Talk:AirportWatch

Justification

I have created an article for AirportWatch because they are a significant player in the debate around airport expansion in the UK (as can I hope be seen from the member organisations). The initial content has inevitably been created mainly from their web site, however I believe the injunction from last summer and other links shows the 'notability'. I would welcome support in improving the article and stopping it reading 'like an advertisement'. PeterIto (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

I'm removing several of the tags in this:

1. Refimprove - Guardian, New Statesman and International Herald Tribune are blue chip references, and other refs have now been added
2. Expand - redundant when the article has a stub tag
3. Cleanup - redundant when there are more specific tags —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Advertisement?

I would welcome contributions to make this more neutral and less like an advert. Personally I am not clear what I can add as it is generally a factual article about who they are and what they do. I have asked the person who tagged the article with these issues to review the article again. I am keen to get this sorted and will then create articles for NoTRAG, StopHeathrowExpansion, HACAN Clearskies, CarbonTradeWatch and Plane Stupid and remove the external links to those organisations. I have already created an article for the 2M Group and am awaiting a decision to bring it back from being deleted (currently it is in my 'talk' area) which would remove all the external links.PeterIto (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting these organisational articles to mesh with the 'issue' articles and airport articles

There seem to be a profusion of organisations even within the UK opposing aviation expansion either locally or from some particular angle (noise, CO2 etc) and we need a framework on which to hang the issues and then link to them from the organisational articles. See Talk:Flying_Matters and Talk:Future_of_air_transport_in_the_United_Kingdom for further discussion on this.PeterIto (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd review of article

Please refer to: Wikipedia:ORG. This article is still very biased with keywords that stresses these biases. These keywords will be removed. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 12:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• "In the end the airport operator won a much reduced injunction naming John Stewart (chair of AirportWatch), Joss Garman and Leo Murray from Plane Stupid but not including AirportWatch or its members[5]." This sentence is very awkward and should be rewritten. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have since fixed some of the issues to balance some of the biased viewpoints of the article, mainly from the original content's mixing the organization's beliefs into their coverage topics. The tags shall remain and I may tag this article with more tags as the content sees fit. In the mean time, I shall research this organization more closely, as I am finding this org's notability is now in question. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reference #7-11 does not have any content that is about the organization, just the topics. These are See Also content, not references and will be removed. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • To quote from the guidelines "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization". AirportWatch is a national UK organisation, with gets mentioned in UK national broadsheet newspapers, and on national tv; it has the National Trust and RSPB as members who have Prince Charles and Elizabeth II, the Queen of England as their patrons respectively. They were an injunctee in a very major recent UK court case and John Stewart is himself has a significant voice in UK aviation policy, I recommend that you search www.google.co.uk for '"john stewart" aviation', virtually the whole of the first page refers to him and the issues, and as such I believe the staff and membership sections have merit for 'notability' and context and can be updated as necessary. Joss Garman is also an influential thinker with a regular columns in The Guardian and The Ecologist; please refer to his profile [1] and articles [2]. He won an award for moral courage in 2003 in the Anne Frank Awards (in memory of Anne Frank)[3]. I will be seeing John Stewart on Tuesday and will learn more about the organisation then but am reluctant to 'fight' you over it, possibly Factotem will have some useful input on the matter. I will stand back while you make your own assessment. PeterIto (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Jamenson L: Please also discuss with User:Phil_Bridger why he removed some of the tags relating to this article about an hour before you escalated them.PeterIto (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedians who would like to comment on this article may do so on this page. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Notability is not vanity. Famous people in an organization does not make the organization famous. That's guilt by association. Membership or not I have read through the references on the article and the ones I deleted did not contribute or establish notability to the article, but only to establish the existence of problems with aviation. In regards to other references placed on the article, references regarding this article should be about the subject covered by third-party sources that are neutral (not by environmentalist groups) to the subject. See WP:RS. The list of environmental issues that I reworded was done because it contained non-neutral keywords and the section was in direct copyright violation of the website you are citing in Reference 5 ([4]). That list (in its original wording) violated the AirportWatch copyright placed on their website in 2004 and Wikipedia cannot allow copyright material to be placed on its articles without the copyright holder sending the Wikimedia Foundation expressed written consent before the content may be place on Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• This article has again been subject to gross overtagging.

