Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 4

message: I just reverted 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 WP:NPOV.  Finally, a critque of global warming in general does not belong in an article about a movie, on criticism of the movie.  --TeaDrinker 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Africangenesis 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 reliable sources.  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. --TeaDrinker 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Global Warming controversy instead.  I'm going to put a link to that in the section and leave it at that. Oren0 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various attempts at critism 

message: 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. Peterlewis 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial is POV and it doesn't belong in the article. --GreenJoe 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Note TGGWS is The Great Global Warming Swindle - a British TV show. (for those who aren't familiar). And i'm talking about this edit.
: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 insert some remotely comparable movie/thing here?
: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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a worthy read. --Kim D. Petersen 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Iceage77 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a really good point here, Kim. I agree 100% --GreenJoe 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Kim D. Petersen 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we need to be consistent with TGGWS 

message: 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.[34]
"The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world" attribution/source? who says that this is the case? Oren0 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Political Response" section