| Revision as of 19:16, 29 May 2007 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 editsm →"Controversial" removed: question mark← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:07, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,033 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages id|An_Inconvenient_Truth.ogg|88385779}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{FilmsWikiProject|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{DelistedGA|April 2 2007}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 2#Shouldn't this be class A already? |
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=99526895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAR |
|
{{ archive box | |
|
|
|
|action2date=21:32, 2 April 2007 |
|
# ]: Apr 2006 - Sep 2006 |
|
|
|
|action2result=delisted |
|
# ]: Sep 2006 - Feb 2007 |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=119663228 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
==Article NPOV== |
|
|
|
|action3date=18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link=Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/GA1 |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=263860762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=PR |
|
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. ] 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4date=10:00, 16 September 2009 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/An Inconvenient Truth/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=reviewed |
|
|
|action4oldid=311746740 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
:You're probably looking for the ] article. ] 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|action5link=Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/GA2 |
|
|
|action5result=listed |
|
|
|action5oldid=327223968 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAC |
|
::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. ] 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6date=22:11, 27 March 2010 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/An Inconvenient Truth/archive1 |
|
|
|action6result=not promoted |
|
|
|action6oldid=352374365 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
:::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. +] 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7date=19:35, 6 July 2010 |
|
::::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. ] 08:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/An Inconvenient Truth/archive2 |
|
|
|action7result=not promoted |
|
|
|action7oldid=371951918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| topic = music |
|
: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. --] 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=FAC |
|
::::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. |
|
|
|
|action8date=2015-03-28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/An Inconvenient Truth/archive3 |
|
::::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. |
|
|
|
|action8result=failed |
|
|
|
|
|
|action8oldid=653251913 |
|
::::They will go so far as to delete facts from the discussion pages of their most important campaign and book/movie ticket selling issues. |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2012-05-24|otd1oldid=493946985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|otd2date=2019-05-24|otd2oldid=898539641 |
|
] 08:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd3date=2022-05-24|otd3oldid=1089629421 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::: 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. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|listas=Inconvenient Truth, An|1= |
|
::::: 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. ] 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|Documentary=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}} |
|
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 Misplaced Pages. 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? ] 09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}} |
|
::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. --] 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Albums}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=Mid}} |
|
:::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. ] 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::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. --] 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{To do}} |
|
:::::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? --] 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
== Propaganda == |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
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?--] 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 20 |
|
:Because your dictionary is either bad or you are citing out of context. The term "propaganda" has strong negative connotations. Just check ]: "Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. " --] 00:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
::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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ], 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. ] 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::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? +] 02:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}} |
|
::::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. ] 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.--] 03:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Propaganda, as stated by Stephan and Misplaced Pages 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. ] 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Many of those terms can objectively be applied to this film. --] 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] defines propaganda as |
|
|
# capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions |
|
|
# ''': the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person''' |
|
|
# ''': 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. ] 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. ] 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.--] 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.--] 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. +] 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 Misplaced Pages. ] 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. ] 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?--] 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: A reliable source which classifies the film as propaganda, would help. ] 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? --] 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Slide show". The two words haven't yet morphed into one. +] 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Film NPOV == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is obviously not politically or factually NPOV. ] 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You need to be specific. ] 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. -] 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). ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article on AIT is written, is NPOV AFAIConcerned. ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (]) 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. ] 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. ] 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== removal of sourced material == |
|
