# Talk:No Pressure (2010 film)

ClimateDragon insists on making multiple unsourced references to the film being a "PR disaster". I've removed one of these and switched another to the intro and added a  tag. Hopefully a reference will become available in the near future. Jprw (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The latest announcement on their site would indicate the 10:10 team regard this as PR catastrophe
http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director
"This media coverage for this film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for the cause of saving the climate, nor for 10:10, and we certainly didn’t mean to do anything to distract from all the efforts of those in other organisations who are working so hard to secure effective action on climate change."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.189.176 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The above user now appears to be operating as a sock from the 95.176.110.158 IP address, reinstating the same shoddy editing that I removed twice earlier. I left a message at his talk page which he failed to respond to. Perhaps the page will have to be protected. Jprw (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought protection was a bit premature at 10:10. If it continues, ban him or the IP. Protection should be a last resort.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
He appears to be progressively losing his marbles—but yes that does sound like the proper course of action. Jprw (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
He's back and has added to the lead stuff which is now repetitive (viz "It was applauded by those who are critical of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and lamented by it's supporters"—thanks to intervening edits) as well as material that is out of place, badly written, and poorly sourced.("There’s no question that crap like this will cast a shadow, for a time, over our efforts and everyone else who’s working on global warming. "Bill McKibben: Days that Suck Coverage on climate skeptic blog WUWT entry went to no.3 globally, many commenters to the blog see the video as revealing the "true colours" of environmental extremists. 10:10 exploding skeptical children video “disappears”) It should be obvious to anyone that the lead looks a mess as a result. I've tried making comments on his talk page but it has been difficult to hold a rational discussion. Jprw (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Climatedragon (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I am awaiting your explanation of the sock accusation on my talk page. You have avoided replying twice already in your comments there.
If you wished to discuss something in an article it would be useful to indicate that in and edit comment. Rather that doing so quietly and accusing me of "refusing" to reply (as you did on my talk page). Please also bearing mind that I do have a life outside of silly arguments on WP so I may not always see your comments or have time to reply instantly. 
Personal attacks about irrationality and "loosing marbles" are not generally a good way of resolving a difference of opinion , nor is assuming you are always right and that this is "obvious to anyone".
If you could restrict format editing to format it would make life easier for everyone and mean a lot less changes and probably less resulting errors. If you signigicantly change the text (as you have done several times today) make that a separate edit. That way you format edits will not be affected and we can discuss content modifications separately. 
Now , perhaps you could start again without the insults.
I'm sorry but I cannot make head or tail of what you're saying. But I will admit that the "losing his marbles" comment was inadvisable. Jprw (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The content under dispute appears to be the line "it was applauded by climate skeptics and lamented by environmentalists" or some such. While it is probably true that environmentalists wish the ill-advised film had never been released, I don't think it is accurate to say that climate skeptics "applaud" it - I mean, they certainly don't think it's a good film. At best you could say they took a sense of schadenfreude in the poor judgement shown by 10:10, but that's not what you're proposing to add, and neither is it verifiable (at present).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

95.176.110.158 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC) You don't say what bit you can't follow but some of the above relates to and exchange on my talk page. I have been accused of being a sock puppet jprw. Twice this has been said in my talk page and twice in edit comments. In one case it was the sole reason give for the edit being made. This is clearly unacceptable since an edit should be made on the basis of the content.
I have requested three times now that he explains what he thinks this means and why he is applying the term to me. He has twice posted to my talk without answering the third call remains unanswered.
I was addressing the above comments to jprw , so I understand if you had missed some of that and were a bit confused. Hope this makes it clearer.

The basic edit contention is that he has on several occasions today reverted or removed some entries I have made under the pretext of style or layout but on each occasion has significantly changed the content at the same time. Hence my request that he separate format edits from content edits and not to pretend to make style edits while attempting to change the content.
My comment that climate skeptics "applaud" it reflects what a lot of posters where saying in response to the WUWT article. Though Mr. Watts is fairly even handed (though understandably disgusted), many of the more outspoken replies are reveling in the damage they think this is doing to AGW advocacy campaigns.
Due to persistent disruptive editing the refs keep disappearing and "citation needed" tag inserted. If the text was not hacked about the needed citations would be there.
I added one quote with reference from a prominent pro AGW blog and the link to WUWT to show provenance of how the two sides view it.
jprw seems to have some agenda about playing down the significance of the issue and is invovled in some kind of POV damage limitation exercise. Again trying to obfuscate his true motive by claiming to edit style, grammar or format.
