Talk:Earth in the Balance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Linking the ISBN number would be nice. --Jiang 07:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] external link

Anthony, Please give specific details and reasons why you think the external link does not belong here. Please do not use edit summaries as your primary means of communicating. Kingturtle 23:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, this is an example of how he continues to harass me. He removed the link because it was from one of my websites. There is nothing that needs to be removed from that because it is very relevant to the topic. Again, this is just another tatic by him to harass me. ChrisDJackson 23:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's an ad for Chris's site. Anthony DiPierro 23:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again, you are becoming obsessed with me. Dude, chill out. Who cares if it is a link to my site if it is very relevant to the topic. ChrisDJackson 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Chris, what are three arguments supporting why this link is vital to the context of this article? Kingturtle 00:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1. It is the best external link for info on the book.

2. The compendium is full of info in the book that people can use for further reading.

3. The page is very relevant to the topic at hand and should be included. This page has the most info on the book than any other site on the web. Due to the fact that it is one of my partner sites should not matter. It is very valuable to readers who want further information on the book.

ChrisDJackson 00:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• One of the problems is that the domain name sounds awfully partisan. Kingturtle 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• How can it be partisan? The compedium has quotes from each section directly from the book. There is nothing partisan about that.ChrisDJackson 00:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Please read closely...i said the domain name sounds awfully partisan...defendersofgore.com. Kingturtle 00:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not add it to the page directly, then? Anthony DiPierro 00:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Add it directly? What does that mean?ChrisDJackson 00:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think adding the quotes directly are a solution. We leave Chris's site in (but cut the brought to you by AGSC because that does sound advertisey), and Anthony finds an anti-Gore site to link to that focuses on this book, if he can. Is that a decent compromise? Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I re-emphasize this after having looked at Chris's link again--the site people arrive at is clearly very pro-Gore, and we'll need to offer them a link that is clearly not (or at least clearly neutral) to avoid having the links section be too POV. Jwrosenzweig 00:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine with me, but someone needs to control him. He is a vandal. He is now messing with KingTurtle's page. He incites edit wars and loves fusses. So please someone do something. ChrisDJackson 00:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • • Anthony has been referred to the Arbitration Committee, and if there is evidence against him, you need to go to Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence and post it there -- not attacks on him, but solid evidence of what he's done. If enough evidence accrues, he will face the arbitrators. This page is not the right forum to discuss any user's faults. Jwrosenzweig 00:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Removing the "brought to you by AGSC" wouldn't stop it from being an ad. It would just make it a more devious one. Anthony DiPierro 00:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, then, call it "Pro-Gore Compendium" or something. I thought you were mad because it openly advertised his site. Leave it as is if you want, just add an opposing viewpoint, or an alternative one, anyway. Jwrosenzweig 00:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • My problem is that it advertises his site, not that it does so openly. Anthony DiPierro 00:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Chris, my usual solution in this situation is to have the person whose web site it is remove it from the page. Then any editor not associated with the web site who thinks it's worthwhile can add it. This way we can link to pages hosted by Wikipedians, as long as it's not done as advertising but because other Wikipedians think the site is worthwhile. Are you amenable to this? Jwrosenzweig 00:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Defenders of Gore

Chris, the defendersofgore.com URL is clearly partisan. the name of the domain cannot be ignored. I suggest either we need to find another website that takes the other POV, or we need to find a website that takes different POVs, such as Amazon. Kingturtle 00:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Anthony, can you locate a URL that takes the opposite POV as the defendersofgore URL? Kingturtle 00:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • If I tried I probably could, but I don't think that would solve anything. Anthony DiPierro 00:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Anthony, Kingturtle's and my point is that it, in fact, would solve things. Can you explain what further objection you have? Jwrosenzweig 00:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Once again, my problem is that it's an ad for his site. It has nothing to do with the content of that site (though if it were NPOV, then I'd encourage him to contribute it to us). Anthony DiPierro 01:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Anthony, what of my suggestion above. If another Wikipedian submitted this site, would you object because Chris is associated with the site? Or would you accept it? Jwrosenzweig 01:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • If another wikipedian had initially submitted the site I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But if another wikipedian now reverts my entry, I'd suspect that has little to do with the worth of the site. How about this. Let Chris link to his site, and I'll create a POV entry of my own on my website and we can link that too. Anthony DiPierro 01:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Anthony, the URL in question has no content other than quotes from the book. The entry on the page is not POV. Get that clear in your mind. The POV aspect is the domain name and other content on the site. Kingturtle 01:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • The quotes from the book are POV. And they're copyright infringements too. We shouldn't be linking to this even if it weren't by Chris, and even if it weren't an ad. But it is an ad, and that's just more the reason we shouldn't be linking to it. Anthony DiPierro 01:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • We are not responsible for the copyright violations of other sites. Also, we are not breaking any law linking to such a site. It is not uncommon for wikipedia articles to link externally to full-texts. Kingturtle 01:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I never claimed we were breaking any law. I think the fact that the site is a blatant copyright infringement is a consideration as to whether or not we should link there, though. Anthony DiPierro 01:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • And your law degree is where? Again, feel free to contact Al Gore about it. But the joke would be on you because he knows the lady who's page it and he knows about the compendium. So again, mind your business, not others. ChrisDJackson 01:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The question is moot. Wikipedia does not care what copyrights another site does or does not violate. Kingturtle 01:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • What gives you the right to speak for what Wikipedia does and does not care about? Anthony DiPierro 01:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Anthony quit lying. It is not copyrigted to use qutoes on a page. You are an obsessor and a liar. Al Gore happens to know of the page by way of the author of the page. So if you want to say anything about it take it up with him and the owner of the page. If not shut the hell up and mind your own business. ChrisDJackson 01:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Chris, you don't understand copyright law. Anthony DiPierro 01:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Chris, please refrain from calling people liars. Do not tell people to shut up or mind their own business. These articles are collaborative efforts. Name calling like this hurts the process tremendously. I realize you are passionate, but you have to keep that passion in check. Thanks, Kingturtle 01:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I will call him out for calling out my friends page. She has forgot more than this homophobe has ever known. He thinks he knows law but he really doesn't even have a job, so go figure. He also thinks he knows all about things that has nothing to do with him, therefore yes it does provoke me. He is about like a Ken Starr. Someone who is always trolling and never doing anything positive. Therefore, I do believe I will quit from this site and move on to another place. The things this person gets away with is too much. His nonsense is unbelievable and ignorance is appalling. Good Bye ChrisDJackson 01:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Chris, your language is completely inappropriate. Please be civil. Name calling and character insults erode your credibility. Do not become that which you criticize. Maybe a break from wikipedia would serve you well...but don't leave. Instead, stick around, learn, grow, teach, forgive, edit, write, and enjoy. Kingturtle 07:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it is an idea, to get more balance...to show two websites that have different POVs. I mean, look at the external links at MLK, for example. Kingturtle 00:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, also, rather than focus on the importance of an external link, how about writing more text of your own writing into the article. we are always more interested in making our articles longer and better. it is better to have a longer article than a link to a website. Kingturtle 00:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• So now you are saying that you cant link pro-topic sites? I guess that means you can't have Bush pro sites or any other sites that are in favor for the topic at hand. Doing this will open up a can of worms. ChrisDJackson 00:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • What I am saying is there should be a balance. Give Wikipedia:Neutral point of view a re-read, if you haven't lately. Kingturtle 01:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to add....What I am also saying is let's focus on writing good articles. Less focus on external links and more focus on keeping users inside Wikipedia. Kingturtle 01:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Chris, no, please pay careful attention to what we are saying. Why not add more text to this article? That's the only suggestion. And I believe you'll find that we have many more sites on Bush's page that criticize him than defend him, but you can be the judge of that. So the suggestion is, let's balance this link if we can, but if we can't, why not just add details about the book rather than fight over one link? Jwrosenzweig 01:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)