Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article NPOV

The entire article, as written, is rank with the perspective of global warming "alarmists," for lack of a better term. In particular, the obvious slant of the "scientific basis" section of the article is plainly intended to give the impression that Gore's thesis (that man is a principle cause of observed global warming) is well demonstrated, scientifically. In point of fact, there are, to put it charitably, serious gaps in the scientific evidence. Hopefully, the article can at least acknowledge those gaps, even if it's too much to hope that it would openly acknowledge that Gore's movie has far more to do with the political ideology relating to global warming, rather than any serious interest in climalogy as a science. My edits attempt to reach a more NPOV slant by presenting both the evidence that Gore's supporters contend support his position and the reasons why serious skeptics do not believe that evidence is sufficient. QBeam 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably looking for the Global warming controversy article. Jkelly 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, in time, I'll tackle that hill, as well. For the moment I'm content to improve the world one article at a time. QBeam 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just take care how you "improve the world" here. Specifically, I would be careful about pulling the kind of stunts that a previous editor here, SpinyNorman, did here: got blocked for all his trouble. You could browse through the article history (as well as this discussion) to see what I'm talking about. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to read QBeam the news about how the White House pressured government scientists to excluse or downplay mentions of global warming or words to that effect, and how some reports were edited to include and highlight global warming skepticism. Berserkerz Crit 08:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with QBeam to a certain extent on this, though I might not choose to employ such agressive language. If I were to read this article, I would conclude that there is little or no controversy about the content of the film or the statements made in it. Yet this is clearly not the case. What about some links to the many mistakes Gore makes in the film? It seems to me that this article cries out for a "Criticism" section and not just what film critics have to say about it. --Lee Vonce 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't win, Qbeam, Lee. Wiki is constantly patrolled by a cabal of left-wing socialists who monitor every liberal talking point/article 24/7, in the hopes to quash any and all facts that scientifically refute King Gore's claims of pending global extinction. A dozen or so people continue to spew lies and half-truths, cover each other's edits with reverts, and then the global warming myth is perpetutated.

YOu see, for some reason they think a "consensus" = "fact", but only when it's a lefty issue. For example: The consensus of the people on earth is that there is a Higher Power, a God, since 90% of the people on this planet pray or worship a diety in some form or another, but when it's a right-wing point, it doesn't count.

They will go so far as to delete facts from the discussion pages of their most important campaign and book/movie ticket selling issues.

Ymous 08:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a completely irrelevant example. The existence of a god has not been researched extensively using any scientific method, although if you read some of Richard Dawkins work you can find some interesting examples like the well-known prayer study. Likewise if I can find 90% of any group that thinks Al Gore made a terrific, or awful, movie, it's irrelevant. Since both of these examples concern issues that are not the result of any scientific research, they are simply opinion. They have no more, and no less, validity that saying the Beatles were a popular band.

The consensus of trained scientists, or a content analysis of hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, on a subject that has been researched extensively is simply in another league. If you can't see the difference I don't know why you bother editing this page. DMorpheus 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help playing a ping-pong game someone shouting "Gore is wrong", then others shouting "Gore is right" and so on. QBeam, if you have references of reputable scientists pointing out mistakes in the movie, go ahead. Note that just claiming something without reference is not sufficient for adding it to Wikipedia. Furthermore, scientific findings are something different than claims made in the mainstream media, which are very often based on lack of knowledge or motivated by politics. This confuses many people. Note that in the scientific community, there is an agreement on this issue, see for example the today's panel report of the world's leading climate scientists. QBeam, what do you suggest to add to the article? 87.163.92.11 09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the scientific community, there not as much agreement on the issue as some (like Al Gore) would like the public to believe. The latest report by the IPCC is a perfect example. It is portrayed as somehow definitive and all-encompassing when, in reality, the IPCC is simply a group of scientists who are chosen because they agree with the views and goals of the IPCC and then eased out the door or allowed to resign if they disagree with the IPCC's views. I'm not saying that they're wrong about anything in particular, I'm just saying that I disagree with those who claim that the IPCC speaks for everyone. There are reputable scientists who disagree with the IPCC and the attempts by the IPCC and their members to discount or descredit this criticism is disgraceful. --Lee Vonce 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

People will believe what they want to believe. Unless the truth smacks the hell out of their face, butt and soul to kingdom come. And as to any issue, there will be voices of dissent. It's just that the IPCC's voice is stronger than those dissenting, because they are authorized, collective, and credible. How can you say the scientists of IPCC are those who only conform to the views and goals of IPCC when they come from different nations, backgrounds and credentials? You should look at the White House which is the one proven to have coerced or influenced government scientists to downplay mentions of global warming in government reports and highlight or include skepticisms on the role of mankind in warming the world. Berserkerz Crit 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As for maniuplating and coercing scientists, the IPCC has shown itself to be just as willing to do these things as the Bush Administration. Just because the IPCC seem to think that they are on the side of the angels, that doesn't excuse the things they've done. --Lee Vonce 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Um? What power does the IPCC have over the contributing scientists? They neither control publication venues (outside the IPC reports themself), they don't pay them (participation in the IPCC process is part of the normal academic job someone does, i.e. free extra work), and they don't give out grants. Do you have any source about your claim? --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Let us just move the conversation here. The dictionary definition of propaganda is anything which tries to convince some one else of their view on a political, social, or religous subject. Gore, as was his right, and probably his duty, made a film to alert people to what he feels strongly is an important issue, global warming. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but he is trying to convince of his opinion, rather than simply state a fact, as a documentary would. I would put it in the same cat if it was an anti-global warming movie. Triumph of the Will, which you consistently refer to, was created out of footage of the 1934 Nazi Party congress, as is ment to show the great re-birth of Germany under Hitler, an opinion which the Nazis no doubt sincerly beleived. So why fight me on this?--Dudeman5685 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Because your dictionary is either bad or you are citing out of context. The term "propaganda" has strong negative connotations. Just check our own article: "Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. " --Stephan Schulz 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, by the true meaning of the word An Inconvient Truth is a propaganda film, but with these "negative connotations" that the word has taken on I personally wouldn't call it a propaganda film. BUT when dealing with Wikipedia, one must use the "true" meaning of the word. Otherwise you can't really label a film (or anything) as "propaganda" without being in danger of violating WP:NPOV, right? If An Inconvient Truth, which fits a definition of "propaganda film", can't be labelled as propaganda, then nothing should be. In my opinion. If nothing else, there should at least be a mention of the opinion that An Inconvient Truth is a propaganda film. Chickenmonkey 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely: the fact that it's been called a propaganda film deserves notice in the article. It shouldn't be categorized as one here, though. See the difference? +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but then how can one differentiate from those that have been called propaganda and those that are? My point is that if this can't be categorized as a "propaganda film" then the entire category of "propaganda films" should probably be deleted, or at least further defined or something. Chickenmonkey 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Defining propaganda is a lot like defining art. Artists are only "supposed" to think about the artistic value of their work, and ignore social or monetary considerations, but of couse they all do. The fact is, even though many people have a negative aversion to the word, many, like my self, attach no such stigma, and feel that propaganda is a valid, even necessary, part of political expression, and people propagandizing their view points helps rather than hinders democracy. Thus I would gladly put this An Inconvient Truth in the propaganda category, a label it should were with pride.--Dudeman5685 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda, as stated by Stephan and Wikipedia itself, has negative connotations. It's synonyms include advertising, agitprop, announcement, ballyhoo, brainwashing*, disinformation, doctrine, evangelism, handout, hogwash*, hype*, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, newspeak, promotion, promulgation, proselytism, publication, and publicity. Some of these are neutral or positive but it is conspicuous that there are negative synonyms included. Berserkerz Crit 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of those terms can objectively be applied to this film. --Lee Vonce 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as

1. capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2. : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3. : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

In my opinion, though there may be negative connotations given to "propaganda", these neutral definitions are the only definitions that can be used if anything is to be included on wikipedia labelled as "propaganda".

Bottom line: if An Inconvenient Truth cannot be labelled "propaganda" because the word has possible negative connotations, then nothing else can be labelled "propaganda" for the same reason. It's not neutral. Chickenmonkey 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is more apt to call the film a documentary because it is based on facts, shows facts, and relies heavily on facts. I will agree that the film is a propaganda in the strictest sense but mind you, all serious films or editorial writings are also propagandas, because they all spread ideas for the purpose of advancing a cause. Michael Moore's documentaries advance causes as well but if you look at the Farenheit 9/11 article, the word propaganda only comes up once and it is referenced as a criticism.

I have no problems with anyone adding the word propaganda to this article if it is referenced and aptly stated by a credible third-party source, and not just one's own opinion. Berserkerz Crit 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your resoning, Berzerker, that some people might see the word propaganda, and and would give them reservations about the veracity of the film, isn't that, in fact, a good thing? Shouldn't people be critical of what information or media they receive and realize that, although the points this movie makes may be valid, they are not "gospel truth" and there may be other, equally valid, points of view on this, or any other subject? We want people to think critically, and giving them that "heads up" is healthy. I'll get off my soap box and pull my head out of my proverbial ass now, and find you a 3rd party source.--Dudeman5685 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is an article from a magazine, which seems to diss both Gore and Bush in the same sentence, in which he refers to the movies as "propaganda" http://abstractdynamics.org/2006/05/wired_al_gore.php that is the only direct reference, there are many indirect, that don't say the P word, but indicate it all the same.--Dudeman5685 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So again, put something in the article (referenced, of course) that covers this, saying that the film has been labeled propaganda by others. Still not a valid reason to put the film in that category here. By the way, I think it's worth pointing out that this whole tempest in a teapot is due to the agitations of a single person here—you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Google reveals a small minority pundits referring to the film as propaganda, but only to denigrate, i.e, as Nazi propaganda, therefore to categorize the film as such would against NPOV and verifiability policies of Wikipedia. JPotter 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with "documentary". The film is based on interpretation of scientific data - is all science propoganda? I've seen a lot of criticism of this film and it's never about the guts of it - the data. It's always about the political motivation, presidential ambitions, etc etc. This looks like part of that campaign - an attempt to discredit the film by association. Sophia 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is everyone riding me about this?

I don't have an agenda, as all the right leaning films I've put in the propaganda cat will show. I merely want a full listing of the relevant topics, or else the category would consist of little more than WWII newsreels and 50s exploitation films. Why is it so controversial that latter day American propaganda films. which touch on contrmpory debates, be excluded? It isn't POV, either. The FTA tour, Outfoxed, F9/11 all were films which had a clear policitcal and/or social agenda, why is it so difficult to admit that they are propaganda? (No one has ever raised objection to Stolen Honor, FahrenHYPE 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, btw).

That isn't my only reason for putting them in that cat, they all use selective editing and presentation of the facts, fail to show the other side, and try to be "entertaining" enough to lure in an audience. What other qualifications for propaganda could I possibly give?--Dudeman5685 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source which classifies the film as propaganda, would help. JPotter 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

slideshow or slide show

In some areas of the article we see 'slideshow' while in other we see 'slide show'. Which of the two is it? --Joel M. 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Slide show". The two words haven't yet morphed into one. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP article is at slideshow. I've made the change. Croctotheface 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Film NPOV

This article is obviously not politically or factually NPOV. 81.228.195.119 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to be specific. Sophia 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this articles POV to be perfectly fine. It is based upon the reviews and facts that are out there today. -Vcelloho 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would be bold when editing, although as this is a special case, I would like to discuss it first, I meant the format of the movie (a politician lecturing in science), his somewhat bitterness (I'm the former next President) and the blatant random segments on his life (only trying to invoke pathos). This is one of the major concerns by critics, even those who are fully aware of the implications of global warming. The cartoons also have one minor factual error that may needs to be address as well (the fact that H2O is the most common greenhouse gase, not stinking green ones). 81.228.195.119 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind the difference of how the article is written and the subject of the article itself. The former is the Wikipedia article on AIT and the latter is the topic AIT discusses in the movie. The latter is obviously politically and factually POV, because it puts the blame of global warming on humans and shows scientific data backing up that conclusion. But the former, how the Wikipedia article on AIT is written, is NPOV AFAIConcerned. Berserkerz Crit 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about global warming or scientific evidence. It is about how the movie lacks a section for critism of the presentation, not the truth proved by sciencee. As a result, I have put back the NPOV dispute tag. 81.228.195.119 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss it, you can create an account or log in using an account you already registered with. It's hard to discuss the merits of writing an article for Wikipedia with an anonymous IP Address. And again, the article is neutral as it is. The article's subject on the other hand is biased on the role of humans in global warming. As I've said to others saying the article lacks criticism or the movie is propaganda, find attributable sources (WP:ATT) and compose a well written and referenced section then. Again, bear in mind that there are two distinct things here, how the article is written and what the article's subject is. Do not confuse the controversy with global warming with the mostly positive reception of this movie. Berserkerz Crit 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that cartoon was supposed to be accurate? The planet is not being heated by the "rotting corpses" of mugged sunbeams. That was from Futurama, says the article. That clip was obviously not meant to give a scientific explanation of global warming. Jesin 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