False accusations of sock puppetry (a precursor to some banning action presumably) and personal insults seem to be justified in his mind as a way of achieving this end. One may imagine him stabbing away at his little red button ;)
It's an understandable conclusion to come to due to the many comments from readers who are reveling in the chaos. However neither reader comments nor your interpretation of them can be considered reliable sources. I'm sure if such sources do not exist yet, they will soon. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Chaps it's early days and I'm sure that we can all take credit that the article has come a long way in a short period. Let's now begin again in a renewed spirit of collaboration.
I believe that the immediate concern is the closing three sentences in the lead. Do they best belong here—if not, where can they be removed to, and how (if it is necessary) can they be rewritten? The next concern on the horizon I think will be the number of media references that are set to appear that will be repetitive in nature, and being careful not to include them will-nilly. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So in your new spirit of collaboration, which is welcomed, will you either substantiate or retract your sock-puppet accusation. Since I have already been banned without any foundation on this basis by an over zealous admin with an agenda, I am not inclined to let such unsubstantiated claims stand unchallenged.  You opened this discussion with this precise accusation so now please close it by substantiating or retracting your  allegation. (I leave it to your integrity to judge whether an apology is in order for questioning my sanity.) Climatedragon (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It'll be much easier to put this issue to bed if you finally answer the question on your talk page about whether you reverted edits (which I had tried engaging you in conversation about in your Climatedragon incarnation) from the 95.176.110.158 IP address. Jprw (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You had enough information to make the accusations why do you try to make it conditional on something else now and ask further questions of me? Now the fifth time of asking: what do you think sockpuppet means and how do you think it applies to me ? Simple isn't it? Strange you seem unable to reply.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.110.158 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that you have either a) ignored my questions completely or b) refused to answer them directly. But let me spell out what the problem is. "Alternative accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings). These same principles apply to editors who decide to cease editing under one account and restart under another". From here. Given the way that you were going about editing, and given the amount of attention this issue has attracted on your talk page, plus your very limited activity as an editor, I was justified in responding in the way that I did and having my suspicions aroused. Jprw (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, So what is the second account you appear to think I am using? Climatedragon (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, my money's on 95.176.110.158 Jprw (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it certainly took some effort to get it out of you! So if I am understanding where your "money" is you are under the false impression that an IP address shown when not logged is the same thing thing as a second WP account, and after seeing one or maybe two edits with an IP this was sufficient for you to incorrectly accuse me of SP activity. 
While this is in fact perfectly admissible under WP rules and does NOT constitute SP activity I will attempt to shorten your pain by pointing out the reason that happened was not even intentional (as you again presume without any justification) but was simply because I had been away from the computer for several hours. When I made the later posts WP apparently had timed me out and entered the post under the IP address. I did not spot this until I later looked at the history page. 
So now after two days of arguing , you finally explain you accusations , it can be simply shown that you did not even know what sock-puppet means and your accusations were mistaken and false. 
Is there something I have missed?  Climatedragon (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten as "No Pressure is seen as a public relations disaster for the 10:10 campaign, and for the wider global warming mitigation campaign movement: applauded by those who are critical of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and lamented by it's supporters" but am a bit concerned that's it's waffly and/or needs a cite tag. Jprw (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the "applauded" part - it's inaccurate. Climate skeptics are not applauding the film, they're gleeful that it has backfired so badly. It's certainly not the same thing.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
correct -- but how do we express that. Maybe "welcomed as an own goal" or something. Jprw (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That's much more accurate, and might even be able to be referenced. I think it was a comment on the guardian website. Many newspapers are reporting the more memorable blog quotes. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
yes there's massive activity in the blogosphere but none of it of course a RS. Jprw (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Climatedragon (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I added a phrase earlier " for the negative effect it will have" , I also made "applauded by some" since this is clearly not all skeptics. Many just find it disgusting and out of order.

