Talk:Flying Matters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-12-20. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

[edit] Help to get the article up to standard

I have put a lot of effort into getting this article together and learnt a lot in the process (both about wikipedia and Flying Matters). I have responded to the 'marked for deletion' comment by moving the controversies into a 'Controverses' section, and moving the factual stuff (such as membership) nearer to the top. It really needs contributions from others now and it also needs proof reading (I am blind to typos). I will use my contacts to try to achieve this, but more input would be welcome; in particular I am interested in thoughts on the 'Timeline' section; should this be removed? Personally I think it is very interesting to see the historical development, but can also see the counter-argument. I hope that the article will be accepted soon and I intend to play a much lower profile role with it from now on. PeterIto (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article certainly is not lacking in content, but not all of it is relevant. I will take a good look through it, and remove some of the lesser needed facts. The "timeline" can possibly be merged into a "history" heading. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Vox Rationis, I have updated the article and converted the Timeline into a History section and am pleased with the resultPeterIto (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that an easy trap to fall into here is confusing an article about an organisation with one about it's campaign. I've only ever had a chance to skim through and you've done well, but I suspect that this strays too far into the latter and risks WP:NPOV accusations in presenting the pro-aviation case without a similarly comprehensive level of comment on counter arguments from the anti lobby. The wider issue is whether this article is the right place to include the campaign issues in this much detail - there is an article on the one of the 'opposition' groups at Aviation Environment Federation - should that also include the same issues from the opposite perspective? I have also put a lot of work into Future of air transport in the United Kingdom, which also presents the same issues. Maybe there is a case for a separate 'Air transport issues in the United Kingdom' article (it would need a better title but I'm crap at picking them), with FM, AEF, and aviation white paper articles being more tightly focussed and summarising/referencing the 'issues'. --FactotEm (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Factotem, personally I am strongly against what Flying Matters represents, but was aiming for neutrality. If I strayed too far into being critical then Flying1 quickly made it less controversial, we wrestle the article backwards and forwards a bit but overall it gets better. There is a whole web of organisations in this space; I have also created stub articles for Airport Watch and for the M2 Group the second one is in my talk section at the moment, and hopefully will be back in the main area soon, I have a request pending with the person who nominated it for deletion (for being blatant advertising strangely enough). I have also done a big restructure on the Camp for Climate Actionand I want to ensure that there are articles for NoTRAG, StopHeathrowExpansion and Plane Stupid. It would be good to think about where the core arguments and camppaign issues should be, and avoid to much duplication which must be be easy within Wikipedia with everyone paddling their own boat (as with article on Climate Change and Global Warming, are these not the same thing?PeterIto (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Flying1?

Who is Flying1? Flying1 only ever contributes to this single article^[1] and has persistently removed well-referenced negative information. Here is a summary of the interventions (with links to the diff on the changes in question):

• 19th Dec Removed details about Crosby Textor

• 20th Dec Removed reference to Crosby Textor

• 21st Dec(1) Useful improvements to accuracy

• 21st Dec(2) Removed the "Controversies" heading. Some other small generally useful changes and removal of POV

• Jan 3rd changes Removed the "Controversies" heading again. Removed reference to the IPCC warning of "'abrupt and irreversible' climate changes if emissions are not radically reduced. Removed reference to the UK government's commitment to reduce emissions by 60% from the Aviation and Climate change section. Made some other small useful corrections and clarifications

• Jan 9th changes Removed all entries from "see also" section (to other relevant aviation articles). Removed all external links (to relevant organisations not already mentioned). Added an external link to a Flying Matters clone site (xxx.org.uk) before removing it again. In the Polling Methods removed details of the questions asked in their poll (referenced to thie website). Removed all biographical information about Crosby Textor, including well referenced information regarding accusations of push polling and also accusations of being to close to the Australian government while representing Quantas

I am leaving a message on Flying1's talk page and repairing the article. Please note that I also have a live discussion with Factotem (documented on this page and elsewhere) about whether it is appropriate to have this much detail in a organisational article. Personally I think it is valuable as it gives a unique and peer reviewed insight into the activities of an organisation even if a fuller description of the issues is given elsewhere. PeterIto (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about this article

I have a few concerns about some of the content of this article...

• Relevance of Brian Wilson's post with AMEC Nuclear holdings to this subject?
• Relevance of any reference to Sir Digby Jones, and subsequent comments about him, given that he resigned before the organisation was even launched.
• "Brian Wilson, in his capacity as chair of AMEC Nuclear...". Relevance in an article about Flying Matters?
• "Michell Di Leo was asked what she considered to be a safe concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere(in parts per million by volume) and repied "I’m not a climate scientist,"". Given that even climate change scientists do not seem to agree what this figure is, this is hardly a fair criticism. "A limit of 550ppm for carbon dioxide emissions has been suggested by several bodies … However, it has not been universally accepted: 550ppm is twice the level [of carbon dioxide] that was in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution, and current understanding of the way in which the climate and natural systems work may not be reliable enough to guarantee that the degree of change under these conditions would be safe and acceptable… A lower limit of 450ppm would be a more risk-adverse maximum." [1] p8
• Why the focus on Crosby Textor in the last paragraph of the polling methods section? In particular, what is the relevance of allegataions of previous push polling? If such an allegation has been levelled at the aviation poll, then it is fair criticism, if not it has no place in this article - move it to the (yet to be created) article on Crosby Textor. The MORI poll is enough to provide balance in this part of the article and the comparatively extended discourse on CT is irrelevant.
• "UK Department for transport forecasts show that by 2050 under current policy that aviation emissions alone aviation is likely to comprise between 33% and 70% of the UK's current target" A disingenous use of sources which, if referred to in full reveals that the Government (DfT) disagrees with the 70% figure, maintaining that 33% is the correct figure (BTW independant research from the Tyndall Centre gives the figure as between 24% and 50% - [2] p4.
• Generally, the reporting of a Flying Matters position followed by "however..." and the environmentalist rebuttal tends to leave me feeling that the article has been written with the primary purpose of attacking Flying Matters' position rather than creating an encyclopedic article about the organisation.

PeterIto, I do not want to be disparaging about your efforts here. Some of the problems I see with this article can be overcome with some more careful use of language that provides a balanced WP:NPOV. I'm not so sure that other problems are outright WP:NPOV violations and when I get more time to review this in more detail may tag the article as such. Does any of this sound unreasonable? --FactotEm (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your useful and carefully worked comments, let me deal with the issues in order.

• I included Brian Wilson's role in nuclear and his associated enthusiasm for urgent cuts to CO2 emissions ro contrast with his enthusiasm for aviation expansion (and increased CO2 emissions) while wearing his FM hat. I am chasing up a reference to a comparison figure for CO2 emissions savings from 'going nuclear' in electricity generation with the expected increase from aviation which might bind the fact to the article more directly, for now I would like to leave the comment in.

• FM claims that they take 'climate change seriously', but I believe their initial choice or a chairman with such a poor reputation on environment provides a valuable insight into what they mean by that and therefore the actual objectives of the organisation. Is this innuendo? I don't think so but possibly you can suggest wording to bind it in better if you 'buy' my arguement.

• 'I am not a climate scientist'. Agreed, I will remove the reference. it's rather a 'cheap' reference anyway!

• I have made an initial response to your comments on Crosby Textor. I was wavering on the Push Polling one but agree it may well be out of place and have removed it, I have also removed the reference to the book, but have left the Quantas item in because I think the previous activities of the participants is relevant. Crosby Textor certainly justify an article, but I was hoping not to have to write it myself! possibly I am actually well placed to start it and would be happy to do so if you were able to participate to ensure balance.

