Talk:Oregon Petition

Biased

This article is astonishingly biased. How can Wikipedia allow it to remain up? It demeans Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.13.29 (talk • contribs)

Which way? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is overtly hostile to the petition. Very bad form. Not encyclopedic at all, just a nasty opinion piece.

The entire "Criticism to the Oregon Petition" section needs to be removed. It's filled with nothing more than OR and Op/Ed snippets that are outdated and unsourced. Every petition is going to have duplicate names and some fraud, but to single it out in this particular article shows bias of the author. For example:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

The number of PhDs now stands at 9,029, the sample size used in the Scientific American is too small to make any sort of conclusion as to the validity of the signatures. Even their own results were not conclusive. So why is it in there?

They are really grasping at straws. I will remove it at the end of the day. 75.150.245.241 (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article as it stands is biased. The article is supposed to be talking about a petition. By definition, a petition has a statement, and people can choose to sign it. The article should talk about the statement of the petition, which is concise. The article should also talk about the people who signed the petition. Unfortunately, the article is engaged in Ad hominem attacks some people who were involved with the petition, and against web sites which talk about the petition. This article is not "web sites which talked about XYZ petition". This article is about the petition. Assuming wiki editors think there is merit to criticisms of the petition, then a separate section of proportionate size should be created and all criticism belongs there. This article shouldn't, and couldn't, be a place where all arguments as to the fundamental theories of AGW or measured results are argued. This article needs to be about the petition. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the above comments in support of deletion for the "30 of 1,400" text, but no deletion was made? Did we decide to delete that content only to forget later the actual deletion? Kyle^(talk) 03:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is biased and an insult to readers, but not compared to a few years ago. I visited this today to test whether to recommend boycotting the panhandling drive. Some years ago the article read like a National Socialist critique of Jewish science--basically a harangue licking the blacking off of bureaucratic jackboots and a panegyric for the initiation of force in the name of half-baked political pseudoscience. As long as the Wikipedia lends itself to burning individual rights at the stake of superstition I will feel ethically bound to urge contributors to donate to more honest causes instead. translator (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

change article name to Global Warming Petition Project

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus - Page Not Moved - Sadly there appears to be only a very few editors who are willing to support/oppose at this time, although there has been a lot of discussion. The move has now been open for well over two weeks and I don't think another relist will gain enough consensus. The Alternative name does redirect here, so there's no problem with people not finding the page. One of the leading web pages (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) appears to be using the Alternative name as it's title, so maybe, with time, the "commonname" may well change, and a move can be requested again  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Oregon Petition → Global Warming Petition Project —

The name of the article should match the name of the petition. Of course, putting in a f/k/a or "originally called" certainly makes sense. Does any editor know how this is done? I think it is possible to do it in such a way that there are no orphaned links within wikipedia. - Relisting.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

-- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See earlier discussions. The name most people know this petition by is the Oregon petition. (see WP:COMMONNAME). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What verified source established the name, as known, by "most people"? --Knowsetfree (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim D. Petersen, thanks for the reference to WP:COMMONNAME. In accordance with that wiki policy, I'll update the name of the petition to the name they have been using for themselves for several years. And just to be sure, I performed a google search like it says in the wiki policy. In fact, the top four hits are accurate so Google already knows. So after researching how, I'll do the page move and then the actual name and the page name will match. Thanks again for your help. --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that is almost a surprise. Apparently the article was correctly named, and someone already moved it to the obfuscatory nickname "Oregon Petition". Time to get some admin involvement. Here are the reasons to move the article back:

• The official name of the petition at their web site is "Global Warming Petition Project".
• Google search on "Global Warming Petition Project" correctly identifies the petition on the first 4 hits.
• The current Wiki article calls it the "Global Warming Petition Project" but the page name is using the perjorative name
• The article was originally moved from "Global Warming Petition Project" to the Oregon Petition against logic and wiki policy. It appears the original move may have been motivated to obfuscate and reduce the visibility of the petition.
  --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The commonly known name that this petition is know under, is the Oregon Petition - and WP:COMMONNAME is what WP goes by. That is not "against logic and wiki policy" nor does it make it an "obfuscatory nickname". Google searches for "Oregon Petition" correctly identifies the site in the first hit (just as yours does). "Oregon Petition" gets us 2.8 million hits on google - which "Global warming petition project" gives rather few (somewhere between 9 thousand and 137 thousand - depending on using "" or not). So: Most reliable sources use "Oregon petition", almost none use "Global warming petition project" - and thus "Oregon petition" is the articles name. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kim. The question still stands, do you have a reliable source establishing that "most people" know the petition by the nickname "Oregon Petition"? If not, your argument does not carry weight. The title is misleading on several levels, as the petition is neither about nor conducted by the State of Oregon. The only arguably positive for the name "Oregon Petition" is for those who would like to obfuscate the meaning of the petition, or to continue ad hominem attacks because some of the founders, and at most six of its 31,000+ signatories, have were also members of OISM. --Knowsetfree (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not impute prejudicial motives (obfuscation, ad hominem attacks, etc) to others without proof. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I can only guess you are suggesting that I had implied prejudicial motives, though it is unclear to whom. Did you review the article or any of the recent Talk page? The issue at hand is that the "Global Warming Petition Project" has been renamed "Oregon Petition". Yet, despite prior inquiry there is no reliable reference to establish that "most people" know this name. In fact, user Kim D. Petersen makes one of the best arguments for changing the name. "Oregon Petition" is inherently ambiguous, returning just now over 4 million hits, nearly 4 million of them wrong. "Global Warming Petition Project" is not just more specific, it is the actual name of the petition, as you can see from the first line of the article. --Knowsetfree (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Knowsetfree, your confrontational style is becoming a problem; please fix it. You may have a legitimate position to argue for.

I don't claim any special expertise on this subject, but my search for ["Oregon Petition" climate] yields 19,000 results, while ["Global Warming Petition Project"] yields under 10,000. To me this suggests that "Oregon Petition" is the name in more common use. I agree that it would be good to have another method for making this determination, but don't have a suggestion about what that could be. However, in the absence of something coming from reliable secondary sources, I find the Google results sufficiently compelling to keep the name as it is.

Knowsetfree, what's the basis for your assertion that 4 million hits on O.P. are "wrong?" Would you say that using the string ["Oregon Petition" climate] addresses those incorrect results? -Pete (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pete. Answering you in three parts. 1) Confrontational style: If you wish to discuss this further, Please go to my talk page if you'd like to address the civility on this page, even if you just want to address mine. At the same time, if you think my participation warrants review by administrators please do not hesitate to draw their attention to my discourse. 2) Common Use and web hits: I just typed into Google the search "oregon petition"[1] and got:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,040,000 for oregon petition. (0.10 seconds) 

It was 4 million hits yesterday. The point is, there are not 4, or even 3 million websites by or about the "Global Warming Petition Project". Of course, most links will resolve to entirely different petitions or topics related to Oregon [2], [3]. That is what I mean by "most of them are wrong". Going further, I believe there is little if any conclusion that can be drawn from the number of page hits for a given term. I've never seen wiki policy hold otherwise. Obviously, a google link is what it is, nothing more nothing less. In my opinion, if the real name resolves to the correct subject in the first couple of pages, the real name should be used for the wiki article. It seems frivolous to weigh the number of hits when the purpose is using the appropriate name. Google's methods are not engineered to provide a hit total that is proportional to the relevance of the name for the first hit. The number of hits is a function of Google's proprietary methods and is weighted heavily towards the sum total of the frequency which individual words of the search term appear in the lexicon formed by all web pages. That is why the word "Oregon" returns so many hits, there is so much having to do with the state of Oregon. It is another reason why "Oregon" is confusing, unclear, obfuscatory. For example: "Politician" returns 20 Million hits and the first hit identifying a person is Percy E. Sutton, Politician and Malcolm X Lawyer. Obviously, Mr. Sutton should not be name "Politician", nor is he the most relevant politician. 3) The real issue: If we are looking to the internet for the appropriateness/commonality of using "Oregon Petition" as the name - we should recognize that it is detractors of the Global Warming Petition Project, as well as AGW skeptics in general, who are using and may have first defined the nickname. A casual perusal of these internet opinion sites depict derogatory talk about the volunteers who started the petition, and the employer OISM of at least one of them. I've never seen any reliable source that shows that "Oregon Petition" was ever used by the petition originators, though it clearly is not used now. It seems that "Oregon Petition" is a nickname assigned early on by many of the opinion sites on the internet which deride the petition. You can see how sites, and opinion forums, that attack the petition and those associated with it blatantly assign the "Oregon Petition" nickname: "your referring to the Oregon Petition" [http://askville.amazon.com/referring-Oregon-Petition-impressive-proponents-make/DiscussionPost.do?requestId=64517863&commentId=64526236&commentNumber=0&pageNumber=1], using the nickname in quotes [[4]], ignoring the real name used in a TV broadcast and renaming it [5]. We can't regulate the language of opinion sites outside of wikipedia, nor should anyone. But we need not adopt their terminology, and wiki articles can adhere to the NPOV standard, especially for politically sensitive topics.
In summary:

