Talk:Thousands demand climate change action

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this "countries taking part", or countries with citizens taking part? Brian McNeil / talk 21:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion[edit]

Please note the following quotes:

"There is a lot of cynicism about what the British government is doing. [Prime Minister] Tony Blair has promised much and persuaded many that he will deliver but it has turned out to be rubbish. Blair had no intention of doing anything on climate change other than talk about it. But this weekend's protests are taking place in a changed context - the media are listening and finally we have to make the politicians listen."

Tbe bolded part could be seen as libel.

"This international day has been called to put pressure on Australia and the US to ratify and to make sure governments are aware that the community is demanding serious commitments and action on greenhouse gas reduction," said Cook

"We need to do something that suits the developed world, something that suits the rapidly developing world, partnerships, technologies, economic mechanisms that drive us towards that"

There are no quotes from anyone supporting Australia or the U.S.'s position.

--Learn2EditPlz 01:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

HELLO,Xcuse me: Siding with the United States, the Australian Federal Government has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change, arguing it is damaging to their economic interests. Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell says Australia is focused on measures that should be taken after Kyoto expires in 2012.

"We need to do something that suits the developed world, something that suits the rapidly developing world, partnerships, technologies, economic mechanisms that drive us towards that," said Campbell. "We're nowhere near that at the moment and Australia wants to be a constructive part of driving us towards a very useful post-Kyoto regime." --elliot_k 08:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Huh? Saying a politician has no intention of solving a problem is libel? In what jurisdiction? --Deprifry|+T+ 09:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Libel is the printing of a false or malicious statement. Stating that Blair 'has no intention...' is not necessarily a true statement, especially when there are no quotes from Blair to counteract it. --Learn2EditPlz 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
We are just quoting George Monbiot - he may or may not be guilty of slander/libel, but Wikinews certainly won't be. George could have said that Tony Blair has sex with goats and we could include it in an article, properly quoted and sourced. I also don't see what difference quoting a response from Blair has regarding a charge of slander. I'm no lawyer, of course. The last section of the article would be vastly improved by including a UK government response to the comments by Monibiot. - Borofkin 05:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget that there is no universal agreement about whether Kyoto protocol is a good way to deal with global warming, and that there are some serious shortcomings in the document. The mere fact that mass media and politicians rave about the protocol does not necessarily mean that it will effectively reduce greenhouse emissions without ruining the global economy. --Matvei M. S., 4 December 2005

I think politicians can agree on taking rights away from the silly powerless cigarette smokers of the world, but can't solve the serious pollution problems. 2nd hand cigarette smoke / get real. -Edbrown05 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

"There are no quotes from anyone supporting Australia or the U.S.'s position." - as this statement has been demonstrated to be false, can Learn2EditPlz please consider removal of the NPOV tag. If you believe that the tag should remain, please provide additional justifications on the talk page, or even better, make changes directly to the article. - Borofkin 23:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proven false? 1 source as opposed to three is not neutral. --Learn2EditPlz 01:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's clearly false, because there is a quote in the article which supports the Australian governments position. I assume from this recent comment that rather that arguing that "there are no quotes", you are actually arguing that there are not enough quotes supporting the governments position, i.e. that the article is not balanced because an equal ammount of space has not been given to those supporting the government and opposed to Kyoto. If this is indeed your argument, then I would like to state that I don't agree. In my opinion the article as it currently stands is an accurate reflection of debate on climate change - the vast majority of countries support and have ratified the Kyoto agreement, and the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is a serious problem. Therefore, I support removal of the NPOV tag. That being said, I have no problem with a contributor inserting more quotes that support the Australian or U.S. governmetn position, or that reject the science of global warming generally. I just don't think that the absence of "equal time" for each position makes this article POV. - Borofkin 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You have nailed my argument sir. --Learn2EditPlz 07:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Please remove the NPOV tag --elliot_k 10:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Deprify apparently removed it. I still do not feel this is neutral. There is not an even amount of sources. People here really need a crash-course class on journalism. --Learn2EditPlz 18:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
"There is not an even amount of sources." What do you mean? If you still think the article is not neutral, then I encourage you to present your case here. Simply saying "I still do not feel this is neutral" does not address any of the arguments I have made. A good way to proceed would be to specify specific points-of-view that you feel should be represented. Also, if you feel that the article is still in violation of our NPOV policy, then I encourage you to re-tag it. - Borofkin 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)