• Can you fiddle with the section on aviation contribution to climate change so that you are happy with it, it sounds as though this is very much 'your bag'. Personally I would love there to be a section in Radiative forcing about the different values that different governments and government departments use for this effect around the world and within the UK. I know that Defra and the DfT currently recommend different values.

• I was reminding myself about weasle words this evening in another context and agree that 'however' could be used in this way (everything before the 'but' is bullshit etc), however!, it can also be used to genuinely expose a difference of opinion for consideration by a reader and I am not sure how to bind the article together without it; surely the point is that there is a difference of opinion and the article should expose it, reference it, and then allow the reader to make their mind up. Do please see if you can sort this out in a better way, but I personally don't like the idea of just removing the term.

• Overall I think the article would benefit from your making the changes you see fit rather than tagging. If I disagree I will respond to your changes with my own, but do please put your mark on the article and create something you are happy with, I really don't think we are a million miles apart; Currently it is just me and Flying1 (who I suspect is an employee) and it would benefit from a bigger 'genetic pool'. The article is certainly being appreciated as a useful resource by people within the campaigning sector so is certainly worth the effort. Thanks PeterIto (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still without full internet access so I can do little more than offer fly by comments and very little in the way of contributing. To respond to your response in brief...

• I still think that linking Brian Wilson's roles strays too far from the immediate topic at hand and smacks of an attempt to cast aspersions on an organisation by association. The environmentalist view of taking climate change seriously and the industry's view will never be reconciled. Both are valid positions within their respective camps and invalid positions to the opposing camp. It's not for us to try and push one above the other. There are plenty of other counter arguments available to the environmentalist camp and the inclusion of the section on Digby Jones does come across to me as tangental to the subject and more environmentalist propaganda than a reasonable statement with regards to FM.
• I'm glad you removed the 'not a climate change scientist' bit. I didn't want to be antogonistic in my initial comments, but it does indeed come across as a very cheap shot to me.
• You can handle the Crosby Textor issue in this article if a) you source it well, and b) keep it brief and in proportion. As far as I'm concerned it's perfectly valid to report environmentalist doubts about the value of a poll and their own preferred poll results. That's what NPOV is all about. As you say, we just need to state opposing positions fairly and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. (BTW I don't have time to review the changes you have since made that section and I'm just arguing a point of principle here).
• I'll have a look at the climate change thing when I get a chance (though I want to get the Future... article up to FAC first, and I do like your idea of a section on public support or otherwise, where I'll be getting into trouble over various polls no doubt). However, from what little I understand of radiative forcing I think you would be a very brave man indeed to go too far down that route. Good luck to you.
• I hear you on the 'however' thing. It was one of the more difficult aspects of writing the Future... article. I agree, it is entirely valid, in fact it is required, to balance an article fairly with all major viewpoints. The use of 'however' makes for better prose but it does come across badly. I don't know whether I have succeeded in the Future... article, but I tried at all times to use words like 'assert' and 'argue', which tend to convey the opposing viewpoint without implying any kind of bias. You lose the easy flow that 'however' gives to the narrative, but you avoid POV traps which seems to me to be far more important. Have a look at WP:WTA if you haven't already had a chance to do so.
• If I had the time I would prefer to make the changes I see fit rather than just tag and run. Unfortunately this would involve a significant amount of research so tagging is the only recourse I have for now if I suspect an article is bias. Having said that, you handle my interventions well and respond positively, so I'm content to throw things in on the talk page for now.
• I would add that as far as I'm concerned when it comes to judging the quality of a contribution, Flying1's real world identity is as valid as your stated opposition to what FM stands for, which is to say, it's utterly irrelevant. It's the contribution that counts, not the personal opinion of the contributor.

Looking forward to getting some proper internet access... --FactotEm (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have been reading about POV by synthesis, and inuendo, also about biogs of living people. I do agree that the nuclear comments are tangental and I will remove them. I will look to remove the howevers and use other devices. My point about Flying1 was purely that is was good to have 3rd perspective and a reasonably neutral one. Thanks. PeterIto (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)