Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 1

message: I appreciate what Pulveriser did to make the summary more or less NPOV but I still wonder if it is as neutral as possible. Or maybe I'm just imagining things? iKato 17:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV summary? 

message: The source link in the trivia section (no. 6) is apparently only for subscribers... plz someone fix
Also not working is the CNN link about Bush's response, and Gore's response to Bush's response.  What is the policy for dealing with expired references?  Let them be (since they still serve as URIs)?  Annotate them?  Replace if possible and delete otherwise? Somegeek 00:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay — should be working now... The lorax 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links Not working 

message: Should we change the term to "Global climate change" throughout?  That is the more accurate term, since we are talking about more than just temperature, e.g. precipitation patterns. Also while the global mean temperature is expected to continue to rise, there will be likely be locations that actually get colder as weather patterns shift.  Crust 18:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Global climate change" vs. "Global warming" 

message: : This came from the Talk:Druid page; I wonder if it's not better suited in this article:
Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source seems to be a single quote from Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; I'm not sure it warrants an inclusion here, but maybe in the article for An Inconvenient Truth. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is possibly noteworthy as a reflection on the person or organization saying this, but just like comparisons of Gore to Hitler and Goebbels, these kinds of silly ad hominems don't merit mention here in my view.  Crust 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This interests me exactly becuase of it's similarities to comparing Gore to Hitler.  It seems strange to me that people think Arch-Druid is a slur.  It might not be encyclopaedic, but I had not bring it up somewhere :) Mathiastck 23:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re whether "Arch-Druid" is a slur: fine.  But there is no question that Fred Smith thinks it is a slur.  If you really want to bring it up somewhere, perhaps an appropriate place would be at Fred L. Smith or possibly Competitive Enterprise Institute, maybe under a "Trivia" section. Crust 13:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gore as Arch Druid? 

message: Korny O'Near made reference to a resolution that passed the Senate 95-0 that had the effect of stopping US ratification of Kyoto.  Apparently, that unanimity may overstate the degree of opposition to Kyoto in the Senate at that time.  I switched to a shorter, vaguer formulation in the article rather than getting into the weeds.  Here is Gore on the subject in the second 2000 presidential debate:
:A lot of supporters of the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because of the way it was worded. But there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to it in the Senate.
Crust 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fine. As long as it's not made to seem like just one party's responsibility, it's fine with me. Korny O'Near 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As it is, it sticks out awkwardly...the Senate opposition is already noted appropriately enough. On a side note, the vote was merely a comment on the direction of the Kyoto proceedings which were happening at the same time. The lorax 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto 

message: I modified the sentence about the June 2006 AP poll of scientists who had seen the movie because it left out a fairly important quote from the article; namely that most of the 100 scientists contacted either hadn't seen the movie or read the book or hadn't responded to the poll.  Only 19 of the 100 contacted responded that they had seen it.  This is an important clarification, because it's very possible that some or all of the scientists who disagree with Al Gore's stance might not have bothered seeing the movie, for example.  Likewise, scientists who actively support Gore are going to be much more likely to see the movie.  Thus the poll results are likely inherently biased in the movie's favor.
Note that I'm not commenting on or disputing the accuracy of the movie or other parts of the article.  I'm simply saying that the AP poll isn't scientific, and in fact the way it's presented with the headline Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy is very misleading.  Most scientists didn't even see the movie, let alone comment on its accuracy.  Dugwiki 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  The sentence as you edited it looks good to me. Crust 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified sentence about AP poll 

message: I took out this link again after reviewing the site. I went there with some curiousity about the "personal audit" referred to in the link description, as this could be a good way to bring the impact of the film and the campaign against global climate change down to a personal level. But I was disappointed when I found that the site seemed suspect in several ways. The first bad sign was when the voice-over started automatically upon loading; to me, this indicates something surreptitious about a web site. There was no link to this personal audit that I could find; apparently you had to sign up first, whereupon you would receive something via email which would either contain or lead you to the audit. So it does seem suspiciously like someone's attempt to cash in on the ongoing Internet Gold Rush, albeit with a "green" façade. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general matter, I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this link should be included.  However, I am unconvinced that it is likely a front for something else.  I don't get what's surreptious about the automatic voiceover; the offical website automatically loads a soundtrack too, as do many websites these days.  Asking for email does prick my antennas, but e.g. the blog (link removed. The site has been exploited by malicious code --Kanonkas :  Talk   14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally removed this link.  I submitted one of my email address for the "personal audit".  I didn't receive any information on the personal audit.  However, I did receive a solicitation to join spiritual-cinema-circle.com (a netflix-like video club that ... blah blah blah).  Thankfully there was an unsubscribe link that seems to have actually been honored.  kenj0418 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  That is more convincing.  Crust 14:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "An Inconvenient Truth" fan site link 

message: The review section states that the reaction has been positive from "the largely left leaning media outlets", citing Rotten Tomatoes's aggregate score and Ebert and Roeper, then goes on to include Newsmax and Reason.com as dissenting reviewers without any mention of their politics or even their names.  This makes it sound, without checking the links, like "the liberal media" loves it while more neutral parties were less enthused. --4.254.118.162 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in review section 

message: An user named likes to be anon continues to revert NPOV language to his POV, there is no unanimous agreement among scientists that GW is caused by human CO2, and many references to the scientific controversy, but this article is hopeless if people continue to bias it. Dr. JJ 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; consensus is not synonymous with unanimous. Prototime (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a red herring to me; who said that opinion was unanimous? I don't think that was ever in this article (and shouldn't have been if it was). +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in Scientific Basis section

message: Three images (1) Image:Inconvenienttruth.jpg,2) Image:Inconvienent-truth.jpg,3) Image:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg)were deleted from a movie posters section on the apparent grounds that they may be copyvios.  Can User:JKelly or someone else elaborate on this?  They were all marked as "movie posters".  Superfically at least, this looks correct for two of them, though perhaps not for Image:Inconvenienttruth.jpg. Crust 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just having the correct template on the image description isn't sufficient for meeting Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.  We attempt to make as minimal use of unfree content as possible.  If we're claiming Wikipedia:Fair use on an image that is being presented in a gallery, there is almost certainly a lack of appropriate critical commentary on the image, and there is no pressing need to make the article less free and reusable.  Jkelly 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:JKelly, I think you were the one who originally removed them (on July 25).  Could I ask you to comment on these specific images?  Your comment is too generic to satisfy me.  Thanks.  Crust 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to leave you unsatisfied, but I cannot imagine what more there might be to say.  Wikipedia is a project to write a free, reusable encyclopedia.  Any use of unfree content, such as movie posters (and whatever :Image:Inconvenienttruth.jpg is -- there's no source and no description of it, and it will be deleted from our servers if this doesn't change), should only be used when absolutely essential for a reader's understanding of the article.  The policies I linked to above apply to all unfree content.  Jkelly 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  I hadn't looked at the "Movie poster" tag closely enough.  Note to self: using movie posters on Wikipedia is typically considered only barely acceptable under fair use and should be minimized (the main and perhaps sole exception being to use one such image on the movie's page as currently done here). Crust 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unfree image gallery"

message: I am confused by these edits by User:Anarchopedia  .  They seem to be largely undoing formatting edits, turning prose into lists, moving the movie poster out of the infobox, adding a "trivia" section and "see also" items that are already linked to in the text, and removing the interwiki to sv.  The first edit summary read "removing bias", but these changes are mostly degrading the formatting of the article and have little, if anything, to do with content.  Please take the time to review the Wikipedia:Manual of style, and examine some Wikipedia:Featured articles about films to get a sense of what we're looking for.  There's a lot of work to do on this article, so it would be very unhelpful to invest time in edits that will be reverted, which any edit that removes interwiki links is sure to be.  Jkelly 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't make sense to put "scientific basis" section above the "origin of the film" section. Anarchopedia 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Is there some reason you're having trouble making that edit without doing all of the other things that are problematic?  Jkelly 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also note that a bit of the critical material got excised as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And we've reacquired a trivia section, which used to be integrated into the text, a tagline section as a list which used to be integrated into the text, lost the sv: interwiki again...  Jkelly 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back, there is no reason to junkify the page with awkward formatting edits.--The lorax 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting as bias?

