Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 6

message: A second paragraph of the article has several English grammatical errors.  There does not appear to be any way to edit this paragraph.
You may not be able to edit this page because it is semi-protected to prevent vandalism.  That means that unregistered users (IP's) and new accounts under five days old may not edit the page.  But no matter, if you tell us what you want to replace it with, I am sure someone will gladly replace it.  Nschoem 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Grammar 

message: This line appears to sound biased and disparage the group involved with The Great Global Warming Swindle: …”brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming.”  It has been suggested that line be changed to read “brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the scientific opinion on climate change regarding human-caused global climate change”  The second line reads as less biased and presents the same info while providing a link for the reader to find out more information on the prevailing consensus, how it was reached, and by who exactly.  It has been suggested that this change would be more encyclopedic 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support for the first line.  I think it more accurately portrays the issue at hand. After lots of debate, the Global Warming article has ended up using the term "consensus".  The American Association for the Advancement of Science calls it a consensus, the UN Academy of Science calls it a consensus, the Joint Science Academies call it a consensus, the American Meteorologic Society calls it a consensus, and so on.  Softer language may appeal to people on a thorny issue, but going by the standard of verifiability, I think the term to use is "consensus".  I hold the same judgement concerning the word "warming" instead of "climate change", since the "consensus" about climate change is for warming. -- Rei 15:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus is the language that's commonly used in the literature and by scientific groups.  The word consensus does not imply that there is no disagreement (there is some amount of dissent, but its amount is debatable), but rather that there is general agreement in the scientific community.  Numerous scientific groups and articles use the term consensus to describe current scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming.  If you really think there should be a source next to consensus, that's easy enough.  Since that's the common language used, it's the language that should be used here. Oren0 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remain neutral on this. I think the term "prevailing consensus" can be easily cited and used because of the IPCC's summary release in 2007 saying human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. At the same time, the second line does just as well because it leads to an article that says exactly this. Personal bias would have me favour the first line, but this is not the place for this. I'd say either sentence equally passes the NPOV policy, and therefore I remain neutral. -- Reaper  X 03:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the first line as well. From the outside looking in, I would have to say that the use of the word consensus is wholly justified, seeing as it IS the consensus (otherwise the group in question wouldn't be called "skeptics," would they?). However, the word "prevailing seems unneeded and redundant, and only seems to have use as a weasel word. --Tao of tyler 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes prevailing seems redundant and weaselly. Remove prevailing, keep consensus. Berserkerz Crit 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I second. -- Reaper  X 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I third (?).  Seems fair to me. Oren0 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'd concur. Voice-of-All 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I guess that makes me fifth, but I would like to see it cited, if only to decrease the chance of it being changed because somebody else comes along in a month and likes a different word better. They might hesitate if it means removing a source. Pairadox 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've been on vacation for a bit so I'm just now getting back and taking a look at what's been happening over here.  To tell you the truth, I'd support the idea of just removing the word prevailing as well at this point.  I'm pretty sure my original idea isn't going to go over so at least removing the word prevailing will make it sound a little less POV. Let's leave this up for a few another day or so and see if anyone else has an opinion. Elhector 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list." Done. Cheers. -- Reaper  X 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments on proposed changes to The Great Global Warming Swindle section

message: Hello, I hope all is well.  The first bullet under the section Political Response, subsection Education is no longer factually accurate or up to date.[]
While I would normally follow WP:BB, I don't want to be reckless given that the environment is such a highly polarized issue.  Would the editors who normally watch and keep this page up to date, please correct that.  If I don't see the correction within the next 24 hours or so, I'll go ahead and edit it myself.  Cheers! --SimpleParadox 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been reverted - since the verdict isn't there yet. Its due in a week. What a judge may have or may not have said to a newspaper is not binding - nor is it relevant here. I suggest that you await the ruling. --Kim D. Petersen 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, Mr. Petersen.  I am in no hurry as I'm quite sure the judge would not be lying to the newspaper about his upcoming ruling next week.  Cheers! --SimpleParadox 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date information. 