removal of sourced material

The reason being given for removing this reference is truly lame - "agenda-driven". Of course it's "agenda-driven" - so are the 20 other references given in the article that express a pro-global warming opinion that are written by those with a declared pro-global warming agenda. WP:RS and WP:V are quite explicit that the standard for inclusion of a source is not that you agree with the source, but that the source is reliable and notable. The National Post appears to be one of Canada's biggest newspapers - it is by any standard reliable and notable. - Merzbow 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harris is a Lobbyist and PR-man - a professional one. Neither you nor I know whether or not his representation of other people's views are correct or not. He is by definition not a reliable source. What the news-outlet is or isn't has no relevance here - sice Harris' article is an op-ed ("The opinions expressed on op-ed pages reflect those of the individual authors, not the paper. The articles have bylines and are written by individual free-lance writers, guest opinion writers, syndicated columnists, or a regular columnist of the paper") - In effect he is stating his view be it correct or not. --Kim D. Petersen 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear - i am not against his op-ed being linked or referenced in the article. What i'm against is the incorrect inference of his views being a correct representation of reality. So label it as something other than a reference to a claim that "Criticism has come from other scientists as well." - that may well be correct - but the Harris article is not a WP:RS to this particular claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

A criticism

Gore's movie does not speak one bit about the solar variation theory, about the only substantiated skeptic theory. Well, I wouldn't even call it that. The theory holds a lot of water, and the debate isn't about whether solar variation plays a role, but to what extent. Some popular numbers put out by substantiated scientists is that around ~75% of the observed global heating until 1980 is caused by solar variations, and ~25% since then. Gore says he tried to diminish obstacles, but he fails to mention the single most debated issues within the scientific community. No one denies that the Earth is heating, that GHGs contribute to warming, or that humans can produce GHGs. The question is to what extent solar forcings affect this observed heating. This is something Gore does not address at all. Disappointing. ~ UBeR 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that current numbers are more in the region of 5-30% Esthameian 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He refers to it obliquely when comparing the data from the ice core samples as he talks about critics rejecting human activity as the cause of Global Warming due to "cyclical effects". His emphasis is on how different the CO₂ levels are now even when compared over more than 1/2 million years of earth history. So yes I would say his emphasis is on the human component of GW as he addresses the idea that current levels are just part of normal change patterns. You have to remember his audience as he obviously does - you can kill people with scientific overload so you need to stick to your point but give enough info that others can check up what backs your conclusions and then make their own judgements on the validity of yours. Sophia 07:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe of interest Esthameian 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

and this

Best Song Oscar win

Does anyone know if this film is the first documentary to win Best Song at the Oscars? 23skidoo 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone also know of this is the first documentary to win more than one Oscar?--Metron4 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly certain it is.

Criticism... Where is it?

There are lots of opponents to global warming theory. Some of them are referenced in sub topics in this article, however this article needs a section devoted to criticism. This would help bolster the credability of this arcile. --bigbadman--Bigbadman 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about the movie, not about global warming in general. Criticism of the movie is suitable, but for criticism of the theory, go to global warming controversy or possibly Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Leno Self-Parody (An Inconvenient Truth about Christmas)

The line in the Leno bit was that the 10 hottest christmases on record had occured in the last FOUR years, not fourteen. It's mathematically ludicrous--THAT'S THE JOKE! Stop changing it back--it's incorrect! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.23.172 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Concur with anon above. here's a video link [1] changing it back.R. Baley 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

This article came up on a list of improperly or only partially listed Good Articles, and since it seems there was a bit of a tussle on this article talk page about its actual status, i'm listing this on WP:GA/R to make its status less ambiguous. (Specifically, it isn't actually listed on the WP:GA page) Homestarmy 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the original user who promoted this article to GA status did it correctly as far as I can remember (to lazy to check the History, too many edits to look over and my eyes hurt currently). Then, somebody delisted it just days after citing lack of refs or inline citation (which was totally untrue) which I reverted. The discussion is still here in this page I believe, at Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth#Shouldn.27t_this_be_class_A_already.3F. Oh and it was User:James Kidd who reviewed this article to GA. Btw, how can an article be improperly or only partially listed as GA? And, I'm all for the review since I think the article is stronger now than the past reviewed version, with a Criticism section finally up thanks to persistent but civil critics. Berserkerz Crit 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, when an article is passed, you're supposed to put the template on the article and actually list the article on the WP:GA page, but this article along with many others which I have for the most part dealt with had the GA template on the article talk page, but they wern't actually listed on the WP:GA page. Homestarmy 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Bias v. Unbias

This article seems very biased towards trying to prove that An Inconvenient Truth was actually the real truth itself. I have gone through all the references, and they are mostly only references to the following:

1) Newspaper and magazine articles (which are mostly sensationalist and prey on baseless fear) 2) Journals and magazines that have shown themselves to be of little credibility, such as Science 3) Global warming advocates, as well as sites and articles run or writen by them

I feel this is very unscientific and unethical, as it wrongly and baselessly informs the public on such a big and controversial issue. Let's be more scientific and correct this issue.

To start the ball rolling, let me point out that only the Antartic Peninsula, which is only 2% of the Antartic is warming, the rest of the Antartic (about 98%) is getting colder each year. Let's not just try to prove that An Inconvenient Truth was actually factual, and just prove what actually is. In other words, tell the truth about "An Inconvenient Truth".

The Seeker 09:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's neutrality policy especially its undue weight clause in regard to minority opinions. Just a word also, anyone who claims that the Journal Science has "little credibility" is unlikely to be taken very seriously. JoshuaZ 09:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And again, please differentiate criticism against Global Warming, which is more suited in its own page (see Global warming controversy), and criticism against the film. And please take note of the attributable sources, most of which are positive that is why this article is mostly positive as well, with available negative views given voice as well. Berserkerz Crit 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Science (journal) is one of the most respected scientific journals on the planet, and considered a reliable source on scientific topics. You may not like it, but that's how it is. But let me reiterate Joshua's point: Criticism of the movie is different from criticism of the theory. --Stephan Schulz 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Science was a journal of the "greatest credibility in the world", then may I ask why it published articles without the original title of the paper, but rather a sensationalized version of the title with sensationalized information? Also, just because a topic is spoken positively of more often, does not mean that it is so. Please do read up on proper research methodology and ethics before commenting. All views must be shown thoroughly, whether or not they are minority views, as majority does not mean right. Also, please note that I mention this because this entry is writen such that it gives the impression that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has good and well-founded scientific basis, when the truth is that the whole issue still cannot be determined to be supporting either side. So please, be professional. If nobody will heed this, then please, go ahead and be biased, it'll just show how unprofessional the writing of this article is, when it is so weighted to one side. The Seeker 10:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, fact is that Science and Nature probably are the two most respected broad-topic scientific journals on earth, regardless of what you and I think about it ourselved. But, for personal interest, do you have any source for the event you alude to? Please also read up on WP:OR and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Anyways, this article is about the movie. The movie, with very minor issues, describes the current scientific opinion on climate change faithfully. I suspect you have issues with this opinion, but that is a seperate topic.--Stephan Schulz 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I totally agree with "two most respected" (e.g. versus Proc Roy Soc which didn't have the homeopathy scandal published in it), but they are certainly up there somewhere..--BozMo talk 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Still puzzled about what you have got against Science. Could you be more precise about exactly which article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs).

I would like to comment on one of the points made about this movie- specifically that it is based on scientific consensus. There is absolutey no scientific consensus regarding global warming. Research has shown that only about 10% of scientists believe in global warming like how Gore puts it.

Uh no, IPPC UN report on Global Warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berserkerz Crit (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Lead section NPOV

The lead section omits any discussion of controversy, contrary to WP:Lead section. One editor seeks to remove even the neutral and reliably sourced description of the movie as a polemic, though Wikipedia convention is to acknowledge that politically-motivated movies get this description. -- THF 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor continues to edit-war without discussing on the talk page. Please explain why, under WP:Lead section and WP:NPOV, you feel the opening paragraph should only include laudatory information about a controversial film. -- THF 12:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What the ? The lead (2 grafs) says, and has said for some time, that the film is "controversial" and that "[t]he film's accuracy has been disputed on several major points". That's not enough for you? No, I guess you won't be happy until Richard Lindzen's statements appear in the introduction. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. And it's not true that the lead two grafs have said that for "some time," because they didn't until I added that text two days ago. Given that you have no explanation for your deletion other than insults, I'm reinserting the text. Other politically-motivated documentaries include forthright acknowledgement that the movies are polemics in the first paragraph. Please stop edit-warring. -- THF 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, another of those many occaisions when only the people you are editing against are edit warring. How curious. And please don't pretend that this is analogous to TGGWS - as far as anyone can tell, Gore faked no graphs William M. Connolley 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Making edits without participating on the talk page discussion is indeed edit-warring. And according to McKitrick, Gore did fake a graph, but that's neither here nor there, since the talk page isn't the place to debate the underlying subject. There is well-sourced information that calls this movie a polemic, and NPOV requires that to be included. -- THF 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have your own pet definition of edit warring, how convenient. Gore faked no graphs, as you're well aware. Even McK has not accused Gore of faking graphs William M. Connolley 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To be completely and absolutely precise, then: McKitrick did debunk as faulty the underlying data that Gore used in a misleading and bogus graph before Gore used it. But, again, that's neither here nor there, because NPOV requires the neutral presentation of significant viewpoints, and this article does not do that:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

NPOV also requires the neutral presentation of viewpoints I find completely bogus. The beauty of the NPOV policy is that we avoid debates over truth, because there's an objectively neutral way to present all significant viewpoints, and it's possible for editors who disagree over the underlying facts to collaborate to do so. If the editors adhere to NPOV. -- THF 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, McK didn't - there remains a dispute about that issue, as you're prefectly well aware. Insisting that the dispute is resolved in your favour is evidence of POV on your part. To be precise: the graph still exists; the authors uphold its validity; it remains widely cited in scientific papers to this day. But I'm glad you've admitted that your use of the word "faked" is untenable William M. Connolley 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there wasn't a dispute. I said that my opinion of the validity of the dispute of that issue, and your opinion about the validity of the dispute, are both irrelevant, because the question for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Mann may be right, and McKitrick may be wrong, or vice versa. But under WP:NPOV, the article doesn't make the judgment which of the two is correct, and therefore a talk page discussion on the question is fruitless. Please keep the talk page to discussions about the writing of the article. -- THF 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The lorax's edit violates both WP:NPOV and WP:Lead section, which expressly requires notable controversies to be expressed in the lead paragraph. An administrator is watching and doing nothing. Does anyone care? Or is it alright to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines about NPOV when it promotes a politically correct view? -- THF 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this administrator thinks you're levelling quite a few accusations against people, quite possibly in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA, so maybe you should be glad that administrators aren't acting. And as with all of the rest of the global climate change articles, the only remaining "controversy" appears to be that stirred up by American conservatives. But based on your professional background, I'm sure you're familiar with that program.

Atlant 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: one editor uses profanity at me; you bring up my "professional background." My only remarks have been about edits, and have consistently cited explicit Wikipedia policies. Yet the only person you see fit to accuse of violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA is me. -- THF 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that an administrator would flaunt his position while making an extremely NPOV statement at the same time "The only remaining "controversy" appears to be that stirred up by American conservatives". I would leave your own bias and beliefs about global warming (which are pretty clear) at the login screen. The basic fact is that WP:Lead section states that articles should include the controversies in the lead paragraphs, and weather or not you happen to believe if they are true, there is an abundance of information debating the film and the facts underlying it. It's not your place to say "Well thats just Conservative myth." Clearly the lead section should include more mention of the controversy than simply saying its a "controversial film". Inseeisyou 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that a similar movie on the opposite side of the discussion The Great Global Warming Swindle contains in its lead section "the programme's accuracy has been disputed on serveral major points and several commentators have criticised it for beign one-sided". So this is not some right wing conspiracy to discredit this movie, its an attempt to treat all articles fairly and in a NPOV manner, which on a subject as contended as global warming usually means including information from all sides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inseeisyou (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Atlant wrote: "And as with all of the rest of the global climate change articles, the only remaining "controversy" appears to be that stirred up by American conservatives"

Supposing that´s true (it is not), that would be still a "controversy". AFAIK "American conservatives" are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and their "controversies" are as good as anyone else´.

Please explain us your position, Atlant.

The "controversy" is way undeveloped in the lead section. Suggested options: Move to the main text all the superflous flab from "A companion book authored by Gore..." to "The film was released on DVD by Paramount Home Entertainment on November 21, 2006" or expand substantially the "controversy" in the lead.

As it is, the lead is unnacepptable.Randroide 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comment

I reviewed the above arguments, and examined the "lorax" edit mentioned by THF. I cannot understand the deletion of two statements (suggesting dispute and polemic) which were accompanied by the following four references:

• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Scripps-Howard News Services
• San Francisco Examiner
• Sunday Times

