Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 3

message: In some areas of the article we see 'slideshow' while in other we see 'slide show'. Which of the two is it? --Joel M. 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Slide show". The two words haven't yet morphed into one. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The WP article is at slideshow.  I've made the change. Croctotheface 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  slideshow or slide show 

message: This article is obviously not politically or factually NPOV. 81.228.195.119 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be specific.  Sophia 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I find this articles POV to be perfectly fine. It is based upon the reviews and facts that are out there today. -Vcelloho 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I would be bold when editing, although as this is a special case, I would like to discuss it first, I meant the format of the movie (a politician lecturing in science), his somewhat bitterness (I'm the former next President) and the blatant random segments on his life (only trying to invoke pathos). This is one of the major concerns by critics, even those who are fully aware of the implications of global warming. The cartoons also have one minor factual error that may needs to be address as well (the fact that H2O is the most common greenhouse gase, not stinking green ones). 81.228.195.119 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to bear in mind the difference of how the article is written and the subject of the article itself. The former is the Wikipedia article on AIT and the latter is the topic AIT discusses in the movie. The latter is obviously politically and factually POV, because it puts the blame of global warming on humans and shows scientific data backing up that conclusion. But the former, how the Wikipedia article on AIT is written, is NPOV AFAIConcerned. Berserkerz Crit 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not about global warming or scientific evidence. It is about how the movie lacks a section for critism of the presentation, not the truth proved by sciencee. As a result, I have put back the NPOV dispute tag. 81.228.195.119 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to discuss it, you can create an account or log in using an account you already registered with. It's hard to discuss the merits of writing an article for Wikipedia with an anonymous IP Address. And again, the article is neutral as it is. The article's subject on the other hand is biased on the role of humans in global warming. As I've said to others saying the article lacks criticism or the movie is propaganda, find attributable sources (WP:ATT) and compose a well written and referenced section then. Again, bear in mind that there are two distinct things here, how the article is written and what the article's subject is. Do not confuse the controversy with global warming with the mostly positive reception of this movie. Berserkerz Crit 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The reason being given for removing this reference is truly lame - "agenda-driven". Of course it's "agenda-driven" - so are the 20 other references given in the article that express a pro-global warming opinion that are written by those with a declared pro-global warming agenda. WP:RS and WP:V are quite explicit that the standard for inclusion of a source is not that you agree with the source, but that the source is reliable and notable. The National Post appears to be one of Canada's biggest newspapers - it is by any standard reliable and notable. - Merzbow 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom Harris is a Lobbyist and PR-man - a professional one. Neither you nor I know whether or not his representation of other people's views are correct or not. He is by definition not a reliable source. What the news-outlet is or isn't has no relevance here - sice Harris' article is an op-ed ("The opinions expressed on op-ed pages reflect those of the individual authors, not the paper. The articles have bylines and are written by individual free-lance writers, guest opinion writers, syndicated columnists, or a regular columnist of the paper") - In effect he is stating his view be it correct or not.  --Kim D. Petersen 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more clear - i am not against his op-ed being linked or referenced in the article. What i'm against is the incorrect inference of his views being a correct representation of reality. So label it as something other than a reference to a claim that "Criticism has come from other scientists as well." - that may well be correct - but the Harris article is not a WP:RS to this particular claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of sourced material 

message: Gore's movie does not speak one bit about the solar variation theory, about the only substantiated skeptic theory. Well, I wouldn't even call it that. The theory holds a lot of water, and the debate isn't about whether solar variation plays a role, but to what extent. Some popular numbers put out by substantiated scientists is that around ~75% of the observed global heating until 1980 is caused by solar variations, and ~25% since then. Gore says he tried to diminish obstacles, but he fails to mention the single most debated issues within the scientific community. No one denies that the Earth is heating, that GHGs contribute to warming, or that humans can produce GHGs. The question is to what extent solar forcings affect this observed heating. This is something Gore does not address at all. Disappointing. ~ UBeR 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He refers to it obliquely when comparing the data from the ice core samples as he talks about critics rejecting human activity as the cause of Global Warming due to "cyclical effects". His emphasis is on how different the CO2 levels are now even when compared over more than 1/2 million years of earth history. So yes I would say his emphasis is on the human component of GW as he addresses the idea that current levels are just part of normal change patterns. You have to remember his audience as he obviously does - you can kill people with scientific overload so you need to stick to your point but give enough info that others can check up what backs your conclusions and then make their own judgements on the validity of yours.  Sophia 07:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A criticism

message: There are lots of opponents to global warming theory.  Some of them are referenced in sub topics in this article, however this article needs a section devoted to criticism.  This would help bolster the credability of this arcile.  --bigbadman--Bigbadman 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a page about the movie, not about global warming in general. Criticism of the movie is suitable, but for criticism of the theory, go to global warming controversy or possibly Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism... Where is it?