A specific reference would be good I'm sure there must be one out there or will become available in the near future. Jprw (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well I have provide a reference AT LEAST FOUR TIMES in the last couple of days you and other persist in removing them and insert  tags . Climatedragon (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
What reference is that? Jprw (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

ref to WUWT article where many comments were exactly of this nature. And to pre-empt any objections to blog content, that would not be sufficient to justify external events (ie what bloggers say about whether something happened or not) it is valid as a direct witness of what people are saying and how the film is percieved. The comment are how it was received not hearsay reporting of events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climatedragon (talk • contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments in blogs would not be WP:RS to say the least. Jprw (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says: Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves  . So as I said and you chose to ignore, comments are valid in as much as they reflect some of the sceptic reaction to the film. They would not be a good source for external events. Climatedragon (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It is arguable that blog comments can be used as a reference that there were blog comments. However I don't think it's a strong one, and would probably fail at RFC. The "questionable sources" thing usually refers to press releases being cited for info about the organisation that released it. I think in this case it is better to only include the blog comments that have been picked up by mainstream news, eg, the one hypothesizing what would happen if it had been about blowing up Muslims or homosexuals instead.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that important clarification, and with that in mind I have made this edit. Jprw (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it to the reception section. It looks to fit better here. Please let's discuss here instead of going around in circles/edit warring. Jprw (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Climatedragon insists on inserting this text, despite it being gibberish. I will remove it once more myself. Jprw (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
So you off again on your edit war-trail using meaningless justifications "gibberish" and removing content under the pretext of doing format corrections. 
Could you provide something more coherent than "gibberish"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climatedragon (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 
Now you've really stumped me. Jprw (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad we agree finally. ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climatedragon (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 

While those of use who have been following the controversy are well aware that most of the references to it being "funny" have gradually disappeared, it is OR to insert this ourselves. There are plenty of reliable references that mention that the makers claim it to be funny, and some that interpret this as refusing to admit a mistake. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The comment was about the Guardian changing tack and redacting printed comment. Ref added. Climatedragon (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied it up with this edit. Jprw (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Issued by 10:10 director Eugenie Harvey today. http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director --Yeti Hunter (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That certainly needs to be put in somewhere -- I'm also thinking about having a separate section for the withdrawal of the sponsors, or perhaps making it a sub-section in the already existing Withdrawal section. Jprw (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is going to be more of that in the coming days. Perhaps divide the reaction section into Critical Reception and Sponsor Reaction, which could include sponsors who pushed for the video's removal but did not actually disassociate themselves.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, give it a few days and then make a decision. The criticism section will have to be restructured as well to accommodate the state-side refs and remove repetition. Jprw (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest Wikipedia:Redirect to permit entry of the increasingly popular term "Splattergate" (which is hardly a NPOV descriptor) to send browsers to this No Pressure Wikipedia article. -- Tucci78 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Plausible search term. Support creation of redirect.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
NYT reference for term "splattergate" --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten it using the NYT ref. Jprw (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Redirect also done. Jprw (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be a big help in resolving MoS/structural issues for this article. Jprw (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Having ecofascism at this point at the See also -section is not really NPOV as I see it. Manual of Style (layout) says this about See also -section: "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles." Opinion piece does not establish that this subject actually is related to ecofascism. It is just a point of view of the critical blogger that this film is related ecofascist. Having ecofascism at the "See also" -section gives undue weight to a single opinion. 
Also the Manual of Style (Words to watch) says this: "value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" (emphasis by me). Single opinion using the term "ecofascist" of 10:10 is not "widely used by reliable sources", so it is best to avoid it.62.78.193.61 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I originally added the new "see also" sections (replacing a single link to Self-censorship, which I believe is manifestly inappropriate). I linked to Radical environmentalism rather than Eco-fascism for precisely the reason you cite. "Eco-fascism" is almost exclusively used as an attack term, and is rarely used with the actual meaning of Nazi or Fascist political parties with an environmental focus. However, while only a small number of commentators have used the term "eco-fascist", it has certainly been widely described in terms that could loosely be called radical or extreme. This type of environmentalism is dealt with in Radical environmentalism, hence my belief that this is the appropriate link. Eco-terrorism could also be appropriate, focusing more on the supposed advocacy of violent enforcement of green ideology seen in No Pressure, but we should probably discuss that here first to avoid edit warring. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I somewhat understand having a See also point for eco-terrorism, as the fictional storyline of this short film deals with acts of terrorism in the name of ecology, no matter if intended as black humour. As terroris acts are a prominent part of the short film, See also point for eco-terrorism could be valid. Ecofascism on the other hand is more about a certain ecologically focused political ideology, not ecologically motivated political act. One can easily say that the film contains eco-terrorism, but it has little to do with fascism. And it is also another thing to call the fictional storyline dealing with eco-terrorist as saying that the makers of this film are eco-terrorists. Sources for the film's contents relation to eco-terrorism wouldn't hurt. 62.78.193.61 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology in itself. The acts depicted in the film are by any definition acts of terrorism, with the aim of furthering an ecological ideology. (Please note - I'm trying to keep this as neutral as possible, and using "terrorism" in the most dispassionate, definitional terms possible: "the use of terror as a means of coercion". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
What are you people talking about? Have a look at some famous British humour, out of the tradition from which this film comes (as per the refs). Some of your discussion here seems to be veering into a slightly disturbing fantasy land, not related to this movie by any sensible references that I have seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ --Nigelj (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Except that it's not at all funny in the way that is or, say, Mr. Creosote from The Meaning of Life [1]. What comes out instead is the giving vent to a deep-seated misanthropy. Jprw (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's as may be and perhaps the writer's psychoanalyst will one day tell all. But none of these films are terrorist training manuals, or bombers' recruitment drives, or evidence of a fascist upwelling. --Nigelj (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
These are matters of opinion. It is a matter of fact that the film depicts acts of terrorism (blowing people up) performed by adherents of an environmental cause (10:10's carbon dioxide reduction initiative). That's pretty much exactly the definition of Eco-terrorism. Whether the producers actually contemplate such acts in the real world or not is neither here nor there - the film depicts eco-terrorism.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In an *unfunny* way. Jprw (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So, to conclude: Eco-terrorism yes, but eco-fascism no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs)  12:31, 10 October 2010
No, notable commentary in reliable sources yes, extremist talk from self-published commentary, no. --Nigelj (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly an example of fictional eco terrorism. Just about every cited article has some reference to violently destroying those with a different viewpoint to one's own. "Eco-terrorism" is an emotive term, and therefore justifiably avoided in most publications, but the appropriate article to link it to (violence advocated by environmental groups) is Eco-terrorism. Radical environmentalism isn't right, because this group isn't actually radical - they're as mainstream as they get (No Pressure excepted). Deep ecology likewise - there's nothing in this video about the inherent worth of nature for its own sake. Help me out - which article would you direct the reader to to get more information on the philosophy/tactic depicted in the film?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
When significant reliable sources start labelling the film, the organisation and/or the writer with terms like these, we can discuss their considered reasoning in the article. See WP:COATRACK --Nigelj (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm familiar with COATRACKs. An eco-terrorism coatrack for this article would be along the lines of "No Pressure is a film by 10:10 depicting eco-terrorism. Eco-terrorism is the act of committing or threatening violence against individuals or groups for failing to comply with an environmental cause. Several eco-terrorist groups currently active in the UK include....". With respect, that's not what this is about. The film quite plainly depicts environmentally-motivated violence. We can argue about the term, but the article in Wiki in which this is dealt with is Eco-terrorism. Once again - any suggestion what other article about eco-violence would be suitable?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat myself again here. For at least the third time, we can discuss what terms to use in relation to this film when someone produces WP:RS evidence that those terms are being applied to the film by scholarly sources. --Nigelj (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Scholarly sources, oh my! The bar is being set high. Your insistence upon the exact term "eco-terrorism" being in the sources is disingenuous - a "see also" doesn't require the exact term to be used, only that the articles be related. Unsurprisingly, a google news (or scholar) search for 10:10 "individual and political action on climate change yields no results. Likewise 10:10 "graphic violence. 10:10 "Climate change mitigation" yields two: a blog and a community newsletter. The fact that the article nevertheless warrants a "see also" to these topics is not in dispute, since it is easily verifiable that the video is by a climate change mitigation group, that advocates individual and political action, and the content is quite gory. It's also beyond dispute (and reliably sourced ad infinitum) that it depicts the violent coersion of people to join an enviornmental cause. That's in fact the main thing that got everybody so upset, not the mere fact that it was "gory". So what article should it link to? Is there any other article on Wiki that deals with violence committed in the name of the environment? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
...'attempt at humour' committed in the name of the environment. --Nigelj (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like only you and Adam Vaughan get the joke. Jprw (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are some excerpts from "see also"
1. "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles". Surely we can agree that Eco-terrorism is related, since the tactic of terror used in the film is precisely why the film is known at all;
2. "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question". The film clearly has a more than a peripheral relation to the tactic of terror and violence. All the sources (apart from the Adam Vaughan apologia in The Guardian) focus solely on the violence and terror of the film.
In view of 1 and 2 above it looks like there is no problem including it. 
