one who works for the group is present at 98% of these events. They are a grassroots organization, so organizing is done at the local level, with support provided by HQ (i.e. 350.org website). No different than the Tea Parties or Code Pink.
  3. The organizer claimed that she didn't know about the posters. In fact, everyone is claiming that no one knew about the posters, even though the local 350.org people provided an anti-biomass booth.
  4. wp:undue applies: then there should be no individual events listed, because thousands of others are not.
  5. So you demonize the police for doing their job? Yes, obviously this is just something drummed up by an "overzealous cop" (evidence, please). Another smearster? The slur conspiracy widens!
  6. The fact that a police station in Mass., not exactly the center of right-wing paranoia, submitted the issue to the FBI demonstrates that it's not trivial. Any more than wanted posters of an abortionist at a pro-life rally would be "trivial."
  7. Consensus has yet to emerge. Some editors will oppose virtually anything in an article. Should Arthur and I be able to filibuster the existence of the page itself? Opposition by a few editors is not a good justification for not including info.
  8. If you don't get my username, please look up the Great Moon Hoax. I regret that you assume the worst about people.
  9. Isn't Arthur as entitled to his opinion as anyone else? I think he was trying to prevent this organization (which Ratel claims doesn't do anything) from getting a free brochure on Wikipedia. Realistically, the article should be about three paragraphs long. But if you insist that it ramble, let's at least have it ramble in a balanced fashion.

--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:350.org/Archive_2"