message: Dear editors, please try to keep in mind, this article is about the movie, not about the wider topic of global warming.  Just because you may disagree with Lindzer is no reason to act like he never registered an opinion on the movie.  As for the assertion that he can't be mentioned because he represents the scientific opposition, that's ludicrous.  Removing him for that trumped up reason amounts to little more than wanton POV vandalism.  A far more constructive approach is to find other scientific responses.  Tomertalk 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Robt Lindzer 

message: There have been plenty of people including scientists who have disputed Al Gore's claims in the movie yet there are none to be found in the article.  Wait..there's a tiny, tiny mention but that's it.  This article is totally 100% favorable towards the movie.  I'm not saying that the article should bash the movie.  However, it should give both sides of the argument without any POV bias.  --Rambone (Talk) 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it this way: let's say another documentary gets released this summer, this one called "A Flat-Out Lie", an exposé of the scientific bankruptcy of the few remaining holdouts who believe the Earth is flat. Part of the film includes the fact that of n scientists recognized as experts in that field, exactly zero of them agree with this minority viewpoint. Would you then be arguing that, in the interest of "NPOV", we should give the views of the Flat Earth Society equal weight to the overwhelming preponderance of scientific consensus on the matter? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were vocal enough then yes.  --Rambone (Talk) 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question should be, then, if there has been enough criticism of this film for it to be equally notable in this article as the praise. I agree that there shouldn't be any POV bias, but if this film has received much more praise than criticism, then this article should represent that and not seek to balance the minority opinion with the consensual opinion; doing that would be POV. However, if you agree with this philosophy but feel that the minority opinion isn't being proportionally represented in this article, then that could be up for debate.  –Prototime (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of critics? 

message: I suspect that everything that might be said about the "ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal" could be said in this article.  Further, it is not at all clear to me that we should have an article describing this as a "scandal".  Jkelly 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it needs mention at all, it should have its own article, but not at that title.  That's a horrid, misleading title if I've ever seen one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it have its own article?  Jkelly 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it should exist in any form, but if it's going to, it should have its own article.  I see no reason to merge here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a short parody of this film, created in response to it, and would be like having an article on Competitive Enterprise Institute's two television advertisements arguing against An Inconvenient Truth.  Why do we want to have subarticles on individual reactions?  Jkelly 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CEI responses aren't nearly as newsworthy and compelling as this is, especially considering the spin we're seeing from folks like below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it would be like having an article on JibJab-- which we have, based on them having done nothing but a couple videos like this (it was there since they had only the one)... Now imagine if it turned out JibJab was found to have secretly been hired by a political interest group to promote a message in their video. Give it a few days to see what more information comes up, who else is implicated, and what comments (or "no comment"s) come out about it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually we don't know if "a major oil company" put up the DCI Group to make this for them.  You're being speculative and not reflecting what is known and verifiable, one of the reasons why I find the title of the article tobe misleading. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wall Street Journal tied it to ExxonMobil... That's good enough for me!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to the link, "an investigation by The Wall Street Journal has discovered that Toutsmith is actually operating from Washington, on a computer registered to a PR company called DCI Group. The company’s clients happen to include the multinational oil company ExxonMobil."  So no, they didn't.  They tied it to the DCI Group, who has a client in ExxonMobil. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you change the name if you want but don't merge it into anything-- it's just as well merged into ExxonMobil or YouTube, which tells me it should be merged nowhere... but you know as much about the scandal as I do, and obviously you've been doing Wikipedia a lot longer, so I won't argue the title if you can come up with a better one... but it's the Wall Street Journal that thinks the link with ExxonMobil is significant, so they're just plain IN this thing (and come on, we know the score here)... I got groceries and stuff to do, check back manyana. //// Pacific PanDeist * 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with YouTube, beyond someone posted it there...when they could have posted it to any other site the does the same as YouTube...like Google video. I have removed that section from the YouTube article as there is no scandal on YouTube's part. A scandal, by definition, is: Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace. Where is YouTube's immoral or grossly improper behavior in this? How is it that they are being disgraceful?  They are not. The system worked as intended where anyone can post a video and it will be hosted on their servers...so how is this a scandal on their end?  They didn't post the video to their own servers nor did they 'feature' the clip. Yes it hit the 'most discussed' and 'most viewed' list for one day but how is that YouTube's fault? That is completely the "users of YouTube"'s fault.  On Another note: How does anyone know that some guy in a cube just made this video out of spite in his own time?  So he works for DCI, but used his work computer to do personal web surfing.  We just don't know.  In anycase, this exxon/youtube scandal article a NPOV addition, Soapboxing, and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. I would suggest deletion instead of merger --Bschott 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you said yourself that you're "a director on YouTube and was mentioned in the regional paper and interviewed on the three local TV channels about YouTube" so you seem to be staking out the position of Wiki-defender of the YouTube... if this started on MySpace you wouldn't be saying anything about it, but it's bringing attention you perceive as a negativity to YouTube so it looks like you want to sweep it under the rug... Also, DCI didn't say it was some guy in a cubicle, did they? They said "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients." //// Pacific PanDeist * 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal]] 