Jprw (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that it is an emotive term, despite being the only article in which environmental violence is dealt with in detail. I'd be tempted to put this discussion on some of the community noticeboards (maybe RfC) to get a stronger consensus one way or the other.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


### RfC: Eco-terrorism at see-also?
Is the film No Pressure sufficiently related to eco-terrorism to warrant a link in see-also? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the link - Clearly someone wanting to paint environmentalism as violent extremism suggested this idea.  This film has more to do with stupid than with eco-terrorism. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Most environmentalists have rightly condemned this film, but stupid attempt at humour or not, it depicts violent extremism. Perhaps part of the problem is that wiki's only article specifically on environmentally motivated violence is located at a very emotive, non-NPOV namespace.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Re "depicts violent extremism" - Really?  I don't see anything that strikes me as traditional "violent extremism".  Just stupid gory horror really.  I'm sorry Yeti Hunter, but calling this "ecoterrorism" strike me as WP:OR.  NickCT (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone for tennis terrorism? Come on. Apparently nowadays nothing below "terrorism" will do for describing people one doesn't agree with. Even if you don't like that kind of humour, you can at least abstractly acknowledge that it is humour. You don't even have to laugh, after all. No pressure. Hans Adler 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Compare and contrast, I guess. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the intention, badly misjudged, was to go for over-the-top, graphic violence along the lines of Monty Python's "How not to be seen". It has nothing to do with terrorism. --TS 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with others about excluding it. A search engine test did not show reliable sources (news headlines, basically) discussing the film in the context of eco-terrorism. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


### How about "in fiction"?
While I do respect that there is a clear consensus above NOT to include the link (as the film deals only with fictional violence), I still think the "see also" section is marvellously "nothing to see here" on the topic of the primary reason for the film's notability. Individual and political action on climate change + Graphic violence = fictional eco terrorism is hardly a synthetic argument - it's basically the definition, word for word, at Eco-terrorism.  Hence, how would you all feel about Eco-terrorism in fiction? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:SEEALSO? The purpose of the See also section is to fix a specific problem, when it happens to exist. To quote: "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one. [...] Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all." Do you really think the "primary reason for the film's notability" is underrepresented in the main text of the article itself? Hans Adler 10:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's hardly the article to go into a detailed discussion of fictional eco-terrorism - I'm not advocating that, hence the see-also proposal. I wasn't familiar with that guideline, but having read it I think it's quite reasonable. To further quote, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense," and "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not fictional eco-terrorism, it's fictional eco-authoritarianism. That's precisely why all the right-wingers found it so terrifying. In an ideal world it would make sense to classify the topic of this film as eco-terrorism, but in the same world it would also make sense to classify Guantanamo Bay detention camp and Iraq sanctions as state terrorism. Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world. In our real world it makes a huge difference if a crime is committed by someone with power or by someone without power, and that difference is reflected in our language. Hans Adler 14:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So blowing people up is "authoritarian"... no, I'm not even going to start this again. WP:NOTAFORUM. I'll wait for others to weigh in.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a short advertising film that addressed the major weak spot in the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) follower mindset that many global warming deniers share: The wish to go with the crowd. (For the details underlying this analysis, see Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians.) RWA followers only keep up their often irrational and contradictory beliefs while they think that it is socially acceptable to do so; as soon as they realise they are in a minority they quickly become a lot more moderate. E.g., this is why Germany became a model country practically over night as soon as the Allieds took over control. The right-wing authoritarians simply switched from following the Nazis to following the authority of the Americans.
The fossil fuel industry's PR companies have managed to convince the general public that there is doubt about global warming in the same way that the tobacco companies previously managed to convince the general public that there is doubt that smoking causes cancer. The PR machinery's modern "grassroots" astro-turfing campaigns are very hard to counter by bona fide scientists, who generally have neither the experience to engage effectively in a political fight, nor the funds.
"In 1991, a corporate coalition composed of the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute created a PR front group called the 'Information Council for the Environment' (ICE) and launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations campaign to, in ICE's own words, 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact).'" (Rampton, Sheldon; Stauber, John (2001), Trust us, we're experts, Penguin Putnam, p. 272) This film is the first effective example that I have seen of an ad that uses similarly effective PR tricks to counter these manipulations. Unsurprisingly in hindsight, the full force of the "grassroots" PR machinery was directed at this ad to contain its effectiveness.
Here is why the ad is so effective, and why it is so hated: Contrary to the nonsense written above, it is not about "eco-terrorism", or indeed any form of terrorism at all. It depicts the reality throughout most of Europe – a consensus throughout the population that global warming is occurring, that it is caused by us, and that we will soon be in deep trouble because of it – and exaggerates it to the point where England has a totalitarian regime in which the powerful members of the establishment (the teacher, the manager, etc.) kill the few dissenters with the silent consent of the majority. This repositioning of effective climate action as an action of the majority and precisely not the impotence that is the root of terrorism turns the table on the oil companies. The oil companies played the little guy by organising petitions, setting up blogs etc. But the pro-science side appears to have understood this now, and is playing its strongest card: That it is actually the establishment and has the majority of the population behind it.
The ad is absolutely hilarious in its extreme exaggeration, in exactly the same way that this old series of Muppet ads by Jim Henson is funny. There is one group of people who don't get the joke: Right-wing authoritarian followers to whom it is beginning to dawn that they are in a minority about global warming. That they will have to change their mind in the same way they had to change their mind about tobacco and cancer when big industry's rearguard action in that very similar science-turned-PR battleground was finally over. This group of people is not amused by the ad. They feel uncomfortable, as they always do when they are confronted with facts that contradict their beliefs. And looking for justifications why they feel comfortable, they see the violence.
This background is crucial for understanding what is going on at this article. Watts Up With That?, a key component of the global warming denial industry, is of course fighting for its interpretation of what happened. The blog is as far from an impartial observer as it gets. Characterising it in this article as "sceptical popular science blog" supports the manipulation:

The term "sceptical" piggy-backs on a genuine grassroots movement that is pro-science and anti-fringe, and applies it to a movement that (exists in the media more than anywhere else and) is anti-science and pro-fringe.
"Popular" in this context is not just a modifier of "science". It also creates inappropriate associations of "majority".
"Science" is misleading because the arguments about science are transparently just front. There is a strong consensus in the scientific literature and among the relevant scientific organisations. Contradicting this consensus for no good reason is not "popular science", it is anti-science.
I have removed this blatant characterisation three times and was reverted three times, the first time with the severely misleading edit summary "'global warming denial blog' is more misleading and extreme than the present description" [2], which referred to my rationale rather than the actual edit, which I had explicitly marked as my proposal for a consensus version, then again by the same editor who claimed to my astonishment that "the current description is fair and neutral". It is no such thing. Hans Adler 13:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Watts Up With That is a blog about science written for a general audience, with a skeptical view of the scientific consensus of climate change. These facts are not under any reasonable dispute - link to popular science if you're worried that people might think that "popular" confers some scientific authority .--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that it is unfair to frame a blog that is positioned a priori antagonistically to the ad as an impartial ("sceptical") authority on science and its popular explanation. Whatever the blog is, that is not an aspect of it that is terribly relevant for this entry. Surely there is nothing "sceptical" about the way Watts covered the situation, nor does he speak about science. He is triumphing. And the key piece you need to understand why he is triumphing is hidden behind the link "sceptic".
In an article about a scandal involving a political candidate we would generally try to avoid linking to a write-up on the site of his direct opponent. But if we did, we would describe the opponent as his opponent, not as a lawyer, or a journalist, or whatever his profession. Hans Adler 14:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
...which is exactly why it is surely useful for the reader to know that Watts holds a skeptical view of the anthropogenic global warming theory. "Skeptical" in this context is clearly intended in the sense of  "climate skeptic", not "scientifically skeptical" which, as you're right in saying, can be something else entirely.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I don't quite agree but it's reasonable. Then we still have the following problems: (1) "Sceptic" is currently linked to Environmental skepticism, not to climate skeptic (a redirect to global warming controversy). (2) The description was diluted through the addition of "popular science". The blog's scope is much narrower than popular science in general, and more precise language here would explain the intended meaning of "sceptic". Hans Adler 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the whole sentence, "The timeline of the withdrawal was covered in detail by the sceptical popular science blog Watts Up With That?." should go, per WP:COATRACK. The sentence (correctly, since it is a blog) does nothing other than describe what is on the stated blog; it adds nothing to this article about the film, other than to say that Watts was moved to blog about its withdrawal. There is no evidence that Watts' choice of blog material is notable enough to need stating so prominently here on Wikipedia. On first reading, I thought that we were going to go on and use the Watts timeline to describe the withdrawal, but we don't: the brief timeline is independently sourced as it goes. The only reason that is here, it appears, is to give a publicity puff to Watts' blog, and to direct the occasional reader there to boost his hit-rate. The sentence should go. --Nigelj (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Friends, again I remind you to look at Remedy 4.2.1 of the recently closed arbitration case which applies to editing on this article:
All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply)
The case has not been made (and I even doubt that it could be made) for inclusion of that blog as a source on this article and in this context. And again from the arbitration: "Editors are also urged to read and follow the principles applicable to this case. Any editor unable or unwilling to follow this advice should restrict their editing to other topics, to avoid sanctions." The recent edit warring over what to call this exceptionally poor source is not auspicious. --TS 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur, for the same reasons expressed above. There is no shortage of mainstream opinion on this topic. Wikispan (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Good outcome. Sometimes you need some fresh eyes on an issue! --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm removing it now, without prejudice to possible restoration if a good argument is made for this inclusion. --TS 10:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I shouldn't have to remind most of the editors of this article about the recent arbitration case.  Please be aware that only the highest standards of conduct are permitted here.  In particular I draw your attention to the following part of the remedy:

Advice for editors

Any editor wishing to edit within the Climate change topic, broadly construed, is advised to edit cautiously, to adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by uninvolved administrators. Editors are also urged to read and follow the principles applicable to this case. Any editor unable or unwilling to follow this advice should restrict their editing to other topics, to avoid sanctions.
This means you. --TS 13:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put a notice about the current edit warring on this article at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (WP:AE). --TS 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to revert one edit by Demiurge1000, but I think the entire series may deserve some scrutiny. (I don't have the time right now.) Hans Adler 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. I'm sorry that you "had to revert one edit". And don't worry; WP:NORUSH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The rest look fine, except one which changes the description of the football team's reaction from "nonplussed" (so surprised you are temporarily unsure how to react), to "not at all surprised", which I'm not sure would be accurate.  I agree that the 350.org quote should be reproduced in its entirity.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I very much imagine that the original writer intended "not at all surprised" and chose the word "nonplussed" in error. You can tell that by the way they draw a contrast ("Unlike the witnesses depicted in previous scenes") with the previous segments ("horrified charges", "appalled co-workers"). Or alternatively you can review the segment in question in the original film; it's at around 2 minutes 50 seconds.
I have no problem with the entirety of the Sony quote being in the article if people see that as important; which at least one person clearly does.
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Being the original writer, I can vouch that I used the word "nonplussed" in full knowledge of its meaning. I think I had a "merely" in there too, to differentiate from the more extreme reactions seen in previous scenes, which has since been removed. The reaction of the players captured in the promo photo seems to convey a sort of "Whoa - shit just got real" reaction - certainly somewhat surprised, but also not as horrified as one might expect.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The promo photo, if it's the one currently at the top of the article, does not appear to be a still from the film. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this short film really notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Yes, it got plenty of coverage at the time, but this seems to me like the definition of a 'flash-in-the-pan' news story with no lasting significance. Would anyone else support a merge into the 10:10 article? Robofish (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support such a merge - this coverage began as a section of that article until is was split out on 2 Oct 2010. However, the coverage we have here would have to be severely abridged, so as not to dwarf the other sections of the 10:10 article, as per UNDUE, it is far from being the most significant thing that 10:10 ever did. --Nigelj (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
This film is the most significant thing that 10:10 ever did. Hardly anyone would know their name otherwise, The Guardian's incessant advertising notwithstanding. Add that to the fact that it provoked numerous environmental groups to distance themselves from or even condemn 10:10, and the wild reaction in the blogosphere (rabble-rousing conservative and otherwise), and you've got very clear notability. WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply here - it was much more than a mere "report". I likewise oppose the merge, as this article really would dwarf the other content on 10:10. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think YetiHunter has this the right way around. Oppose the merge. In addition, the article is supported by [3] these people. It is something that exists in its own right, and with every justification. Jprw (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"This film is the most significant thing that 10:10 ever did." Do either of you have anything at all (like a reference) to back that statement up? It seems to be pivotal to your argument. Are there many other 4-minute YouTube videos covered in this detail? The 10:10 organisation, by the way, is still alive, well and campaigning. --Nigelj (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Are there many other 4-minute YouTube videos covered in this detail?" – a deeply misleading, I have to say almost deluded, statement. This is a four minute short film, with the participation of over 50 film professionals and more than 40 actors, with a script written by Richard Curtis and featuring a number of high-profile celebrities and sports personalities. The furore it caused and the speed with which it was removed from circulation was remarkable – unprecedented, probably. You are trying to downplay its significance. And yes, 10:10 is still in existence, but deeply damaged by the film. I imagine that most sponsors are still reluctant to touch them with a bargepole, especially after their 
non-apology. Jprw (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the Mckibben quote in the lede as it seems to be an aside that is not directly relevant to the film.
"people organizing around the world for October 10 are [...] as responsible as it's possible to be:  They'll spend the day putting up windmills and solar panels, laying out bike paths and digging community gardens. And in the second place, they're doing it because they realize kids are already dying from climate change, and that many many more are at risk as the century winds on". Jprw (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is context, the film was launched as publicity in the run-up to 10.10.10. That's about the only bit of context-setting in the whole article. The Mckibben quote that came before, that you both left out above and have deleted twice from then article, read, "you can look at the stories by climate deniers assailing [this film] as the latest example of eco-fascism". This article is very unimportant, and could well be merged elsewhere soon, but at the moment it is a drama-fest of cherry-picked quotations by those who want to make their wp:point. --Nigelj (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"This article is very unimportant, and could well be merged elsewhere soon, but at the moment it is a drama-fest of cherry-picked quotations by those who want to make their wp:point".
This is a very troubling and misleading statement that demonstrates clear POV on your part. The references are not at all cherry-picked – as you must surely acknowledge, the film provoked widespread revulsion from both the right-leaning press to environmental groups, and that is basically what the references reflect. The only one that is apologetic is the Vaughan one, which is cited at length. If there are others, then please include them. And as for "merged elsewhere soon", where exactly? Presumably you have conceded that it would be a nonsense to merge this article into 10:10, as the film is clearly more notable than 10:10.
I think your motives are clear: you would like to airbrush this deeply embarrassing episode from history, and removing the Wikipedia article on it would go some way to achieving this.   Jprw (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:No Pressure (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Now, before I start my review, I must say that the article is quite interesting to read. I don't understand why blowing up people to promote people to reduce their carbon outtake. Now then, here are some problems I found in the article.
*The lead of the article needs more information about it all. Like, what some of the reviews say about the film. Also, the word "controversial" should be removed because it is puffery.

Links 9-12, 22, 34, 35, and 36 needs to be cited.
Link 5 is dead.
There is a {{syn}} template in the Withdrawl article.
Looking at the Reception section, I think that some of the paragraphs should be merged together.
There is a dab link in the article.
More to come later. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment from disinterested Wikipedian:  The word "controversial" seems fine to me, especially in the lead section.  See WP:LABEL for the specific section where "controversial" is listed (the concern isn't that "controversial is verboten, but that it might be used to promote fringe views).  As the article discusses, the controversy surrounding the film, described in the body of the article, is one of the defining characteristics of the film.  Link 10 looks fine to me as a WP:NEWSBLOG.  The other blog links (9, 11, 12, and 22) appear to be citing bloggers' opinions; if those opinions belong in the article (without compromising WP:NPOV), they can be used as sources for the opinions of the bloggers, but not as sources for facts about the film.  Link 34 is a primary source that I agree is being misused to imply (via original research) that certain sponsors pulled upon the release of the film.  Link 35 looks reliable to me, as it is run by a magazine.  Link 36 needs a citation to a specific release.  Link 5 does indeed suffer from linkrot; it would be wise to get another copy (see WP:LINKROT).  RJaguar3 | u | t 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The cite-tagged details about production (low carbon efforts, zero flight policy etc) were added on October 1st before this article was even forked (this diff). It was cited to a press release, now a dead link. Apparently nothing on google. Not sure how to track that down... anyone have any ideas?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have so far drawn a blank, it might be time to delete this. Jprw (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:ROT, if citation is still possible in the absence of a working URL, it does not necessarily need to be verifiable online. If we are happy with this, it could remain cited to a hard-copy press-release like so: Crouch, Anderson, Radiohead in mini-movie (press release), oneworld.net, 1/10/2010.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could keep it, it fits well into the background section. Jprw (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
With these edits [4][5][6][7] I have tried to address the bulk of the concerns raised by the reviewer GamerPro64. It will be interesting to see where we go from here. Jprw (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, I'm not entirely sure that the article is Well written and is Factually accurate and verifiable. I'm going to ask for a second opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It might be easier to just get a new review subpage started to get a review going; due to the GA drive one would happen fast if we took this route. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:No Pressure (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: one found and fixed.[8] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Substantive review will be posted within 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Lead: Short sentences need consolidating perhaps two paras for a short article such as this.
A large number of short or single sentence paragraphs throughout the article need consolidation.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
One citation needed tag on the film's production needs addressing.
References check out, no OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
sufficient detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
One image used with suitable non-free use rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, good to go. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)