# Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

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)

Its not empty.
Its just "archived", 21 times. 185.188.190.137 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There was some controversy surrounding the film's data and concerns over how accurate (or not) it was. In particular there was a UK court case over whether the film should be shown in British schools due to what judges described as scientific errors. I think this should be discussed somewhere in the article as it's important to note, but am not sure if it should go in the lead where it is now or in the reception section. For right now I've decided to leave it in the lead and stated the claim as neutrally as I could.
Tagging the editor who originally added the source @Wikiprofessor696900 and the editor who reverted Wikiprofessor's initial addition @Driftingdrifting. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Gommeh! In my opinion, it's absolutely appropriate for the topic and link to be in the article and how you worded it seems nicely neutral to my eye. I do think the balance and weight on this one are going to be tricky and that the lead is probably not the right place for it because it overstates the importance of this one criticism. Even if the controversy should be acknowledged (which seems plausible, this movie was controversial), I'm not sure that this is the critique/rebuke among all the others in the body that should get elevated. I'd advocate for it moving down (maybe into the government response section?). Driftingdrifting (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I think you might be referring to what is already discussed in the section, An_Inconvenient_Truth#Dimmock_case. Generally, only very notable summary content from the article's body should be duplicated in the lead. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Great catch, yeah, I think you are right in which case this is already well covered in the article. Driftingdrifting (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
If you're not sure that this is the only controversy that should be mentioned in the lead, then should we include summaries of the other controversies? » Gommeh (he/him) 20:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
If you read through the article (as in An_Inconvenient_Truth#Use_in_education), plus the expected Democrat-vs-Republican reactions, it's clear that there were various reactions, none of which were outstandingly notable. It would be inappropriate to give any one of them prominent mention in the lead. I think the most recent description is a most appropriate summary sentence. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)