|
|
|
|
The reason being given for removing 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. ] and ] 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 ] appears to be one of Canada's biggest newspapers - it is by any standard reliable and notable. - ] 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 ]. What the news-outlet is or isn't has no relevance here - sice Harris' article is an ] ("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. --] 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 ] to this particular claim. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. ~ ] 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you will find that current numbers are more in the region of 5-30% ] 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 CO<sub>2</sub> 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. ] 07:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Best Song Oscar win== |
|
|
Does anyone know if this film is the first documentary to win Best Song at the Oscars? ] 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: Does anyone also know of this is the first documentary to win more than one Oscar?--] 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. --]--] 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is a page about the movie, not about ] in general. Criticism of the movie is suitable, but for criticism of the theory, go to ] or possibly ]. --] 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! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Concur with anon above. here's a video link |
|
|
changing it back.] 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 ] to make its status less ambiguous. (Specifically, it isn't actually listed on the ] page) ] 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 ]. Oh and it was ] 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. ] 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 ] 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. ] 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". |
|
|
|
|
|
] 09:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Please see ] 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. ] 09:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And again, please differentiate criticism against Global Warming, which is more suited in its own page (see ]), and criticism against the film. And please take note of the ] sources, most of which are positive that is why this article is mostly positive as well, with available negative views given voice as well. ] 10:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also note that ] is one of the most respected scientific journals on the planet, and considered a ] 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. --] 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. ] 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 ] and ]. Anyways, this article is about the movie. The movie, with very minor issues, describes the current ] faithfully. I suspect you have issues with this opinion, but that is a seperate topic.--] 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..--] ] 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC). |
|
|
Still puzzled about what you have got against Science. Could you be more precise about exactly which article?<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Lead section NPOV=== |
|
|
The lead section omits any discussion of controversy, contrary to ]. One editor seeks to remove even the neutral and reliably sourced description of the movie as a polemic, though Misplaced Pages convention is to acknowledge that politically-motivated movies get this description. -- ] 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:An editor continues to edit-war without discussing on the talk page. Please explain why, under ] and ], you feel the opening paragraph should only include laudatory information about a controversial film. -- ] 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 "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. +] 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] 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. -- ] 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 ] 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. -- ] 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 ] 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::] |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: 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. -- ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Mann may be right, and McKitrick may be wrong, or vice versa. But under ], 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. -- ] 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
violates both ] and ], 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines about NPOV when it promotes a politically correct view? -- ] 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, '''this''' administrator thinks you're levelling quite a few accusations against people, quite possibly in violation of ], ], and ], 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] 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 Misplaced Pages policies. Yet the only person you see fit to accuse of violating ] and ] is me. -- ] 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 ] 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". ] 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would also add that a similar movie on the opposite side of the discussion ] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
::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"'' <u>'''or'''</u> expand substantially the "controversy" in the lead. |
|
|
|
|
|
As it is, the lead is unnacepptable.] 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: |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
* |
|
|
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'''.—] 15:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Per the ] clause, I think the additions to the lede are misleadingly prominent and ] (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 <i>is</i> 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. --] 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Disagree with the citing of ]. 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 ] 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. ] 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?] 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?--] 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 Misplaced Pages in general. --] <sup>'''(])'''</sup> 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 ], but I think you can be expected to be ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
: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, --] <sup>'''(])'''</sup> 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== New York Times article == |
|
|
|
|
|
An administrator should really understand that violates ] and ]. 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 ]. If one cannot find a reliable source that makes these criticisms about the New York Times article, it is a plain violation of ] to do the ] oneself. -- ] 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And William M. Connelly reverted without any discussion on the talk page. If I am misunderstanding ], 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. -- ] 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. - ] 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 ] article. -- ] 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. ] 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's only tangentially relevant, which isn't good enough. - ] 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 Misplaced Pages article wouldn't be a bad idea. Something like: |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ''Al Gore has been the subject of allegations of hypocrisy due to perceptions that his lifestyle is incompatible with his message'' |
|
|
|
|
|
: --] 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree 100% with Tony Sidaway. ] 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Prevailing Consensus == |
|
|
|
|
|
"The Great Global Warming Swindle. ...brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming." |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is no prevailing consensus, the consensus of human-caused global warming is highly debated in the scientific community. This should be removed or cited because of the obvious bias----DaDrake |
|
|
|
|
|
::]. BTW, you should "sign" talk page contributions using 4 tildas: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. It expands to a signature like mine here. --] 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Hmm, like this ] 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I am new to wikipedia so don't hate =) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'll find that, ]'s scientists and ]'s toadies and benefactors aside, there's really no debate left in the scientific community about the consensus. Of course, if you have a referewnce, please feel free to present it here. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The scientific community does not agree to what degree '''human-caused''' global warming exists. There is consensus on global warming, as trends have been showing .... but the affect that humans have on global warming is highly debated. Do not confuse the IPCC version of "scientific consensus" with actual consensus. More scientists, including the original "alarmist" have been speaking against the IPCC and other politically modivated organizations. Most of what has been published on global warming is oversimplification of scientific journals that draw different conclusions than the author's intentios (Oreskes work shows that). Even Mann is retracting some of the media's inference about his hokey-stick-plot once his work became public so it could be peer-reviewed. There was no doubt major flaws in his work, and he is now trying to savage some of his credibility among his peers. |
|
|
:] 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you follow the link I provided, you will see that the IPCC position has the support of all major scientific societies, and most minor ones. The one exception is the ]. Of course, the IPCC position is not the same as that of some alarmist newspapers... ] 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone consider the difference between the IPCC "human contributed" position versus "human caused". Most scientist believe global warming is natural, the question is if and how much humans are accelerating that process and to what degree that harms the environment. That statement is simply bias. ] 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes Global Warming is natural but what's not natural is for Global Warming to go unabated. Usually, after a global warming, global cooling takes place. But it hasn't happened yet. The last time it happened, and for just a very short period and effect, was when Mount Pinatubo erupted and covered the Earth with ash plumes and smoke. And natural global warming does not reach temperatures such as we have now in all the records of global warming in Earth's past. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is no difference between "human contributed" and "human caused" except that for the former, we are not the '''sole cause'''. Of course it's human contributed, because we are not the only organisms and forces in this world that can affect global temperature. There are other animals, trees, oceans, microorganisms, and outer space variables. But the correlation between the rise of human activity and higher temperature is the foundation of the consensus for attributing the current extreme and unnatural global warming to humans! ^_^ I hope George Bush and skeptics will just ] coz they ain't go no arguments against Global Warming being the responsibility of man. =P ] 08:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::"And natural global warming does not reach temperatures such as we have now in all the records of global warming in Earth's past" - quite trivially ]. Yawn. - ] 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Have you read the article? Methane gas. Nuff said. ] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: So who had a calibrated thermometer in 1000AD during the Medieval warm period? Preumably you ignore results which contradict the current dogma. You are beginning to sound like a religious revival. ] 11:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And what results contradict the current dogma? What is your argument exactly? ~_^ A link or expound. ] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
My point is that the infamous hockey stick graph is based on estimates of past temperatures, not ones made using calibrated thermometers. This makes the exercise one of futility rather than reason. It is possible, indeed, likely that temperatures in the Medieval warm period were actually higher than now, judging by the presence of trees in ], which may have been free of permanent ice. The ] map shows a separate island, so must have been sailed around by the Vikings. ] 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, I am not a rocket scientist but here's what I do believe. Global warming is real, and it is caused partly by humans. Just the greenhouse effect is enough to convince me of man's role in global warming, since man has released a lot of carbon dioxide in the air since the industrial revolution and there after. I live in the Philippines, where the proof of global warming is real. We've had more typhoons in 2006 than the typhoons in the years before that combined. It's more intense and damaging. The climate here has changed, where usually summer begins in March, it has only begun now middle April. The cool season started late during 2006, the cool breeze felt only starting December and not during late October or early November. Some Islands here in the Philippines have already disappeared, even during low tide when it should be visible and be able to be landed on. And so many more. ] 08:51, 13 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. ] 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. |
|
|
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
*Being a parent alone does not qualify one to have a sound view. I think you misunderstand the purpose of Misplaced Pages (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. — <small>]] • 2007-04-19 15:39Z</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::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! ] 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 Misplaced Pages is not for the free flow of information then please enlighten us to what the "purpose of Misplaced Pages" 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. </small>] 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 Misplaced Pages's guildlines demand a higher standard in accurately representing what he's said. --] 06:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:That Peiser is mentioned at all - is really ]. 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" . 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). --] 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
Peiser got an article published in the Canadadian National Post on the subject. |
|
|
Currently, the page states the following: |
|
|
"Peiser's work was found to have several flaws and he has subsequently admitted that he made numerous mistakes, after the papers which he believed to dispute the consensus were further scrutinized." |
|
|
|
|
|
Ref 54 is , 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 , 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 (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 , 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 ]). As such, I'm removing it, though I'm sure the removal will be reverted again. ] 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.--] 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 ] 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If I am correct, the sectoin you are refering to removing was a quote from Lindzen, no?--] 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Op-eds vs. peer-reviewed article - guess which one wins out in the ] game: |
|
|
:{{Quote|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. <u>Unpublished research fails no original research and often lacks verifiability, so it is unacceptable by policy.</u> ...|]}} |
|
|
:I've underlined what the Peiser falls under. It doesn't get more reliable by being quoted in Op-ed's --] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ]. Good for him if that agrees with his agenda, but that does not weaken the science.--] 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Various attempts at critism == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just a two paragraph bit of the criticism section. My foremost objection to this is that it appears to be original research; although names are mentioned, they are only discussed in the context of what they discovered, not what they concluded. Moreover the sections appear to give undue weight to the critics (who may or may not be the scientists named) of global warming, which is problematic per ]. Finally, a critque of global warming in general does not belong in an article about a movie, on criticism of the movie. --] 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::On an orthogonal issue, you shouldn't reject Science News as a source without reviewing the article. It is as valid as any newspaper for quoting of people or reporting the results published in journals or presented at conferences. Where a journal source is referenced in the article, as is often the case, the journal article itself is the preferred citation, of course. But quite often Science News corresponds with the authors themselves for further isight into the details or implications of their research.--] 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for noting that, I think you may be replying to my edit summary rather than my post above (which is fine, but to clarify for everyone else). You are absolutely correct that secondary sources are fine ]. This particular science news article closes with "The team's findings don't point to an external influence, such as an increase in solar radiation, that some climate-change skeptics have suggested may be behind Earth's recent warming, Geissler says." Nearly the opposite of the conclusion of the two paragraphs. In fact there is nothing in the article to suggest there is anything inconsistent with anthropogenic global warming. I think it is a clear cut case of original research. But your point is well taken, I did not mean in my edit summary to suggest that non-peer-reviewed sources are ''a priori'' unreliable. --] 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Only criticisms of the movie specifically, NOT global warming in general, belong on this page. If it doesn't say "An Inconvenient Truth" on your reference, it doesn't belong here. Put it at ] instead. I'm going to put a link to that in the section and leave it at that. ] 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Better pictures == |
|
|
If you're looking for better pictures, go to the deutsch version of this page |
|
|
|
|
|
== added Criticism == |
|
|
] has been added. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Zeeboid - while your zeal is admirable. This critique is not notable. Its not a question of not having critique, but a question of mentioning the most important and notable critique. --] 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is notable. See ] and note the soruces.--] 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Zeeboid - is it notable in the context of AIT? Just because a subject might be notable, doesn't mean that all the things that are in any way connected (directly or indirectly) has to have a link/text about it. Is the critique in the Beck show significantly different or significantly notable compared to the other critiques here? You are giving ]. |
|
|
:::Note: ] is about the article on the show - not a free ticket to include it in a myriad of other articles. It is also a guideline not a policy. --] 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::its notable critism. wether or not you agree with it is becides the point.--] 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Zeeboid - i'm not deleting it because i agree or disagree with it. Try reacting to the actual reasons why i'm contesting it - ok? --] 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As an hour-long special on a national (international?) ] that is specifically a criticism of this movie. That's notable enough to be here. So long as it has an article (it seems right now that the AfD will not reach consensus), it is notable enough to be here. It's not as if it's just a random piece of GW skepticism, it's meant as a specific criticism of An Inconvenient Truth () and therefore belongs here. I'm readding it. ] 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sorry to disagree. A national program - that is (yes i've seen it) mostly trying to discredit the ]. And one thats even specifically lauding that its presenting a ''one-sided'' view - with no critical analysis at all (yes it specifically states so) is ]. If its meant as a specific criticism of AIT - why is it using most of its time doing a critique of Kyoto? Sorry its a political propaganda piece. If you include this - then i suggest that you include some equally politically motivated propaganda piece from Greenpeace, The Sierra Club etc. lauding AIT and Kyoto in equal measures. --] 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
