Talk:Carl Pope (environmentalist)

The page states that T Boone Pickens flew Pope to Texas in his $60 million plane. Why does anyone (except a rabid Carl Pope hater) conceivably give a rats ass about the price of T Boone Pickens' plane, and why is it in an article about Pope? Pickens spent $58 million promoting wind energy. The reference to his plane is asinine. Get it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.235.159 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just deleted the sentence about Pope's salary. I'm not sure why it's relevant. -- Autumninjersey 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course it's relevant. Wikipedia does not need this kind of tampering. ---Dagme (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

As the person who added it, I'd advocate restoring it -- the reason is that public leaders of non-profits are accountable for their pay, which is set by their boards on behalf of their constituencies. It's why we have law requiring public availability of the IRS form 990 for nonprofits. This isn't an issue specific to Pope, but rather to all public figures in leadership roles at non-profits. That's my argument as to relevancy.

One could make the same argument for all elected officials and non-profits. Yet we don't list salary information for them either. Until we have a general practice of listing salaries we shouldn't list it for arbitrary individuals. Doing so gives the appearance of pusing a POV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As something so large as Wikipedia grows, its ability to absorb new forms of networked information (such as salaries) declines, because others will simply say "it is not done." Frankly, Pope's salary is neither particularly large nor particularly small by non-profit standards. NPOV is supposed to ensure a balance of facts, not their absence, and, to the best of my reading, is an aspiration for a single article, not an injunction for bland conformity of the whole, where it cannot fail but to be used to critique rather than praise any attempt at adding knowledge. I continue to object. What sort of "balancing" information would you think is necessary for a salary?

If the subject's salary is not unusual then why mention it? Conceivable balancing material might include information we can't access, such as job description, performance ratings, and other work-related details. I don't see how this type of material would improve the biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your argument would then contravene the principle of public disclosure of nonprofit and government employees in toto. It's strangely circular -- if a salary is not "abnormal" it should not be reported -- if abnormal then to report it would not be NPOV. I think that Wikipedia should include all salaries of public figures where available, as it is information of compelling public interest. Many states which require disclosure of public employee salaries make it difficult to access, and making information like this more easily obtainable ensures better accountability of public officials, whether at nonprofits or in the government.

The subject's home address may be available in various disclosure forms or databases, but it isn't relevant to his biography. I'm not sure how publishing someone's salary makes someone more accountable. Anyway, I suggest you make your proposal of posting all salaries of public employees on the biographies noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. However I doubt you will find any support. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Pope (environmentalist). 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/20080916175917/http://peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.notable.npanddev to http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.notable.npanddev
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429025858/http://www.usw.org:80/usw/program/content/2650.php to http://www.usw.org/usw/program/content/2650.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply