Jump to content

Talk:Clean Power Plan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
JJJansen (talk | contribs)
add ds notice
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=cc}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_102_(Spring_2017) | reviewers = [[User:Hfrankl|Hfrankl]] }}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Environmental_Justice_Section_102_(Spring_2017) | reviewers = [[User:Hfrankl|Hfrankl]] }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Mid}}

Revision as of 20:20, 4 November 2017

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Hfrankl.


Feedback from Prof. Gelobter

You have a copywrite issue in the way you cited the EESI article on the EJ Executive order. Go ahead and rephrase that paragraph to reflect the same info with more direct language...something like: "Executive Order 12898 requires the EPA to make environmental justice part of its mission and the Clean Power Plan includes tools to protect indigenous communities yada yada..." Check for other copywrite violations before your revisions are disappeared. This has happened on a couple of other pages. Rather than correcting the potential violations, folks are seeking to have prior edits deleted. Legally speaking you fall easily under "fair use" but a strict standard is being applied here. EJustice (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me...you didn't have a copyright issue because the material involved is under CCL, making the use of the material completely legitimate. Perhaps check on how it should be cited so you're ironclad (and rephrasing rather than quoting is I think more legit in any case). Thanks!EJustice (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, about the mistake on EESI license. There was also text copied from CNN that from what I can tell fell in the same range of revisions, which would be the reason for the majority of the revision deletion since they are not under CCL. The last revision after the CNN text was removed might be able to be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition/criticism listed?

The article only deals in positives and benefits. I might be wrong and this is actually a perfect plan, but shouldn't facts from the parties opposed to this plan be listed somewhere? Brettwardo (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly because of this. Some more cleanup / de-POV would be a good thing. - Bri (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in intro

Hi, @Everymorning:. Why did you revert adding "due to a lawsuit from states opposed to it" to the intro? I was trying to more clearly summarize the contents of the article. -- Beland (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Beland, I did this by accident when I unintentionally clicked rollback, and I have since restored the content you added. Everymorning (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, heh, it happens. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]