Jump to content

Talk:Possible (charity)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Comment

TEN X 10 = 10 X TEN X 10 X ten - 10 X TEN ------> TEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<3 I'd already started a page called 10:10 Campaign, but I guess this is better. Tdwright (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

As The Guardian is a supporter of the organization/action, even their "news" articles are questionable as being WP:RS. Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur raises an absolutely vital point - can we trust the Guardian on this issue? I would be grateful if there could be others who might comment on this. Technically, the Guardian is separate from the 10:10 team; however, they do publish regular articles about the subject, and they are also signed up to the campaign. If this is in the same way as the British Medical Journal (" ... has the backing of ..."), would this make it inappropriate to quote The Guardian here? In addition, there is the issue of its editorial code of intending accuracy, and its place as a mainstream British broadsheet.
Could someone offer an opinion on this? Thanks, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I think adding 32 identical copies of the same template to this short article in one edit is unnecessary. What is actually being disputed? Do we doubt that the 10:10 campaign exists? That it has various people or organisations signed up to it? That it might be a hoax or a practical joke? The material presented is referenced to a reliable source, the problem is not that may all be made-up hooey, but that it would be nice if there was more of a variety of sources. In the interests of readability and common sense, I shall change the template usage to be more appropriate, while we look for other sources to pacify those who are so very nervous of The Guardian. --Nigelj (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:RS is the relevant problem. The Guardian is describing an campaign which they support, so any list of supporters may be inflated, or at least not as well researched as if it were an campaign to which they were neutral or opposed. At least one of the references looks to me to be very similar to what an advertisement placed by the organisation would look like, so I do doubt that all the organisations named actually support 10:10. If you want to add the phrase "according to the Guardian" for all those only sourced to the Guardian, I could live with that.
I've corrected the tag with what I consider the least that can be said and still be honest, although I may reconsider and add more article tags. If there is a general "use reliable sources" tag to attach to the article, it would be more appropriate, but WP:BLP suggests that the information should be immediately removed if the reliability of the source is in question, which it really is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed the tag to {{unreliable sources}}, because that really is the problem. If the source is found to be reliable, the tag can be changed back to {{one source}}, which would still be a concern. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian 'supports' the 10:10 campaign in the sense that they signed up to it, in that like all its other supporters, they intend to cut their CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. Do you have some evidence that they are funding the campaign, making profit from it, or that it is being run by their staff as part of their jobs? More to the point, do you have some evidence that they are prepared to tell lies in print about it? That is quite a serious accusation, and until we have some evidence to support it, I think that news reports in a major quality (i.e. non-tabloid) UK national newspaper would normally be considered a reliable source in a matter like this. WP:RS says, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market". This is only a sign-up campaign, like a petition, it's not like anyone's claiming a cure for cancer or disputing the laws of physics. What evidence do you have that The Guardian is no longer to be considered reliable? --Nigelj (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's subject to question; an editorial decision to support a campaign can lead to — well, less fact-checking —about materials favorable to the campaign, such lists of supporters. (I remember one of those "articles" looking very much like an advertisement in favor of 10:10, so it probably shouldn't be used. Unfortunately, I don't remember which of the 18 or so Guardian articles it was.
Some of the adjectives used to describe the supporters, as I noted on my talk page, fall into the WP:PEACOCK category. If they were in the articles, then those entire articles are suspect, even in the absence of support from the publisher or editors.
I'm not intending to imply that they are willing to lie about the campaign, merely that fact-checking may be somewhat lax. It may still be reliable....
Now, I would be perfectly happy if the lists of supporters were trimmed to those who mention the support on their own web sites. Even so, I question whether the elaborate lists of supporters are notable; if we remove most of them, is the article reduced in encyclopedic value? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arthur. Thanks for your comments; thanks Nigel for yours too. I understand you are worried that the Guardian might be biased. I understand that a reliable, third-party, published source is defined as such without regard to support for political campaigns, and maintains that status when reporting both on politics it favours and politics it opposes. It is important to this discussion that The Guardian is organisationally independent from the 10:10. It is in the same position as the British Medical Journal, yet I would nevertheless regard their article about 10:10 as trustworthy, despite their place as signatories - this I would base on their journalistic status and reputation.
I understand that you are worried about WP:Biographies of living persons, which you correctly highlight as recommending that biographies of living persons should have information of questionable reliability removed immediately. This policy is of critical importance to the biographies of living people. I feel that as this article is not a biography, but instead a description of a campaign, it is instead subject to WP:Reliable sources. You rightly point out that this latter policy is relevant.
Arthur is correct to highlight peacock terms. Any unsourced peacock terms should be removed. However, I cannot endorse your second point about this. I would like to draw editors' attention to Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Exception for quotations. The Guardian writes that the campaign has drawn support from a "cross-section" of UK society. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Exception for quotations makes legitimate the inclusion of such a quote in the article, especially when qualified as being from a Guardian article. The current state of the article in respect to this quote is not in need of any change whatsoever; it reads "described by the Guardian as from a "cross-section" of UK society", and this quote is referenced. Arthur, you write that "If [peacock terms] were in the articles, then those entire articles are suspect, even in the absence of support from the publisher or editors." I am sorry, but I cannot endorse this, as I do not believe it is in Wikipedia policy.
The important point of the weighting of the list of supporters in the article is also raised in your recent post. This needs discussion. As it is separate from this discussion about The Guardian, I would request that it be discussed in a new section of the talk page.
In summary, I am aware of editors' doubts as to potential conflict of interest. I feel that in such a situation, we must adhere to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This expounds that, at a basic level, the criterion of a source's reliability, including in respect to conflict of interest, is the status of its publisher as credible, with a reliable publication process, and being generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The Guardian is a mainstream British broadsheet, and I believe therefore satisfies these criteria, and can be cited legitimately in this article.
I would like to thank all involved in making this discussion so constructive; I am proud to take part in the Wikipedia process of respectful discussion which so often proves so constructive. I apologise for this lengthy reply. Thank you all for your hard work on improving, adding to, and making this article more reliable. Best wishes, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violent aims