These are all highly reliable. Since no one is making the claim that they aren't, how can their deletion be justified? My conclusion, humble as it may be, is that the lorax deletion must be replaced in the Lead Section.—Red Baron 15:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia:Undue Weight clause, I think the additions to the lede are misleadingly prominent and POV (even calling the film "controversial" seems disingenuous). The so-called "dispute" that was cited is unremarkably minor (one source from a front group funded by ExxonMobil) and in fairness , the CEI's fringe opposition to the film's science is mentioned under pop culture references. The few sources that call AIT a polemic appear to be misusing the term. By definition, a polemic is an argument meant to "dispute or refute a topic," something AIT isn't. --The lorax 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the citing of Wikipedia:Undue Weight. The example given is something very ridiculous such as the "flat earth" theory. As stated the above sources are reliable. Polemic as given by Princeton wordnet is "of or involving dispute or controversy", clearly Global warming is a controversy. Or perhaps you would rather read the Global warming controversy yourself. Or just go to Google and type in "Global warming controversy". The actual increase of global warming is fact, the causes and degree of causes which have affected it are the controversy, and this is exactly what the film addresses. 216.64.125.78 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If ExxonMobil is considered to be a biased source as you imply, then Al Gore is also a biased source. This man has a vested interest in politicizing this issue even more so than ExxonMobil does. Just because you perceive the dispute to be small that does not mean it is. There are plenty of criticisms out there about this film and it's bait-and-hook tendencies. Trying to suppress such information by deleting it is reprehensible just as your justification of it is. If the information is as unreliable and "minor" as you say then why do you feel the need to delete it, other than the fact that you wish to silence those that do not agree with your point of view?Mpursglove 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"a controversial" put back in with source. With a movie being associated with "Nazi Propaganda" is it not acceptable to note its "Controversial" nature?[2][3][4][5]--Zeeboid 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop hashing out this POV war in the article. That's what the talk page is for. What's going on now is a disruption and it's detrimental to the article itself and Wikipedia in general. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, everyone involved in the back-and-forth editing of this page should really try to calm down, talk through your disputes here, and for crying out loud stop using the article as your soapbox, not to mention using your edit summaries to snipe at other editors. It really speaks ill of WP when the content in an article is changing every five minutes.

We have talk pages for a reason. Nobody's expecting all Wikipedians to come to a consensus about global warming, but I think you can be expected to be civil and stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Please consider what you're doing. WP isn't a forum or messageboard; please don't try to make it one through edit-warring. Otherwise, you bring it down to a level where it isn't worth your editing time in the first place. Take care, --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New York Times article

An administrator should really understand that this edit violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Even if it's 100% accurate, and I don't think it is, because I've seen those criticisms outside of the NY Times. The edit summary even admits the violation of WP:SYN. If one cannot find a reliable source that makes these criticisms about the New York Times article, it is a plain violation of WP:OR to do the synthesis oneself. -- THF 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And William M. Connelly reverted without any discussion on the talk page. If I am misunderstanding WP:SYN, wouldn't it be in his interest to explain to me why I am wrong? Except I don't think that I am: the edit plainly violates the original research guidelines forbidding combining two cited sources to come to a conclusion that is not expressed in either of those sources. -- THF 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"The film itself is the source"? Clearly the author of the NY Times article sees things differently. If WMC wants to find another reliable source that has a different opinion of the film, or who contradicts the article's claim that Gore made the sea-level prediction, he is free to do so. - Merzbow 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of hypocrisy

I doubt this section will last 24 hours, so perhaps there's no point in my taking a position, and I am done editing the article for the day, but allegations of Al Gore's hypocrisy do not belong in an article about An Inconvenient Truth any more than Mel Gibson's drunk driving arrest belongs in the Lethal Weapon article. Put it in the Al Gore article. -- THF 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Since the main purpose of the movie is to persuade people to reduce their carbon emissions. The refs I provided specifically mentioned the movie. Iceage77 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only tangentially relevant, which isn't good enough. - Merzbow 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a brief mention of this controversy because it's related to Al Gore's environmental advocacy, of which this film is the most famous example. The controversy itself should be (and I expect already is) covered in the Al Gore biography or a related side-article, and a brief outline of the controversy with a link to the appropriate Wikipedia article wouldn't be a bad idea. Something like:

Al Gore has been the subject of allegations of hypocrisy [6] due to perceptions that his lifestyle is incompatible with his message

--Tony Sidaway 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Tony Sidaway. Randroide 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal Way

Whenever we can edit this again, someone needs to fix the education section.

After two weeks of being derided in the national and local press, the moratorium was repealed at the subsequent meeting on January 23. [7] Thanos6 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More Educational Pushback To Be Ignored By Libipedia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nuni117.xml

"Parents who claim that an award-winning film on climate change is inaccurate and politically motivated are threatening a legal challenge over the Government's decision to send it to every secondary school. School row over Al Gore film Al Gore appearing in his film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.

The film by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, won an Oscar for the best documentary this year and Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, says he wants teachers to use it to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming.

But a group of parents in the New Forest say the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002. Derek Tipp, their spokesman, has urged Mr Johnson to stop the film being sent out.

He said: "The film goes well beyond the consensus view and is not therefore suitable material to present to children who need to be given clear and balanced, factually accurate information."

But this information will it be allowed? Of course not, Wiki is too biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk • contribs).

