I removed the statement "Local media began giving a more balanced view to the issues and anti-nuclear groups stopped advertising the time and location of their meetings on public websites." Maybe, they did, maybe they didn't. It's a opinion that doesn't appear to be supported by the reference link at the end of the par. --Bob Burton 18:58, 12 December 2006 (EST)
Actually, the statement had as much support as what was written by the original author. She quoted the statements in my presentation and I did the same. The slides of the presentation even have a screen capture that shows how anti-nuclear activists began changing their mode of operation. -Lisa Stiles-Shell 15:30, 13 December 2006 (EST)
- Lisa, thanks. I had a look at the slides on screen but it still didn't seem to make that point. I tried to get the slides emailed to me but for some reason it wouldn't work for me. Perhaps you could email the slides to me directly (my address is at the foot of the page). with thanks --Bob Burton 15:56, 13 December 2006 (EST)
Bob, Did you receive my emails? -Lisa Stiles-Shell 16:56, 13 December 2006 (EST)
- Yes. In response: a) as someone playing an active role in public debate it is quite reasonable that a contributor has started a profile on you; and b) the deleted material was opinion that was not supported by the citation --Bob Burton 05:32, 14 December 2006 (EST)
Lisa, FYI here is a copy of our policy on people adding to their own page. --Bob Burton 05:34, 14 December 2006 (EST)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Policy Section 1.6 Groups/individuals posting articles on themselves
We don't encourage individuals and groups to create SW articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated, and we encourage people to register under their own names when editing articles already on SW about themselves or their groups. We also encourage people who edit articles about themselves or people or organizations with which they are affiliated to exercise restraint and to defer to other contributors with regard to editing choices that are matters of interpretation rather than fact. When disputes arise over interpretation, such individuals should try to address them with comments on the talk page rather than the article space itself. Users who are overly aggressive in deleting relevant facts from articles about themselves or others may be blocked from contributing to or editing the site.
- Thanks for your response, Bob. This is the second time that you have pointed out this policy to me. Do you think I have violated it in some way? I did not create the article myself, I registered under my own name, I "exercised restraint" when adding facts, I did not edit the changes you made after mine, and I have not deleted anything.
I see now that Diane has edited the article to include portions of what I was talking about. Thanks! -Lisa Stiles-Shell 10:59, 14 December 2006 (EST)
- Hi, Lisa. Glad to see that you agree the current version of the article is accurate. - Diane Farsetta 11:03, 14 December 2006 (EST)
I added information from a debate last week because it clearly spells out the message that I'm passionate about and that drives my participation in the public discussion on nuclear--that we must fairly evaluate all technologies with the same set of objective criteria and if we do that we will find that nuclear is part of the solution to acheive our goals of meeting rising energy demand and of protecting our health and environment. The pros and cons of each technology (cleaner coal, nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas, geothermal etc.) will dictate how and where we deploy them. -Lisa Stiles-Shell 14:05, 15 December 2006 (EST)