The fascistic violent aims of the organisation will not hidden by Wikignomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.71 (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is constructive addition - non unconstructive. "For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.71 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly interpret the film as advocating violent retribution against skeptics, however that interpretation can only be included in the article if it is reported by a reliable source, otherwise it is original research. It's the middle of the day in America - there's bound to be a whole swag of new sources about this madness in the morning.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't take long: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056510/go-green-or-well-kill-your-kids-says-richard-curtis-eco-propaganda-shocker/ --Yeti Hunter (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that it is hard to think of an interpretation *other* than that it is advocating violence against sceptics. I have myself today searched around discussions among 10:10 supporters for some description of what the intended interpretation is, and cannot find one. It is claimed that it is just "a joke" but not what the joke actually is. If this were, say, a conservative "family values" group with a similar video of gay schoolchildren singled out and executed by the teacher, what other interpretations would be forthcoming other than that it was anti-gay hate speech? It really does seem to be saying, "those who do not conform should die". Does anyone have another plausible specific interpretation?82.71.30.178 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I see Winston Smith has just disappeared the "amputation" comment. Great work - Minitruth is quick today. 91.34.167.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

350.org disowning 10:10

Care2 are reporting that 350.org's 10-10-10 event is "completely unrelated" to the group 10:10 (link: http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/violent-climate-video/). Any idea if they have explicitly disowned them yet? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on 10:10:10 has to be corrected. It gives the impression 350.org is dissociating itself with 10:10:10, but 350.org website says nothing like that. Quite the opposite, it is promoting the 10:10:10 action day heavily. The only sources in the paragraph are blog posts that do not even make clear claims or have sources. What does this mean: "10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action." This is nothing that is in the claimed sources. I suggest removal. I also suggest removing the comment by Matt Purple. It is just a random comment on the event by a random writer of a random magazine. I have to assume that the comment has been just added to advertize the mentioned protest and not for any sincere informational purpose. I cannot make the edits myself since I have not been a registered user and the page is semiprotected. --Zermelo3 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed:
However in the wake of the No Pressure controversy, 350.org disassociated themselves from 10:10, strongly condemning the film. 10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action.[1] In the American Spectator, Matt Purple has written that, in order to protest against the campaign, readers should, "This Sunday, leave your car idling in the driveway. Crank your heat up before you leave the house. Grab a couple of aerosol cans and point them skywards."[2]
because as you say it looks to be wrong. Certainly I think the AS isn't exactly reliable for this kind of stuff. And Both 350 and 1010 websites appear to be promoting 101010. OTOH 350's press release does say: We respect 10:10's previous work to encourage companies, schools, and churches to voluntarily cut their carbon emissions 10%. Upon seeing the video, however, we have informed 10:10 that we can no longer remain partners on 10/10/10 or any other initiative. 350.org maintains an absolute commitment to nonviolence in word and deed. This October 10th, the 10/10/10 Global Work Party will unite over 7,000 communities in more than 180 countries to work on positive solutions to the climate crisis. It will be the most widespread day of environmental action in history and embody our core principle of peaceful, global cooperation to work on solving the climate crisis together. and I'm not sure how to reconcile that William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that press release to be notable in that 350.org pulling its partnership. It should be included in the article. To do otherwise would be omitting an important development as it is symbolic of the controversy/outrage that 10:10 has created. In fact, the section on the controversy appears highly trivialised. Marto85 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits in the article. For my part, I admit I did not notice 350.org's press release, because it was already far from the top on their press room web page. I admit it would be fair to mention the contents of the release in the article. However, just by looking at 350.org's front page, it seems clear they are still supporting all kinds of 10/10/10 action. Maybe their press release means they are not supporting further collaboration after this year's 10/10/10?Zermelo3 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 350.org press release does not leave a lot of room for doubt. 10:10's out, they won't be part of 10/10/10, which is 350.org's baby. I suggest the previous wording be reinstated, with wording tweaked to make it clear that it is 10:10 who is being kicked out of the event, not 350.org which is withdrawing.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should do this while the situation remains unclear. Despite what their press release says, both 350 and 1010 say on their websites that they are supporting 101010. I'd support a wording that mentioned the disagreement, said there was fallout, but said that the current situation is unclear and pointed to the apparently contradictary sources. We certainly shouldn't say "kicked out" unless we have very clear evidence for it, and the press release isn't clear William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly grounds for the non-inclusion of the 350.org's statement. We can leave it up to the reader to interpret the statement as that is what we have until further comment is made. Additionally, the support section is far too 'spread out'. The article almost reads like a fan page. Marto85 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/violent-climate-video/
  2. ^ Purple, Matt (5 October 2010). "Environmental Endgame". The American Spectator. Retrieved 7 October 2010.