There is nothing wrong with the lead section except that the title wasn't bolded.

It has three cast-iron independent sources which provide notability.

Non-independent sources are perfectly acceptable for the purposes of describing the aims of the organisation, and anyway there's no reason why all environmental organisations should be dismissed as non-independent - it is only the subject organisation or its members who can be called non-independent.

It is not written like an advertisement, and anyway that tag is redundant to the neutrality tag.

The time spent in putting on these tags and arguing about them could have been much better spent on fixing the remaining issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just had another look and removed the remaining tags. There's nothing left that can be called POV, and the article is written in prose - there's nothing wrong with bullet points when including a list. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thats what I wanted to hear. So that just leaves the question in my mind as to whether it was appropriate to have removed the sections on Members and on Staff and also the references attached to each campaign aims to demonstrate the issue. I note that Stop Climate Chaos lists its members, as does the Scottish Football League First Division (to pike out two random examples). Make Poverty History only describes the sort of organisations and lists sample supporters but possibly that is because there are 500+ members. Staff are not detailed on StopClimate Chaos or the other articles, but it appears to me that John Stewart is key to this organisation and his other affiliations help paint a picture. I am asking because I want to know and will follow the majority guidance and want to then put this article to bed as it were and move on to articles on the other related organisations and I want to use an acceptable template. PeterIto (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... you pointed out one organization and a football team. First of all, using a sports team for your argument is questionable. Second of all, here are some good articles that do not list their members. (If John Stewart is so important to you, maybe it might be better to start his own article.)

• Greenpeace
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Sierra Club
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Environmental Defense
• World Wide Fund for Nature

...just to name a few. And these are all on related subjects.

Regarding the removal of examples of campaign issues, users can either click on the AW website, or click on the internal links placed on the issues (after all, that's what the internal links are for). It is misleading to users who believe that the references on the claims were about the organization because the user is visiting AW's article, not its campaign subjects.

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not clear what you are trying to achieve with your input at the moment, please consider you contributions more carefully. The organisations you mention have vast numbers of individual members and listing them would be impossible and an invasion of privacy, AirportWatch has a small number of organisations as members, as does the fooball league as does Stop Climate Chaos. For the record: Greenpeace membership 2.5million, Concerned scientist 200K, Sierra Club 730K, NRDC 1.2million, EDF not stated, WWF 5million. A number of these do mention the the founder and /or the chairman. PeterIto (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to make this article unbiased and up to par with other organizations. Yes, some of the organizations list only their past chairmen (because they have history). Last time I checked, this organization is not as well established as other organizations. In addition, they only include the top position, not pulling the entire list of current members. Look, all I'm saying is telling me the amount of membership in other organizations has nothing to do with our discussion here. You want to put John Stewart in the article, fine, but don't place his bio in there. If you believe Stewart is notable enough to withstand a separate article, do so and place an internal link stating that he is one of the major driving forces in the organization. However, don't list your entire membership on the article. It is unnecessary, and as I have listed above, other articles about well-established environmentalist/political activism organizations do not list their entire membership list on their respective articles. If you are taking this personally, please take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I don't mind the removal of excess tags, it was bunched together on WP:TW. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Air transport issues and organisations

I have been communicating with PeterIto about the need for a separate 'issues' article which covers both sides of the debate about air transport (which seems a better term as aviation includes light aircraft which have their own issues but are not generally implicated in environmental issues). This seems useful so that articles such as this one, which deal with specific campaign groups, can concentrate on the orgnisation and not get bogged down in the campaign, where the potential for NPOV violations seems to be significant. Whilst I don't support detailed coverage of the issues AirportWatch campaigns on in this article, I do support its notability as a significant player in the debate. I realise that's a bit too close to 'please take my word for it' and there is no reason to do so just on my say so, but I have put a lot of work in Future of air transport in the United Kingdom and they are used as a source there. --FactotEm (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

I have nominated this article for deletion because wikipedia is not, see WP:NOT, a soap box for any politics let alone looney left politics.Petebutt (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AirportWatch. 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/20090209151529/http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2295792.0.boom_in_scots_air_travel_set_to_bust_emissions_targets.php to http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2295792.0.boom_in_scots_air_travel_set_to_bust_emissions_targets.php

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) 20:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)