• "Global Warming Petition Project" is the actual name, as is actually stated currently in the wiki article.
• Google reflects the actual name by a first hit on a search of the quoted name.
• There has been no reliable reference shown establishing that "Oregon Petition" is or was the official name.
• The only argument presented so far in favor of the name "Oregon Petition" is "most people know it by that name" with the only proof being the number of Google Search hits. My opinion is that argument is fundamentally flawed, and extremely weak.
  
• In my opinion the nickname "Oregon Petition" is at a minimum, obfuscatory. The nickname's use outside of wiki on the internet seems to be associated with and concentrated on POV opinion sites, many of which are blatantly uncivil and unreliable.--Knowsetfree (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Google reflects the actual name by a first hit on a search of the quoted name. This seems rather unremarkable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Hi. I'm here from requested moves, and I would make a couple of comments about the conversation so far. Our general policy is to use a name that will be recognized by most readers; that's what the COMMONNAME page is about. In my experience with thousands of moves, there is almost never a source saying "X is the most common name".

  The determination of most common name is made instead by editors here, based on the same reliable sources that we use to write the article. If credible sources generally call it the "Oregon Petition", then we go with "Oregon petition" (assuming nothing else of equal or greater notability is also known by that name). If credible sources generally call it the "Global Warming Petition Project", then that's what we go with.

  It's not clear to me from the above discussion which name is used in our sources. Can someone address that question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  Most sources call it the "Oregon petition" (both credible and non-credible ones). The website changed the name recently from the "petition project" to the "global warming petition project" but neither of these names are widely used. Knowsetfree's argument is that since the petition changed its name we should as well - and the counter-argument is exactly that OP is the most widely used name. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note Could someone please address the comment above by User:GTBacchus, otherwise this Requested Move is going nowhere  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support based on a brief, quick survey of the references given in the article. One note here though is that many of the references seem to refer to it as simply "The Petition", but I only actually noticed "Oregon Petition" once. Anyway, I'm just here from WP:RM to provide a 3O, so please dont' go trying to drag me into the current climate change hoopla here on en.wiki. Thanks.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• OK - I'll move this page in 24h unless we get a wave of noes. Note that the comparison of Google above is not that valid - one must add "-wikipedia" to the line to stop all the sites that copy content from here - e.g. "Oregon Petition" -wikipedia and "Global Warming Petition Project" -wikipedia. There are 17000 for the first at 5300 for the second, However in both cases the main site that comes up as the number one hit is http://www.oism.org/pproject/ - of which the web page title (that's what shows in Google and in the bar the very top of IE/FF) is "Home - Global Warming Petition Project"  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  Objection - Say what? You are moving the page based on what? Sorry, but that simply is ignoring all the commentary already here, and basing it solely on one outside comment. If this is (as Ohm's law indicates) solely a problem with a lack of references on the page that call it the Oregon petition, then that is rather easy to change. If you take a simple check on Google Scholar, then you'd find that ("Oregon petion" +climate")[6], climate added here to ensure that we do not get false positives, returns a total of 15,800 references - whereas "Global warming petition project" (the proposed new title) gives 14"Global+warming+petition+project"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. Notice that even if we consider the first result as consisting of 90% false positives - the current name is still (by a magnitude) the most common name. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

False statement attributed to a "petition website" - citation shows otherwise.

It is a given that there are people who do not believe the declarations made in the petition. However, the petition speaks for itself. This false text was removed:

The text of the petition often is misrepresented. For example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever" and t

The "petition's website" said no such thing. I examined the provided citation, which was a web page which was merely talking about the petition. The website designated in the citation was an editorial. In fact, it was clear that the website referred to the actual petition website as "This Page", which was a direct link to the actual website. The quote "global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever" appears on the review website, but appears nowhere on the actual petition's website. Just because there might be some people who arguably "misrepresent" the text of the Global Warming Petition Project doesn't mean that Wiki should repeat such errors. That is to say, it was a lie that was just removed, a lie that was misrepresenting the text of the petition. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi William. Just saw your quick reply, but moments ago I just working on a complete explanation of the error on a talk section above. Why don't you read the explanation as to why the content deleted in the article, as well as your commentary above, is a falsehood and a misrepresentation of the petition. After reviewing my comments, and your own citation, By all means talk here about what you were thinking. If you made an honest mistake, please let us know because I would always want to retain the assumption of good faith associated with your name. Of course, if in fact I'm "wrong", maybe you can clearly describe the specific simple point in question: Whether the petition site ever held the words as you have asserted. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor William M. Connolley is oddly brisk in the speed of his responsiveness when he has "content" on wikipedia which he desires to protect. He has quickly reverted several edits of mine. Only one of my edits dealing with the specific issue of the falsehood I identified, the others primarily being grammatical improvements. William, I've gone to great lengths to clearly and concisely document your falsehoods. Perhaps you could act as quickly to address them? While I'm still trying to assume that you are acting in good faith you must admit that your simple declaration "you're wrong" hardly constitutes a reasonable attempt to discuss, or even explain, your interpretation of the facts. I'll invite you to revert your recent deletions that are not covered by the "your wrong" explanation absent clear and specific reasons therefore, and to elaborate on the "your wrong" explanation. Let me politely make it clear, your falsehood is easily verified by reading the very same archived citation that you provided. --Knowsetfree (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have too much respect for grammar to say "your wrong". As for the rest; well, so you are. Lets see what others have to say; we're not likely to agree, it seems William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, your respect for grammar is greater than your respect for truth and logic. But I'll give you credit. Perhaps only my first quotation of your flimsy reply included the apostrophe, so technically speaking you were misquoted. Notwithstanding that your meaning was not misrepresented, I apologize. Now, please remove your falsehoods which misrepresent the petition, to which so many honorable academics have subscribed. Don't 31,000 people deserve at least as much respect as you deserve? Or you can let wiki editors know that you concede to a nullification of your revert. --Knowsetfree (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So you contend that the text that used to be at http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm cannot be held against the organisers of the petition that is hosted at http://www.oism.org/pproject/ ? That idea would be more convincing if the organisers didn't consist of a full quarter of OISM's faculty. Or if the passage in question had been there only for a couple of weeks rather than 8 1/2 years from approximately April 1999 till September 2007. Hans Adler 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hans. Thank you for joining the discussion. You might not realize it, but you are embracing a logical fallacy. In fact, the flawed logic is so old that long ago philosophers gave it a name: ad hominem. And Thank you for proving the point, for establishing that the website that William M. Connolley (and perhaps another user in the article) falsely tells us as the source of a quote is in fact from somewhere else. Do you ever see a commentator on NBC news who gives his own opinion, then a newscaster purportedly gives the full news? Of course not. Another example could help: Even if every musician of the New York Philharmonic purchased their morning coffee at Starbucks, it wouldn't mean that the New York Phiharmonic endorsed Starbucks, or was owned by Starbucks. You are trying to attack specific people and then use that attack of those persons to try to disparage an idea. There are 31K degreed people on the petition, perhaps it has doubled from 4 years ago. Furthermore, User William M. Connolley engaged in another wikipedia misdeed besides the ad hominem logic flaw. So the two issues are: 1) William has falsehoods on wiki, and 2) ad hominem attacks don't belong on wiki. Just to clarify the ad hominem issue, there are over 31,000 degreed people with a scientific background, and that includes over 9,000 PhDs. The significance of the Global Warming Petition Project is its simplicity in the few sentences, and the volume of degreed Phd's and other scientists who have aligned with it. Since a strong, if not the strongest, argument by the AGW community for drastic changes in law and policy is that the "Science" of Global Warming is "settled", and has reached a "scientific consensus", and that "2,500 of the Worlds Top Scientists" believe in it - the existence of the petition is newsworthy. 9K is much greater than 2.5K. 31K is over an order of magnitude greater than 2,500. Surely, if Global Warming is really so obvious and well settled, surely there must be something that the highly funded AGW professionals can do to address the Global Warming Petition Project besides irrelevant pointless ad hominem attacks. --Knowsetfree (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you condense this down into one or two focused points? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris. My first posting would be best, but here's two:

• 1) The wiki article is falsely attributing POV statements made by a third party to the actual petition itself. One or more editors either disagree as to the falsity or believe an exception should be made, it's not clear which.
• 2) Content from a POV source does not belong on wiki.

--Knowsetfree (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Much Better

I wrote the original comment that the article was biased. I see now that it has been cleaned up, the POV removed, and it is much better. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.10.90 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oregon Petition. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601110230/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/309/Scientists_don_t_agree_on_global_wa.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html?view=print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603094408/http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html to http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html

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) 04:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Disinforming and Confusing"

NPV – by Appeal to Motives Logical Fallacy Re summary: “It is commonly considered to be a political petition designed for disinforming and confusing the public about the scientific results and the consensus of climate change research.” This headline summary statement violates Wikipedia's foundational NPV (NPOV) policy. It commits the Logical Fallacy of “The Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives)”. See Master List of Logical Fallacies #18 This NPV should best be corrected by 1) Deleting it from the summary and at best editing and putting it further down. OR 2) Correct it to: “Others assert it disinforms the public about climate science and a consensus on climate change.” This removes Wikipedia from making the logical fallacy assertion imputing moral turpitude, to noting that others have made this illogical Argument from Motives.DLH (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So you disagree with the reliable source quoted in the article. Tough. Your own thoughts on the matter are not relevant here. See WP:OR. If you publish those thoughts in a reliable source, that is another matter. Do that, and we can quote you contradicting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

My disagreement is the breach of NPOV committed by the sentence having Wikipedia make the illogical fallacy "Argument from Motives" rather than noting the article author states it. PS How is an author committing an obvious logical fallacy a "reliable source"? DLH (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLH (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As above, the disagreement is clearly NOT with 'the reliable source quoted in the article' but the biased presentation of the quote. This is far from the first article that contains this sort of arrogantly dismissive, falsely positioned brush off by some editor forcing misleading views into an article. One can see that Wikipedia's dishonesty is hidden away in the Talk pages where obfuscation and dissembling rhetoric are used to hide the bias of the editors in justifying their flawed and propagandist viewpoints. What a tragedy for a once great idea. --Diolution (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.3.76 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC) 122.60.3.76

Oregon Petition.

I believe the sole purpose of this entry was meant not to provide a straight forward unbiased description of the petition and other relative facts but to add his own spin to discredit a petition which the author vehemently disagrees with. The author has carefully phrased sentences and inserted passive aggressive verbiage to influence the readers opinion on the subject matter. A proper encyclopedic entry should not so clearly convey the beliefs of the author. 98.114.241.198 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no "the author". The article is based on reliable sources and reflects their stance. Their stance is the the Petition is pseudoscientific bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)