Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 16

message: I think that piping to GWD is a bad idea, especially "hidden" behind GWS  William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Have we considered piping that to Global warming controversy?  The problem with the current link (and also with redirecting global warming skepticism) to the scientists page is that not all GW skeptics are scientists or fit the entry criteria of that page.  Shouldn't global warming skepticism be a redirect to global warming controversy? Oren0 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial/skeptics 

message: It has been brought to my attention that some editors feel that having the regular parties involved commenting within the RfC "amounts to trying to undue influence the commenters and if the bait is taken - lead to long discussions that have no place there."
I must agree, which is why I had created a section similar to this one on the The Great Global Warming Swindle.  I simply didn't think to do it here until now.  Consistent with WP:TALK#Others' comments I do not feel entitled to move other material from the RfC to here as some of it has become interspersed.  I hereby grant other editors permission to make a good faith move of my material from there into this section as long as they do so for their's as well.
Moving forward I would request that any comments which are likely to lead to lengthy discussion be conducted here rather than there.  --GoRight 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal AIT discussion on the RfC 

message: Replace the end of the lead with the following or something similar:
:An Inconvenient Truth was well received by film critics, scientists, and politicians and won two Academy Awards. The film has generated some controversy, however, including a British High Court case regarding its proposed showing in schools.  Global warming skeptics have criticized the film, calling it "exaggerated and erroneous".
I don't believe this is undue weight as the High Court case is highly notable but received lots of press, and thus as a major controversy belongs per WP:LEAD.  It also brings the lead more in line with the rest of the article.  It uses the language generated controversy rather than controversial directly and it shows rather than tells.  I think this incorporates pretty much everyone's opinions and seems like a fair middle ground to me.  Thoughts? Oren0 19:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried this compromise a little while back and it didn't fly.  I still believe this is a fair a compromise though. Elhector 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would find something along these lines acceptable.  I personally might combined the last two sentences by joining them with ", and" but that is a small point.  [On a side note, is it necessary to redundantly mention the Academy Award bit in the lead?  It is mentioned in both the opening sentence as well as here which seems undue weight to me.  This is only an observation since I only noticed it just now.] --GoRight 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement is well-written and I like it. The only part that I disagree with is the "generated controversy." It seems to me to be semantics to say that "generated controversy" is somehow not saying that it is "controversial." As I've said above, the word controversy means "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement." What we have here is a relatively small minority of diehards who are trying to make it an issue and are largely failing. Sunray (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead doesn't say it's controversial.  It says that the film generated controversy, which I don't even believe to be a matter of debate.  See a ton of sources, the High Court case (which is generated controversy regardless of the rulings), and even An Inconvenient Truth#Controversy. Oren0 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is semantics. To be controversial requires "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement." This hardly qualifies. And it is not up to us to make the judgement call that AIT has "generated controversy."  We could look for a reliable source that says that, but we will then get into an argument over whether some attack squad's blog qualifies as an RS.  We need to respect the vote, above, which was 15/2 against making reference to controversy in the lead. No compromise is needed here, IMHO. Sunray (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not what the above was.  The above was 15/2 against saying the film was controversial in the opening sentence.  If you actually read the comments instead of the votes above, you'll see that many people object to controversial in the opening sentence but not in the lead in general.  That's the purpose of this compromise.  This compromise has stood for a week (which is a long time on this article) with no reversions or changes from either side.  You're new to this issue; please realize that this is something that has brought several talk page arguments, RfCs, etc.  If we've found something that's stable and agreeable (though the pro-AGW crowd hasn't commented on this compromise, they all watch this page and show implicit agreement by not changing the lead in a week), please don't be the sole voice of dissent and then revert it. Oren0 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. It has stood without being reverted, so don't revert it. You may want to google for circular reasoning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that it has stood without being reverted or even disagreed with.  Therefore, attempt to discuss and change the consensus before reverting. Oren0 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A version standing for a week doesn't make it sacrosanct. We are trying to improve articles to be the best they can be. I brought in new information and raised some concerns. I pursued the matter below, and my concerns have, at least for now, been addressed. Compromise is not inherently a good thing, BTW. Collaboration, on the other hand is what WP is all about.  Sunray (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... not sure what to say here. Elhector (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, thought about for it bit.  Sunray, you're correct when you say collaboration is what WP is all about.  That's exactly what was going on above.  An RfC was posted, some people wanted the lead sentence to have the word controversial and a lot didn't.  Some also chimed in stating that controversial should be in the lead, but not in the lead sentence.  Then another idea was pitched asking for comments on the new idea which addressed a lot of editors concerns, people commented on that and the consensus of the people who chose to participate in the colloboration was that the compromise seemed to address everyones concerns.  The language was changed and nobody said anything about it for a week.  Seems that collaboration triumphed and the arguments on this talk page had subsided.  Then all of a sudden an editor who has not been involved in any of the collaboration or discussion pops in and changes everything that was discussed without any regard to any of the long discussions, work, or collaboration of the editors that were involved in trying to improve the article while trying to make a serious attempt to address everyone's concerns.  I'm sure you could see how some editors would be peeved by this and have a hard time assuming good faith. I would encourage you to take another look at Oren0's comment's here and also the volumes of discussion on the talk page and the archives of it on this subject.  I think you'll find the  few concerns and issue's you've raised with this compromise have already been discussed and that this compromise was created to deal with those precise concerns as well as those of other editors. I understand that being bold is also a major part of WP, but on things like this that tend to turn volatile we find it's easier to discuss things point by point and reach an agreeable solution that ends uncivil debate and edit warring.  That's almost what we had accomplished, but now it seems a freshly healed wound on this article will be re-opened now. Elhector (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed compromise 