message: I'm not happy with the prot: this is largely warring by anons, and could be solved by semi-protection William M. Connolley 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. GreenJoe 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Warring by anons with registered users. It's not fair to protect it so the anons can't edit. It's a content dispute, not generic vandalism. Carbon Monoxide 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think just a semi-protection would be better.  That way anons won't be able to edit and we can enforce the 3 revert rule.  I think that would cut down on the edit warring long enough to finish up the conversation here on the subject.Elhector 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not POV pushing, it's a content dispute. A block for edit warring, yes, for POV pushing, no. Carbon Monoxide 00:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addation to the fact that Raul's block was swiftly un-done, noting that it is not a POV issue.  Perhaps you Raul should review wiki policy as to what is POV and what is not... based on your edits in the past, you do seam to have difficulty with this.--68.115.80.156 03:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also noting that though you don't believe this issue to be controversial saying that "Nobody seriously dispute the scientific accuracy of the film" however CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano thinks you are incorrect. stating “There are definitely some inaccuracies. The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."  but then again, you probably don't agree with CNN now, thats not very accurate of a source is it?  amazing thing this YouTube...--68.115.80.156 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed, look at source  1, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906652/posts source 2], source 3, source 4, etc. Carbon Monoxide 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And again with the WP:WEIGHT. Plenty of cable news bobbleheads disagree with evolution; is that "controversial. Period"? Chris Cunningham 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is. Factual and controversial are not mutually exclusive.  Evolution is controversial even though it is well supported by fact.  See Scopes_monkey_trial and tell me that wasn't controversial. Based upon your analogy I think the word controversial is a an apt way to describe this movie. If it generates controversy, its controversial.Dman727 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My analogy was specifically intended to highlight Wikipedia's problem where topics which conflict with the point of view of the American right wing are labelled as "controversial" as a euphemism for "factually challenged". That the Earth orbits the Sun was controversial at one point, but it turns out that the complaints of the Papacy in the seventeenth century are not, in fact, worth tagging such a claim as "controversial" even thought the complainee was very notable in itself. The term "controversial" is, as per discussion here, obviously to be avoided for this reason per POV concerns. Chris Cunningham 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, we are so critical of the american right wing but yet not critical here of the environmentalists who stand to gain the most from this topic?  We are not critical of things that conflict with the point of view of the American left wing?  I don't understand the longing for those who remove a controversial tag from a controversial item... other then for them to hope that others don't see it as controversial, but without error?--66.242.90.65 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made a false comparison.  This isn't "Global Warming" or science at all.  It is a publication by a partisan politician using hollywood to market a political idea.  It surrounds itself with science and it may be factually accurate.  But it is not scientists presenting scientific fact.  It is a politician trying to achieve a political goal.  A better analogy would be Intelligent Design proponents using John Ashcroft to host a film on the science of intelligent design (or evolution for that matter) and trying to get it shown as curricula in schools.  It would highlight the controversy.  Today, a John Aschcroft film on Intelligent Design or Evolution would be controversial.  Flat-earth used to be controversial.  It is no longer.  Eugenics used to be non-controversial "science" too.  Public opinion changes.   AIT is controversial now for a lot of reasons, the least reason is it's science.  Maybe in 50 years it will be either quaint or prophetic.  But htat has no bearing on it's assessment today.   --DHeyward 05:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to conflate creationism and global warming as often as you want. Oh, and I heard Gore was in Futurama; that makes it a "controversial" show now, right, what with Gore's involvement in anything automatically making it controversial? Chris Cunningham 09:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, only Gore's involvement in science.  He's a partisan politician, not a scientist.  Historically, we can compare global warming to the science of eugenics and the politicians that made slick propaganda pieces advocating the politics of it if you like.  --DHeyward 17:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, eugenics is definitely comparable to global warming. I'm going to disengage from this conversation now while I still have some faith in humanity. Chris Cunningham 08:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Historically, it is comparable as it was largely accepted as fact by scientific community and politicians adopted polcies based on the science.  --DHeyward 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should look at the propaganda advocating eugenics, and get back to us.  In the mean time, there are 4 sources that show this topic's controversy.  can we please get over the need for the environmentalists here to limit what is displayed to things that only help their cause?--207.250.84.10 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you tone down the name-calling. I'm not an environmentalist - but i still have to point out that the issue on the table is WP:WEIGHT not sources. --Kim D. Petersen 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: I appreciate your response, Mr. Cunningham, but the premise that the film as presented and the science are one and the same is inaccurate.  Your citation of WP:CONTROVERSY and your mention of WP:WEIGHT are inappropriate when considering the context.  No editor is asking that we "give equal validity" to a minority view/opinion.  The mere statement of the existence of controversy does not nearly equal the the body of text within the article espousing the majority/consensus view.  In fact here is the exact text of WP:WEIGHT that is pertinent to this discussion:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.