==NPOV== |
|
|
I have reverted the deletion of the term "controversial". By any token, the film is controversial, and includes many assertions not justified by the IPCC. Two examples are the grossly exagerrated rse in sea level predicted by Gore, and the Polar bear myth. ] 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Controversial is POV and it doesn't belong in the article. --] 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== we need to be consistent with TGGWS == |
|
|
|
|
|
Note TGGWS is ] - a British TV show. (for those who aren't familiar). And i'm talking about . |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ok - thats just about the most ridiculous reason i've seen yet. Btw. i have no beef with the word "controversial" - but this argument is simply not warrented. There is no reason at all that these articles have to be identical or even compatible. Should we also be consistent with ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is a multitude of reasons that these 2 aren't compareable, and i'm not even going to go into content: |
|
|
:* One of these are a movie (AIT) - the other is TV (TGGWS). |
|
|
:* One of these have a multinational audience (AIT), the other has been shown on 1 british tv channel and leaked to the internet. (TGGWS) |
|
|
:* One of these has won multiple awards (AIT) - the other hasn't. (TGGWS) |
|
|
:* One of these is getting sued for misrepresentation (TGGWS) - the other isn't. (AIT) |
|
|
:etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Get a grip please. Edit each article within its own context. ] is a worthy read. --] 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Of course we need to be consistent between articles. This is basic common sense. Both films are clearly controversial. The only question is whether we should state this in the opening sentence, given the negative connotations this has. ] 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::You made a really good point here, Kim. I agree 100% --] 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would be a good point if we were discussing article deletions, but we're not. But surely, mimicking another article just because it does one thing is not a good argument. But a good argument is that is in fact controversial. Controversial means it has created controversy. Do you deny AIT has created any controversy? ~ 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The discussion about controversial is above (i believe). I'd just note here that by that interpretation most everything in life is controversial then. For TGGWS i'd say that controversial is correct. Its been sued by one of the contributors (Wunsch) - Some of the contributers are claiming their graphs have been faked (Friis-Christensen). Another of the graphs is definitively faked (Durkin admits it). It was launched as a polemic etc etc. For AIT - whatever controversy there is, is political in nature. But then all politics is by your definition controversial. --] 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Controversial" removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
This has all been done ], but for some reason "controversial" is gone again. Per ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." |
|
|
|
|
|
To argue that there are no "notable controversies" in regards to this movie is ludicrous. There's a large section of the article devoted to criticism and the claim of a controversy is noted in many reliable sources. Does anyone have any remotely good reason why it shouldn't be there? <s>] says "controversial right at the top, as this article should. </s>] 20:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ] --] 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for that, but you have addressed precisely zero of the points I have made, all of which stand on their own without reference to TGGWS. I'm just pointing to that as an example, in reference to the section above about being consistent with that page. ] 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Keep in mind that '''criticism ≠ controversy''', at least not necessarily. Practically every work of literature or film gets critized; this doesn't make it controversial. +] 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::What about all the controversy about using it in schools? Including legal action being taken. ] 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Thats indirectly related to the movie. The movie wasn't made with the premise that it should be shown in schools. So its a related controversy - but doesn't make the movie controversial. (ie. its the political decision to show it in schools that is - but not the movie itself). --] 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So you're disputing that it's controversial? 365,000 disagree with you. Including several ] "An Inconvenient Truth, arouses so much controversy and condemnation" "“An Inconvenient Truth”—the highly acclaimed and controversial documentary featuring Al Gore probing the issue of global warming and climate change" . I could go on and on... ] 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::This is a great example of why you shouldn't use Google as an argument (as per ]) - first of all your search parameters are wrong (use + in front to ensure that the word is actually included). Second: if you do this - you will notice from a quick look at the first page, that it turns up quite alot of "false positives" - ie. persons saying that it isn't controversial. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Then lets take your sources. What Fred Barney (from some school board) thinks - is irrelevant. So lets just remove every article with school in it - ok? - that gets us down to 71,000 - not a lot when you consider that AIT alone gives 1.3 million hits. So i'd say its a minority view - if Google searches actually had relevance. --] 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I guess you beat me to it, but I was going to say that you should knock out that Seattle P-I article you cited, because it wasn't the newspaper saying the movie was controversial, but the Federal Way school board. Just goes to show that just throwing out a lot of things you find Google hits on doesn't necessarily make a compelling argument. Content and context counts. +] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Note btw. that i haven't at any time said that controversial couldn't describe this movie, as a matter of fact i really don't care. Just that your arguments are faulty. --] 22:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Yes; I just think it doesn't belong in the introduction. As I've pointed out in edit summaries, any controversy is pretty well covered in the body of the article. +] 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oren0 - look in the section above. Comparison