removal of unsubstantiated comment

"On Sunday March 28, 2010, 10:10 launched a new campaign to move the clocks in Britain by another hour, so giving Britain an extra hour of sunlight in the evening rather than in the morning when most people are still asleep."

that link gives no information as to numbers of britons who are asleep in the morning and or evening; the above sentence needs to be removed86.163.69.84 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put wp "lock" image on article

Please put wp "lock" image on article. 99.181.132.138 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp "lock"

Please show wikipedia "lock". 99.35.12.139 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article so out-of-date?

Some sections haven't been touched in years. There is no new information. The climate issue is boiling again, at least in the U.S., and 350.org has never been more vital. What's become of 10:10? Was it just a fad? If not, doesn't anyone care to update the Wikipedia page for this organization? Can you imagine BP not updating its website? C'mon, 10:10 -- step up your game.forestflyer (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly correct, and nothing further has been done since 2013. I'm going to tag the article as out of date. I have some hesitation in doing so, because I have some doubt as to whether this will cause the article to be updated. Certainly the tag I put on Occupy Movement in similar circumstances is still there. I know some people think that adding tags which never get removed just interferes with the readers' experience. However, on balance I think it is helpful to readers to at least be warned that the article does not contain up-to-date information, so they know to look elsewhere if that's what they're looking for. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a badge of shame to drive readers away? Good plan. Here's something in their own words. http://www.1010uk.org/about/history Maybe we should tag 'World War 2' too? --Nigelj (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the recent "It's happening" campaign. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, thanks for raising this and especially to Yeti Hunter for adding an excellent #itshappening section. As a 10:10 employee, I'm aware that this article is painfully out of date, but felt it wouldn't be appropriate to make changes myself. That said, I've written a comprehensive update and published it as a workspace draft here. If anyone would like to review this and use it as the basis for an update, that'd be brilliant. I'll also invite editors on the climate change task force to do the same. Thanks! Simuove (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: comprehensive update (draft provided)

Just adding the edit request tag further to my note above about a proposed redraft of the article to reflect changes in 10:10's work since the last major update in 2011.

For clarity, I'm a 10:10 employee, so this is a COI request. I've copied my earlier message below for ease of reference.

Hi everyone, thanks for raising this and especially to Yeti Hunter for adding an excellent #itshappening section. As a 10:10 employee, I'm aware that this article is painfully out of date, but felt it wouldn't be appropriate to make changes myself. That said, I've written a comprehensive update and published it as a workspace draft here. If anyone would like to review this and use it as the basis for an update, that'd be brilliant. I'll also invite editors on the climate change task force to do the same. Thanks! 

Simuove (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 10:10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 10:10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the name of the page?

The organisation recently changed its name to Possible (which I suppose should be added to a disambiguation page). Jojuj (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful references

Just adding a possibly useful reference, but could not see where it might fit in the main article.[1] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Warrington, Alethea (6 April 2022). "Why is the UK government backing nuclear power when onshore wind is so much better?". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Possible_(charity)&oldid=1202370611"