Talk:Ross Gelbspan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV Flag
I put an Neutral Point of View flag on this. I have not edited or contributed to this article, but it's obvious from looking at the last two edits that the neutral point of view has been violated.
I would suggest reverting to the previous version, and editing from thaat version to improve those attempts at neutrality. Some of the language in the previous edit is loaded, but covering the controversy and citing sources seems reasonable.
Wikipedia places a premium on verifiable sources, and the Pulitzer Organization makes available for publish record the designated recipients. Precedence should be given to the Pulitzer organization in discussing the controversy, but the language should not be inflammatory in tone.
Subjects should not have the final say regarding their entries. Perhaps editors could add some of the langauge from his interviews and opinions from other sources (meaning, not self-published) and the skeptics could find sources other than their own websites, such as the Pulitzer site, to support their respective points of view.
JazzyGroove 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the article is very loaded and unencyclopedic and, in all honesty, appears to have been written either by Gelbspan himself or (more likely) a junior blurb writer at his publishers. I have changed some of the more loaded terms, such as "carbon lobby" and "fossil fuel lobby", as the terms assume that such lobbies actually exist without offering any evidence. Whoever is making these edits, please keep the claims SPECIFIC and VERIFIABLE. Name names and provide links to notable sources as evidence. --Archstanton 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is very little about Gelbspan himself, which is rather odd in an article that is purported to be about him rather than accusations and counter-accusations made about his book. Let's see some real biographical details. --Archstanton 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Have added sources template as a number of assertions are made without citing references. --Archstanton 17:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Added references. Covered just about every assertion except those regarding lectures, radio interviews and articles. Doberdog 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reference to Blog
Gelbspan regularly writes on DeSmogBlog, a project I'm associated with. I think his writing on that site deserves a mention and reference in the external link section. I'll leave it to you wise Wikipedians to decide whether that's appropriate or not.