• Being a parent alone does not qualify one to have a sound view. I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general). We do not list every single bit of controversy brought about by every single person with an opinion. You'd probably be more at home on LiveJournal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 15:39Z

You are laughable. You most certainly do allow every person with an opinion, but only when it advances YOUR left wing agenda. Evolution, Christianity, Al Gore, Movement to Impeach George Bush, take your pick! Ymous 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• If it made the news, obviously some people thought being a parent qualifies you to have a sound view. That is incredibly ignorant and frankly elitist to say parents do not have a right to debate what information their children are being fed in school, especially if that information is highly debatable, which this film definitely is. Everyone wants you to believe that this is all "truth" or common knowledge but the real "truth" is that every single piece of this film can be argued and it is being shown in schools to young children as if it were fact in order to indoctrinate them into a politicized belief system from an early age when they are too naive to question the motives of their own teachers. One might argue that being an ex vice president does not qualify one to have a sound view or a right to talk about the environment with any sort of authority. Perhaps that is part of the parents' objections. If Wikipedia is not for the free flow of information then please enlighten us to what the "purpose of Wikipedia" is? Perhaps this news story does not belong in the main section of the article but it definitely speaks further to the controversial nature of this film and it should not be ignored. If there is a wiki page for general controversy about the film this would be an appropriate addition. Mpursglove 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Show

I just saw a sketch on The Daily Show parodying the movie, should this be included in the pop culture section? I think the episode was new (4/19/07), so it should appear on the comedy central page soon.

pesier mistakes

The item on Pesier implied that pesier had made serious mistakes and recanted his position. The errors he admitted to, however, were minor and portion of the article on him didn't accurately represent him. Pesier is a living person and Wikipedia's guildlines demand a higher standard in accurately representing what he's said. --Ryan Wise 06:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That Peiser is mentioned at all - is really undue weight. His critique only exists on the internet - the only attempt he made at it getting published in a peer-reviewed journal - failed. His critique bases itself on discrediting Oreskes categorizations - since its been shown that Peiser miscategorized quite a few papers - his critique falls. He is left with only his personal opinion - and the statement (that he no longer doubts that): "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous" [8]. So if Peiser is mentioned at all - then the critique has to be mentioned also. (personally my opinion is that Peiser should go - but i doubt that it will meet with approval). --Kim D. Petersen 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Peiser got an article published in the Canadadian National Post on the subject[9]. Currently, the page states the following: "Peiser's work was found to have several flaws[54] and he has subsequently admitted that he made numerous mistakes,[55] after the papers which he believed to dispute the consensus were further scrutinized.[56]"

Ref 54 is [10], a blog. The main criticism here is that the abstracts chosen do not go against the consessus as Peiser suggests. Analysis of these abstracts is a subjective matter and a blog is not an authoritative enough source to say that "flaws were found."

Ref 55 is [11], a blog. Supposedly this says that Peiser admits "numerous mistakes," but this blog doesn't say this at all. It instead links to another blog, here [12] (in the blog comments), where someone purporting to be Peiser admits that "some" of the abstracts may be mistakes; this is a far cry from a reliable source, as it's essentially the same as linking to a forum.

Ref 56 is [13], a blog. This only lists the abstracts but makes no judgment on them. This has nothing to do with the sentence and isn't a logical reference. This entire quote is bunk and is unsourced (a blog is not a reliable source, see WP:SOURCE). As such, I'm removing it, though I'm sure the removal will be reverted again. Oren0 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, i'm happy for you who don't like what Pesier has to say, but this article is about the film An Inconvenient Truth, not about Pesier. This "yea but..." information refuting or discrediting Pesier does not ahve a place in an article about a movie.--Zeeboid 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't cope with Peiser being wrong, then its better to remove him entirely, which I've just done William M. Connolley 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am correct, the sectoin you are refering to removing was a quote from Lindzen, no?--Zeeboid 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Op-eds vs. peer-reviewed article - guess which one wins out in the WP:RS game:

Although publication creates verifiability and reputable journals are reliable sources, publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability. Unpublished research fails no original research and often lacks verifiability, so it is unacceptable by policy. ...

— Wikipedia:Notability (science)

I've underlined what the Peiser falls under. It doesn't get more reliable by being quoted in Op-ed's --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's certainly more reliable than a blog. So long as the blog references are gone, I'm not opposed to the current revision. Oren0 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OH the irony. You people are so selective to what you will call a verifiable source or good research. We have a political hack, spewing lies and trying to sell movie tickets, and his science is "valid". Your bias couldn't be more transparent. Ymous 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is not his science, but that it is a reasonably faithful representation of the scientific opinion on climate change. Good for him if that agrees with his agenda, but that does not weaken the science.--Stephan Schulz 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)