User talk:Jc-S0CO/Archives/2007/11

"Few"
The thing about "few" in global warming is that the source is an editorial. Its an opinion. Pov. But its a pov that the article writers love. So they strictly refuse to accept edits that are NPOV on this matter. If you stick around you will see what I mean. --Blue Tie 07:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only is it not NPOV, it also fails RS and it's a weasel word to boot.
 * I've known about the "Few" controversy for a while, and I've commented on it in the past. But today was the first day that I actually read the article that the statement is justified with, and I have to say it was hard not to laugh. I saw an older discussion on the same topic which eventually degraded into a familiar "The Foot has Spoken" scenario on the part of some familiar editors, but I did find this a bit entertaining, especially since it happened right in the middle of the discussion. I'm aware that it's probably an exercise in futility to try to fix the sentence again, but the current state is ridiculous. If the descriptor cannot be fixed, then at the very least we can hope that that irrelevant editorial citation can be removed. ~ S0CO ( talk 07:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And there it is. --Blue Tie 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Familiar editors, eh? :)
 * Once again, it seems that the foot(s) have spoken. ~ S0CO ( talk 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have noted support on the talk page. Paul Matthews 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the familiar cast of characters pop up all over these types of disputes. And apparently have for quite some time. This is exactly that same issue as the controversy over the use of the word "controversial" in the summary for The Great Global Warming Swindle and the lack thereof for An Inconvenient Truth. The disparity in my view is a clear POV push and a comparison of the arguments made by this same cast of characters on the two pages reveals it as such.

Within this context I have sought to label AIT as "politically biased", an admittedly provocative suggestion but one that is clearly backed up by a court ruling no less and this they choose to ignore. When pressed repeatedly to provide some justification for their objections they provide none. The reason that they don't want to state the rationale for their objections should be obvious. It is clear, however, that they will continue to press their numerical superiority to keep this properly sourced criticism out.

Yet another example is provided by their objection to providing an in-line link from the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming to the category for Category:Global warming skeptics. Their page explicitly states that it is NOT a list of Global Warming Skeptics yet they object to providing a link to just such a resource. Their primary reason for objecting? They can't effectively exert control over the list. :)

--GoRight (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mist
Feel free to continue expanding or copy-editing the film article. The biggest challenge is trying to make all the bits and pieces fit together, like the information about the extras. Also, hopefully you see what I mean about explaining differences in the adaptation. I didn't go into too much detail about the darker ending in the Production section, considering what Stephen King said, "Frank wrote a new ending that I loved. It is the most shocking ending ever and there should be a law passed stating that anybody who reveals the last 5 minutes of this film should be hung from their neck until dead." I figure that the description in Production is vague enough, and the detail can be saved for the Plot section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)