Again, I reiterate that the description of the film as controversial (a single word that I have demonstrated does not implicitly or explicitly call into question the "truth" of anything), which can and has been attributed to a reliable source, is proportionate to the prominence of the view espoused by the minority in this case.  I will be happy to posit (as I am operating under WP:AGF) that the alleged "detractors of Gore" are making a flawed argument when stating that the word controversial should appear in the article only because Mr. Gore is involved.  My contention has little to do with Mr. Gore's involvement and much to do with the fact that a topic is controversial if it arouses as much debate or discussion of differing view points as this film has (reliably sourced, of course).  Elhector, has of course eloquently stated a similar opinion to mine, as I was writing my own. Cheers.  --SimpleParadox 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we enter into your specific viewpoint, then you are not following WP:NPOV, or WP:LEAD. To state that the movie is controversial is presenting a minority viewpoint outside of its relative WP:WEIGHT. The controversies that have been mentioned are minor, and do not in general reflect back on the movie itself. For instance on the school issue, its the choice of locality, rather than the movie (and a minor issue), with regards to the science its easy to establish that the critique and controversy stem from a minority view, and with regards to the policy implications, its a debate issue not a controversy (otherwise all politicians and political views are ipso facto controversial). Demonstrate first within the article that the movie is controversial to more than a minority - and then it can be discussed whether or not it belongs in the lead. Finally that this movie should be controversial is very much a U.S. centric view. (again WP:WEIGHT). --Kim D. Petersen 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, calling the film controversial does nothing to push a specific viewpoint.  Also, you've failed to demonstrate how 1 word would give undue weight to anyhing in an article that is already full of plenty of information pointing out that the viewpoint against the film is a minority viewpoint.  Again though, we're not dealing with viewpoints here.  Calling the film "controversial" accurately describes the amount of press, argument, and debate.  Calling the film "controversial" speaks nothing of the viewpoints for or against the movie.  Plenty of reliable sources have called the film controversial while still praising it's scientific accuracy.  One does not preclude the other here.  I'm finding it really hard to assume good faith here when all the arguments against adding this descriptor are so concerned about the films accuracy comming into judgement.  That's not what we're doing here.  All we're trying to do is accurately portray the fact that this film has made quite a large "splash" since it came out.  You honestly have never encountered any debates or arugments when reading about or discussing this film?  Do you deny that this movie has generated a lot of press and stired passions on both sides of the aisle?  If you reply to this please address the specific arguments and questions I have posted here and try to avoid simply quoting wiki guidlines and using the arguments "disagreement with this film is a minority viewpoint" and "no legitimate source has called the science of the film into question".  We're fully aware that this viewpoint is minority.  We're not dealing with the viewpoints themselves here.  We're just trying to document all of the rancor, debate, passions, and arugments this film has generated. Elhector 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)You seem to be speaking from a pure U.S. centric viewpoint "stired passions on both sides of the aisle?".. which aisle? Yes i've encountered plenty of debates and arguments, but debate /= controversial. Arguments /= controversial. And i've also noted that this particular viewpoint is rather limited. There are a number of reliable sources saying that the movie is controversial - and much larger number (order of magnitude or more) who just consider it non-controversial. Putting this into the first sentence in the lead - is putting a minority viewpoint to undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I should clarify a little.  By both sides of the aisle I mean both sides of the global warming debate.  I'm not talking about political parties or anything.  I would like to restate though that we're not talking about viewpoints here, just sheer volume of debate, argument, passions, and press.  