Talk:Michael D. Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
	WikiProject Space exploration	Importance to Space exploration: Mid
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 The epidemic of "flacks" aggressively editing Wiki bios 2 Black Monday 3 STOP TRYING TO IMPRESS THE READER WITH PEACOCK WORDS 4 Neutrality Resolved 5 Climate Change

[edit] The epidemic of "flacks" aggressively editing Wiki bios

Griffin is not merely a scientist but a lifelong Republican hack. You couldn't have more political jobs in science than he has held. SDI? Show me some success. In-Q-Tel? Enough said. NASA? They found cracks in the foam insulation today, 48 hours after Griffin would have launched for the July 4th photo-op.

Consider Reaverdrop's use of flowery adjectives and colorful verbs. These are not "sourced," unless you consider a press release a "source."

I hope you're being paid well for this, Reaverdrop, else you have no pride.

[edit] Black Monday

Seems a major witch hunt is under way at NASA... how do we reflect that ?82.120.116.121 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STOP TRYING TO IMPRESS THE READER WITH PEACOCK WORDS

STOP SHOVING OPINIONS DOWN THE READER'S THROAT.

By explicity praising Dr. Griffin, this article shames Wikipedia. Encyclopedias are about FACTS, not FACTUAL IMPRESSIONS. DO NOT evaluate the worth or value of specific achievements. DO NOT compare parallel information to make a point, qualitative comparisons are ALWAYS POV. DO NOT stack the data to present your opinion. STOP WRITING POV!

I like Mike Griffin as much as the next guy. One of my professors is an acquaintance of Griffin and has related to me his own favorable impressions. But PLEASE leave these opinions out of encyclopedias.

This is fucking pathetic. Too many Wikipedia bios read like Newsweek articles rather than Britannica entries. At least Newsweek doesn't pretend to be a reference. User:Xmnemonic

No kidding - this sounds like it was pulled off his NASA bio page, and then made even more positive. And wasn't he head of the SDI program for a while? Grahamdubya 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This was not very specific, but I edited to remove POV-vio statements and include more critical points of view. There are still some quotations from other experts about him that are quite positive, but those are factual reports of statements by those people, who are independent of NASA and the government, which are only fairly representative - newspaper articles about him have included positive comments by a lot more people. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Resolved

Can the Neutrality Disputed header be removed? There's no discussion going on at all. Are those who disputed the article's content satisfied now? Honestly, questioning the NPOV merely because a "lifelong Republican hack" wasn't shown in a negative light is lugubrious. The author of the article deserves better than this. --Curmudgeonry 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote "no," and, of course, you are preposterous to "summarize" the dispute as you do. The request is not for negativity, but for critical accuracy.

Reaverdrop recently edited out mention of SDI's technical failures under Griffin, to give you an idea.

"Part owner of a private plane"? How about "owner of a home with a beautifully manicured lawn"?

• It is imperative to always sign your comments on the talk page, unidentified user, otherwise no-one knows who is objecting to what and for what reason. From a casual perusal of the article, it seems neither overly sycophantic nor particularly poorly-sourced; do the technical minutiae of the SDI program really belong in Griffin's bio page, or rather on the SDI page itself? Readers can follow the hyperlink if they want to know the ins and outs of that program. I second the removal of the "disputed" tag. Also, for those who propose significant changes to this page, I suggest a calmer and more "Zen" approach, there is no need for swearing and bad language on this talk page. User:Jaganath 17:59, 04 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree on the motion to remove the neutrality disputed banner. It's now been 4 months since the original suggestion, and the discussion page still offers nothing enlightening to the reader on the nature of the dispute. Mbelisle 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree as well and have removed it after some rework. Antonrojo 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate Change

How come there is nothing about climate change? Being the leader of the American's top sience agency there should be something said about the direction he wants the agency to take. Hasn't be lowered the priority of climate science?

If you have quotable material on this topic, feel free to add it. -- Northgrove 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)