with TGGWS is invalid - so please stop using that argument. Try arguing on merits instead. --] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(moving back left) The fact that the controversies are a major part of the article is exactly why it should be in the intro. Look at the quote from ] again: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies." Given that guideline, I don't see how you can argue against including it in the lead section. ] 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:So what are the notable controversies in the movie? --] 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Maybe the several mistakes he's made, some gross, and refuses to acknowledge them. Probably others though. ~ ] 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Are they notable? Which ones are they? Is there significant controversy about them? Or is it just the usual ] stuff? --] 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And wouldn't this be critique - rather than controversy? --] 07:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Removing factual information here is again, POV Pushing. the film is controversial, it is sourced as OrenO states, multiple places in the article. as the Glenn Beck special ] is sticking around (and will be refrenced here also after the 5 days passes), this is indeed a "controversial" film.--] 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Kim, first off, your question is flawed. It's not just controversies "in" the film, but rather controversies "of" the film. So in addition to contentious statements he makes (sea level rising 20 ft, etc.) as sourced to Exposed and TGGWS, among other reliable sources, the school controversies in the US and the UK are also relevant. Also, anyone who makes claims to the effect that there is no scientific debate on global warming is contentious; if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a ] page. Contrary to what you say above, those controversies do make the film controversial. The dictionary definition of "controversial" is "Of, producing, or marked by controversy." This film clearly produced and was marked by controversy, and is well sourced as such. ] 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Oren0 - first of all Exposed and TGGWS are not reliable sources, and i doubt that AIT would be a reliable source either. |
|
|
::::::*The claim that there isn't a scientific debate is only controversial if you are giving ] to specific sources. (as you apparently do). (see: ]). |
|
|
::::::*As for the 20 feet rise. Is controversial? or ? ? Is the IPCC report a controversial report? (it says the ). So what is it that makes it controversial? |
|
|
::::::*As noted before - the school thing does not make AIT controversial - it makes the political decision to show it there controversial. |
|
|
::::::Critique doesn't make things controversial. It just makes for critique - on the other hand if that critique had been seriously weighted towards your items - well then it just may have made it controversial. --] 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Kim, first of all Exposed and TGGWS '''are reliable sources''', though we all know those here in wikipedia who are who don't believe "there is another opinion" will cry foul at every chance, as we are seeing here. The existance of those two films (one a documentry, one a CNN Special) that were created in responce to Al Gore's movie assist in showing how controversial of a topic this is. undue weight huh, well ] back at ya. it is a controversial topic, wether or not the GW supporters believe so. this is why wikipedia gets crap about being ]--] 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::On what grounds do you believe that they are reliable sources? Editorial oversight? TGGWS has been caught with its pants down in direct fraud. As i said AIT is not a reliable source either. |
|
|
::Let me get this straight? You are stating that you will ] because you think that there is a bias or so you can provide ]? --] 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Political Response" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's talk about this intro: |
|
|
|
|
|
The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally, prompting calls for more government action in regards to the climate. Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film in science curricula, though at least one US school district has put restrictions on its use in the classroom. |
|
|
|
|
|
"The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world" attribution/source? who says that this is the case? ] 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally, prompting calls for more government action in regards to the climate" ]? Who has "credited" this film with these accomplishments? Who says that it has prompted government action? ] 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film in science curricula" is this true? I see one listed in the article. Are there really several? (I really don't know the answer here, but it should be sourced). ] 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC on "Controversial" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archives|auto=yes}} |
|
We keep going back and forth between two versions of the opening of this article. See previous discussions ] and, more recently, ]. The discussion seems to not really be going anywhere and we need outside opinions. As such, I've listed this on the ] for Politics and Art, architecture, literature and media. The two versions are: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Predictions == |
|
"An Inconvenient Truth is an Academy Award-winning documentary film about climate change,..." |
|
|
and |
|
|
"An Inconvenient Truth is a controversial Academy Award-winning documentary film about climate change,..." (the reference here is ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I came here to learn about predictions the film made and how accurate they have proved to be over time. I've been disappointed. I'm also disappointed and alarmed that this discussion page is empty. ] (]) 17:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
Those of us in favor of inclusion note ], which states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." We note that there are clearly notable controversies present in the article, and reliable sources (as cited) that call the film controversial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Its not empty. |
|
Those opposed have made a few claims. Either the film is not controversial, the controversies are not notable, or the controversies are covered sufficiently in the article and do not necessitate mention in the lead section. They have also claimed (in edit summaries) that the addition of "controversial" is an attempt to inject POV into the article. ] 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Its just "archived", 21 times. ] (]) 07:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
I came here to learn about predictions the film made and how accurate they have proved to be over time. I've been disappointed. I'm also disappointed and alarmed that this discussion page is empty. 172.113.33.43 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