That is controversy.  I wish I could find this interview that I saw with Al Gore that he gave when the film was initially released.  In the interview he said he hopped the film would stir up quite a bit of controversy because that would just help the cause and end in a Pyrrhic victory for the other side in general.  The problem is I saw the clip of the interview on E! I think so I doubt I'm going to be able to find it.  But I think it would demonstrate the point we're trying to make here beautifully.  Everyone against this keeps viewing the word "controversial" as a negative which I think is just short sighted.  Controversy is a good thing for these kind of causes.  I mean it's clear that the only reason this film has made it to where it is today is precisely because of the controversy it's left in it's wake. Elhector 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sheer volume doesn't make controversy. Are you aware of the sheer volume of debate and argument over (insert favorite religion/political party here)? How about tagging every religion/political party as controversial? By your argument this is what we should do. And frankly it doesn't fly. --Kim D. Petersen 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I had a few more thoughts concerning you're post above.  You state that the controversies have been minor.  This would seem to be negated by the sheer volume of press and debate out there about this film.  Also you state that calling the film controversial is "a U.S. centric view".  I'm not sure I understand this statement.  One of the controversies being used in the arugments here is in the UK.  Also I know that more then a few scientists and politicians from other coutries have taken issue with the film.  There was one guy in particular that stands out in my mind.  I need to find the news story but it was like the leader of Latvia or something.  I'll find it.  I thought it was funny at the time because I was thinking to myself "Who cares what this guy has to say!" but in all reality his point of view is just as important as people and leaders/politicians from the US.  so, to tell you the truth I would venture to say that ignoring these things is a very US centric viewpoint. Elhector 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no "aisle" in the "global warming debate" across which this film is controversial, as has been demonstrated by the article's (sourced) indication that the accredited bodies which broadly represent scientific consensus amongst the environmental community have agreed that the film's content is factual and plausible. For the rest of your arguments, you're presenting nothing but anecdotal evidence. Your comment that "one of the controversies being used in the arguments here is in the UK" does not indicate that there is "controversy" over the film in the UK; the film's content was and is almost universally accepted as truthful by accredited scientific and media bodies over here (I'm in the UK) and there was no (read: zero) public argument against the film upon its release. Chris Cunningham 00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This film was not made for the scientific community.  It was made for the common person to try and educate them.  Now you may be right about there being not much of a debate in the scientific community about the film right now, but there is plenty of debate about it among common people and politicians.  That's who this film was made for.  I understand that the science behind the film is well sourced in the article.  That's not what we're talking about here.  As far as you saying there was zero argument among the public in general, the news services and sources from your country would tend to disagree with you.  I read new sources from around the world everyday and there has been plenty or rancor and argument from citizens in your country.  Either that or the news services in your country are lying to people outside of your country.  Why would major news agencies still be covering the waves this film makes if there is nothing to cover?  I can't believe you guys are just willing to ignore all this and pretend that 100% of the people who've seen it agree with this film and there is no debate ongoing about it.  It makes the article really inaccurate.  The only reason this film is even popular is because it's controversial.  Do you think if the film wasn't controversial there would be so many books and articles written and movies made arguing against the film?  Like I said even if you agree with the film you have to admit it stirs up controversy Elhector 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reset Indent