message: The statements above by some editors, which imply that the film is controversial only in the United States, are false.  I just took a look at the German Wikipedia talk page for the film.  I don't think there are very many Americans that contribute to German Wikipedia, yet there is substantial controversy on that page, just as there is here, saying similar things.  The film is controversial for a simple reason: it is being promoted as being accurate, and it is provably inaccurate.  That fact can be observed by people who care to inform themselves anywhere, not just in the United States. Vegasprof (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial in Germany, too 

message: (12) http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
Nevertheless, the risk of a catastrophic melting and break-up of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets is very real, when we consider that sea level before the most recent ice age was 15 feet higher than it is now. Gore is right to draw attention to what might happen if sea level rose 20 feet.
(13) http://www.cinemattraction.com/?p=303
The scientific community generally agrees the planet is heating up, that we are primarily responsible, that the effects are catastrophic and that we have only a tiny fraction of time to reverse the coming cataclysm.
(14) http://movies.ign.com/articles/710/710758p1.html
Understanding the basic concepts prove fundamentally important since the film wastes little time in getting to scientific observations of shocking significance. With the rise of CO2 emissions has come a rise in global temperature, the consequences of which - from animal and plant extinction to the melting of the polar mantle to worldwide flooding and exodus - are both catastrophic and horrifying. Moreover, they are real. The film makes clear that should mankind continue down, as Gore puts it, a "nature walk through the Book of Revelations," these events are bound to happen - not "ifs" but "whens."
(15) http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/murie140207.html
The evidence, some of it amazingly concise, demonstrates that we and planet Earth are in deep trouble.  We will have to think hard and move decisively.  It is too late to turn back global warming, loss of species, spread of exotic diseases, and deaths of forests and marshes.  However much we try, glaciers and polar ice and permafrost will keep on melting.  Immediate reversal is out of the question, but there is a fighting chance for slowing things down enough to forestall a sudden shift toward more catastrophic consequences.
(16) http://www.newslocale.org/world/wnews/al_gore_and_ipcc_share_2007_nobel_peace_prize_20071012542.html
http://www.democrats.com/node/9036
http://www.progressivedvds.com/servlet/Detail?no=127
"Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced," Gore warns.
:I was bold and put it back.  Everything above is more than enough evidence for me to support the change. Elhector 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous movie descriptions and reviews: