Talk:Energy Task Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Removed a Cat[edit]

I removed [[Category:Government of the United States]] from this page as this is not a formal government agency, branch or department. This Government of the U.S. cat is for institutions of the government.

Epolk 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article smacks of political partisanship.[edit]

Much of said appearance would be greatly alleviated if the reader were directed to the original source. The link below will get you there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/

67.128.169.97 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry.

What exactly "smacks" you about this article? It seems totally objective to me.
That link is to a web page full of blurbs -- it does not cover the Cheney Energy Plan recommendations. It would be great to get a link to the actual Cheney Energy Plan recommendations. People report that it recommends increasing US consumption of both MidEast oil, and of South American oil, and it recommends getting control of the main reserves (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran) to enable highly-capitalisation intensive upgrades to increase oil flow. These are fairly straightforward and reasonable, if debatable goals, and it would be good to present them, somewhat separately from the current article's focus on secrecy, possible corruption, and so forth. The main article should be about the actual strategy, not the rather side issues of secrecy/corruption/undue influence/whatever. Harvard yarrd
do we still know all the details of the actual strategy to list? it seems like maybe the article is just fairly representing the parts which have not been released, and speculating what was in the classified section and why it was classified. --68.78.2.189 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is that what _makes_ the Energy Task Force noteworthy in the first place is the controversy surrounding it. Some random committee of the US Federal Government may or may not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. When there is a scandal associated with said committee, however, the committee, in particular the controversy associated with it, begins to merit inclusion. This point applies to many of the articles that at first glance seem biased. That the Wikipedia page for a serial killer devotes most of its content to his killings, it's not because the page is biased against the serial killer. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The controversy is noteworthy, but so is energy policy in general. Even though most people are largely ignorant about the role of energy in modern civilization and how much nearly every aspect of their lives depends on energy, the fact remains that energy is extremely important and nations such as the United States face energy problems with tremendous risk of grave consequences. If Wikipedia has room for articles about even minor cartoons and other aspects of popular culture, surely we have room to describe U.S. Government activities with far-reaching impact. In particular those activities which involve, or amount to, further extensions of the Carter Doctrine. --Teratornis (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of the Energy Task Force ?[edit]

Does anybody have pictures of the Energy Task Force ?

Thank you, J23yrne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{[[User:{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)]] ([[User talk:{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|contribs]] · [https://www.robtex.com/ip/{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs) .html#whois WHOIS]) }}|{[[User:{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)]] ([[User talk:{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|contribs]] · [https://www.robtex.com/ip/{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs) .html#whois WHOIS]) }}]] ([[User talk:{[[User:{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)]] ([[User talk:{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs)|contribs]] · [https://www.robtex.com/ip/{24.186.190.145 (talk · contribs) .html#whois WHOIS]) }}|talk]]) 15:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Consistent Left-Wing POV Here[edit]

This aricle stands as a benchmark example of ideologs in 'acamedia' (secular progressives) taking over how an issue is defined and the Wikipedia fairness doctrine is violated...viz: "people report, possible corruption, etc." indeed! A major offense to the encyclopedic project and revolting to witness the denial that the approach 'smacks' of any bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.246.65.114 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Stephen Colbert put it well when he said that "facts have a well-known liberal bias". It's funny: I don't see any White House website dealing with the details surrounding this group. No information sheet. No minutes. No attendance records that I've found. (It's fair that energy policy be kept confidential for national security reasons. It begs explanation, however, why someone's mere _participation_ is a matter of confidence). Instead, what we see is that the only news about this group is bad news. News that strongly suggests bad faith on the part of those running the group and on the part of those who participated in it. If this appraisal is not fair it is partly _because_ of a lack of disclosure by "the other side". If they'd like to present "their side" they're invited to. LeoTrottier (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Article Makeover[edit]

I am a student at GGC. As part of my course project, I plan to make a few changes to make this article better. Undoubtedly, the page is not neutral. I also feel that it is very dull, as it has no images, or any other illustrations. I feel that the quotes given needs to be paraphrased and cited properly. I also would like to add other industrialized countries that have a similar task force and how their strategy is working for them. I feel it would be nice to have U.S strategies compared to other countries. If there is something that I do that does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines, I will gladly take the constructive criticism and try to make it better. I41hope (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) i41hope

Controversy POV[edit]

I flagged the Controversy section of this article for POV dispute. I did some editing of the section, to clean up some of its language, fix some of its references, and remove speculatory remarks. Some of the contents still seems accusatory and may not really indicate controversy (for instance - the frequent use of the phrase "big oil companies", also mentioning "energy companies" and "energy industry" as if somehow it was controversial for energy industry representatives to meet with an energy task force designed to investigate energy industry needs). As well, when I happened upon the article, some of the references and cross-references were actually hard-links to Center for American Progress articles which were explicitly partisan. I think that I cleaned it up pretty well, but I need a fresh set of eyes on this, to establish it's neutrality.Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

One other point - unless I am mistaken, I believe that Wikipedia advises against putting "Controversy" segments in articles like this.Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)