Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Project banner

Hey all. I figured we should start a talk page for the task force. Not sure who did the banner, but it looks great! Nice job. One small thought -- many of the banners I have seen have some kind of picture -- like the second one on this page or the one for the global perspectives task force. Maybe it would be good if our banner for this task force had a picture too? Any thoughts? --Mackabean 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates and Userboxes

I think the image Image:Crops Kansas AST 20010624.jpg and Image:Environ. Records.jpg can be subsituted with something that carries the message easier, quicker, and better. I'll find another image soon (because I just went around China's internet block on Wikipedia and these transmissions are unsafe). I'll try not to attract too much attention, and will have an update in less than 5 hours. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back to Hong Kong. IMO, Image:Environ. Records.jpg's folder image is hardly visible in the userbox. There should be a uniform userbox for this task force. I ran to featured pictures and found that we can use Image:Pollen.arp.750pix.jpg or Image:Leaf 1 web.jpg. They are much brighter and more easily understood. Please vote on one of those 2 images. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Image:Leaf 1 web.jpg is a fantastic image. Cyrusc 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It looks great and it was a Featured Picture. Psdubow 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated two templates...might as well have the leaf image in place at least until we hear from other members. Cyrusc 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Records

Please post on the project page on how to obtain environment records. Another thing is that please keep note on number of articles that you have worked on and post it here. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I put up some reliable, relatively impartial sources for U.S. politicians on the project page. Cyrusc 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add your name to the list and number of records (relative to number of articles) you added. I will reward barnstars for those who contributes significantly to this task force. One final note, do you wish to gather more members by announcing it on community portal or do you want to keep the task force small? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should announce it on the community portal and on the news page. I'll get right to it, if it is okay with everyone else. I guess I will wait, until I get "the okay" from most of the members. Psdubow 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also ok with that. We just need to wait for 1 member for a tie and 2 for majority. I put the count to the project page. I will hand out the Environmental Barnstar to dedicated editors of this task force. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastman Chemical Co.

Please help me keep an eye on Eastman Chemical Company--our environmental section keeps getting deleted w/o discussion there. If some task force members could watchlist this page and revert these deletions, using Talk:Eastman Chemical Company to remind users that that's not how Wikipedia works, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Cyrusc 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll keep an eye on that article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll also watch it. I posted on the talk page of the editor who most recently deleted the section. Benzocane 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

same here. 'tis now watched.

Big Oil edits on wikipedia

For your perusal:

Here's a great new tool to check out what Big Oil and other agencies of environmental destruction have done to remove unfavourable references to their practises on wikipedia:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ and see an overview on http://wired.reddit.com/

Jens Nielsen 13:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have to leave

I have yet to make one contribution to this project and, while I think this is a worthwhile project, I have other priorities on Wikipedia for the moment. I removed my name from the members list. (I'm sorry!) Fishal 20:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Social accountability

Hello, I'd like to invite input and contributions from Environmental Record Task Force editors to a new navbox, Template:Social accountability, which includes links to environmental accountability articles, as well. I am particularly interested in suggestions for strengthening the Auditing and Reporting sections of the template. Thank you & Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

POV and undue weight

Per WP:NPOV, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. NPOV goes on to state that "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
I do not see how a task force dedicated to sections of articles rather than the article as a whole can escape being POV. For example, look at the amount of text in the Eastman Chemical Company article that is devoted to the environmental record of Eastman Chemical Company in comparison to the company as a whole. How does this task force conclude that 50% of the quantity of text in Eastman Chemical Company article being devoted to the environmental record of Eastman Chemical Company be anything other than undue weight to that aspect of the company? Other efforts of this task force seem to raise POV flags as well. I urge you to review your actions in like of the WP:NPOV policy and to some extent, WP:OWN. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this taskforce isn't trying to distort the issues. Environmental concerns are certainly not a fringe point of view as you seem to imply, as Live Earth has just demonstrated. Incidentally, for my own part I've helped improve the Eastman article by adding non-controversial, factual information about the company and what it makes - it was previously a PR cut-and-paste job. Without being a member of this taskforce I'd never have known how bad it was - or, for that matter, that somebody was removing criticism of the company without explanation. POV concerns areimportant, but so are fair criticism and balance. Please continue to bring us any other (environment-related) POV concerns you might find in Wikipedia.

Regarding WP:OWN, no we don't own articles, we're just trying to provide extra information on a particular topic. This would involve, at most, adding a section and one or two URLs. That's not really owning an article. Totnesmartin 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my user page you'll see that I have reasonably green credentials, yet I agree with a lot of what Jreferee has said above. I believe that an Environmental record section can be very valuable, but I do think it is often overdone at present. For example, the section in the BP article is disproportionately long, and positive initiatives such as BP Solar receive scant attention. Another example is in the GE article where I could see no mention of GE Energy making wind turbines. Please look for environmentally-friendly activities of companies and make sure they receive adequate coverage too. -- Johnfos 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Additions to presidential candidate articles

Environment record information for 2008 U.S. presidential candidates is welcome, but it should not be dropped into the main biographical articles. Rather, each of these candidates has a separate "Political positions of ..." article, broken down by topic area. There will already be an environment section of those articles, and your information should be added to/integrated with that information. Specifically, see Political positions of John McCain#Environmental issues, Political positions of Barack Obama#Environment, and Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Environment. (Former candidates in the race have such sections too.) Wasted Time R (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[moved here from my user talk page]
I appreciate your opinion and edits, but I respectfully feel that although my aditions fit into the environmental issues section perhaps the environmental issues section should be converted to an environmental record section all its own. Refer to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record Task Force page. Again I feel that the page of a presidential candidate could use an environmental record section apart from the political policy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbecker9 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if "Environmental record" gets a top-level section in the main bio article, then so does "Abortion record" and "Education record" and "Tax and finance policy record" and "Middle East policy record" and literally several dozen other things. The biography quickly gets swamped by all this material. That's why the "Political positions of ..." articles were created, to hold all the "record" material in a well-defined, structured way. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

James G. Watt

James G. Watt could do with an environmental record section. He made some controversial statements. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Investigate Problems on BP (British Petroleum) Wikipedia Page: Intentionally Burying Section on Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, Changing Name of Oil Disaster to Hide it

Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?

Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).

That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?

It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC on BP content dispute

There is currently a Request for Comment on a content dispute at the BP article. The dispute concerns whether the environmental record should by mentioned in the lede. As this topic falls under the Environmental Record task force's area of expertise, task force members may be able to help us reach a consensus. Thanks! 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a request for comment concerning the BP article. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a request for comment how much weight should be given to the Clean Water Act Trial in the BP article. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)