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

message: This article came up on a list of improperly or only partially listed Good Articles, and since it seems there was a bit of a tussle on this article talk page about its actual status, i'm listing this on WP:GA/R to make its status less ambiguous. (Specifically, it isn't actually listed on the WP:GA page) Homestarmy 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well, the original user who promoted this article to GA status did it correctly as far as I can remember (to lazy to check the History, too many edits to look over and my eyes hurt currently). Then, somebody delisted it just days after citing lack of refs or inline citation (which was totally untrue) which I reverted. The discussion is still here in this page I believe, at Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth#Shouldn.27t_this_be_class_A_already.3F. Oh and it was User:James Kidd who reviewed this article to GA. Btw, how can an article be improperly or only partially listed as GA? And, I'm all for the review since I think the article is stronger now than the past reviewed version, with a Criticism section finally up thanks to persistent but civil critics. Berserkerz Crit 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when an article is passed, you're supposed to put the template on the article and actually list the article on the WP:GA page, but this article along with many others which I have for the most part dealt with had the GA template on the article talk page, but they wern't actually listed on the WP:GA page. Homestarmy 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA/R

message: I reviewed the above arguments, and examined the "lorax" edit mentioned by THF.  I cannot understand the deletion of two statements (suggesting dispute and polemic) which were accompanied by the following four references:
*Competitive Enterprise Institute
*Scripps-Howard News Services
*San Francisco Examiner
*Sunday Times
These are all highly reliable.  Since no one is making the claim that they aren't, how can their deletion be justified?  My conclusion, humble as it may be, is that the lorax deletion must be replaced in the Lead Section.—Red Baron 15:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the Wikipedia:Undue Weight clause, I think the additions to the lede are misleadingly prominent and POV (even calling the film "controversial" seems disingenuous). The so-called "dispute" that was cited is unremarkably minor (one source from a front group funded by ExxonMobil) and in fairness , the CEI's fringe opposition to the film's science is mentioned under pop culture references. The few sources that call AIT a polemic appear to be misusing the term. By definition, a polemic is an argument meant to "dispute or refute a topic," something AIT isn't. --The lorax 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with the citing of Wikipedia:Undue Weight. The example given is something very ridiculous such as the "flat earth" theory. As stated the above sources are reliable. Polemic as given by Princeton wordnet is "of or involving dispute or controversy", clearly Global warming is a controversy. Or perhaps you would rather read the Global warming controversy yourself. Or just go to Google and type in "Global warming controversy". The actual increase of global warming is fact, the causes and degree of causes which have affected it are the controversy, and this is exactly what the film addresses. 216.64.125.78 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If ExxonMobil is considered to be a biased source as you imply, then Al Gore is also a biased source. This man has a vested interest in politicizing this issue even more so than ExxonMobil  does. Just because you perceive the dispute to be small that does not mean it is. There are plenty of criticisms out there about this film and it's bait-and-hook tendencies. Trying to suppress such information by deleting it is reprehensible just as your justification of it is. If the information is as unreliable and "minor" as you say then why do you feel the need to delete it, other than the fact that you wish to silence those that do not agree with your point of view?Mpursglove 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "a controversial" put back in with source. With a movie being associated with "Nazi Propaganda" is it not acceptable to note its "Controversial" nature?--Zeeboid 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Comment

message: An administrator should really understand that this edit violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN.  Even if it's 100% accurate, and I don't think it is, because I've seen those criticisms outside of the NY Times.  The edit summary even admits the violation of WP:SYN.  If one cannot find a reliable source that makes these criticisms about the New York Times article, it is a plain violation of WP:OR to do the synthesis oneself.  -- THF 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And William M. Connelly reverted without any discussion on the talk page.  If I am misunderstanding WP:SYN, wouldn't it be in his interest to explain to me why I am wrong?  Except I don't think that I am: the edit plainly violates the original research guidelines forbidding combining two cited sources to come to a conclusion that is not expressed in either of those sources. -- THF 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The film itself is the source"? Clearly the author of the NY Times article sees things differently. If WMC wants to find another reliable source that has a different opinion of the film, or who contradicts the article's claim that Gore made the sea-level prediction, he is free to do so. - Merzbow 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times article 

message: 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.  Thanos6 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Way 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nuni117.xml
"Parents who claim that an award-winning film on climate change is inaccurate and politically motivated are threatening a legal challenge over the Government's decision to send it to every secondary school. School row over Al Gore film Al Gore appearing in his film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.
The film by Al Gore, the former US vice-president, won an Oscar for the best documentary this year and Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, says he wants teachers to use it to stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming.
But a group of parents in the New Forest say the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002. Derek Tipp, their spokesman, has urged Mr Johnson to stop the film being sent out.
He said: "The film goes well beyond the consensus view and is not therefore suitable material to present to children who need to be given clear and balanced, factually accurate information."
But this information will it be allowed? Of course not, Wiki is too biased.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ymous (talk • contribs).
*Being a parent alone does not qualify one to have a sound view. I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general). We do not list every single bit of controversy brought about by every single person with an opinion. You'd probably be more at home on LiveJournal. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-19 15:39Z
::You are laughable. You most certainly do allow every person with an opinion, but only when it advances YOUR left wing agenda. Evolution, Christianity, Al Gore, Movement to Impeach George Bush, take your pick! Ymous 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Educational Pushback To Be Ignored By Libipedia