message: I'm against a merge. The scandal article looks significant enough, and its text is justifiably long enough, to merit its own page. Merging would clutter this article greatly, and likely cause a loss of detail. --Kizor 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to think it would be a good idea, but it is clear that I'm in the minority here.  Jkelly 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also against the merge on the grounds that the controversy article ("scandal" tends to be a POV word) is naturally referenced in several articles (this one, DCI Group, YouTube, as an example in astroturfing).  The controversy article needs a lot of work though. Crust 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: Would anyone be interested in working on an article for the book form of An Inconvenient Truth?  I recently read it, and I think it deserves its own (albiet smaller) article. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 17-Aug-2006: Agree. A separate article for the book sounds good, for many reasons: (1) book became #1 NYTimes Bestseller on 11-Aug-2006 after 10 weeks; (2) obvious worldwide appeal predicting sea-level +20-40 feet; (3) related to previous book Earth in the Balance by Al Gore; (4) Al Gore has authored multiple books; (5) separate book/film precedents with "Gone with the Wind" & "The Da Vinci Code"; and (6) book can be a reference for mainstream topic of global warming.  I vote for separate book article as a valuable addition. -Wikid77 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a separate article is a good idea (though I don't feel strongly about it). FYI, I did a quick look through of the NYT bestseller lists.  Up to and including this coming Sunday (Aug 20), it has been on the list for 10 weeks.  It was #1 on three of these weeks, July 2, August 13 and August 20.  Crust 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book article 

message: Does anyone know when the DVD will be released in the US?
:November 21st.--The lorax 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD date 

message: "United States Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) compared An Inconvenient Truth to Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf."
As I read the article, it was the reporter who made the comparison, not Sen. Inhofe.  Sen. Inhofe's quote refers to repeating a lie, which is analagous to the propaganda chapter in Mein Kampf, but I think there's a big difference between (a) saying something is a lie or is repeating a lie, and (b) comparing something to Mein Kampf.  Unfortunately, the reporter's email is bouncing.
:It looks like you're right.  I've deleted the sentence from the article.  Crust 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mein Kampf" quote 

message: This is not the place to re-hash the minutiae about global warming science. There are other articles devoted to that. This article should report there is some debate within the scientific community about the nature and extent of anthropogenic global warming, and it should link to the relevant articles.  Derex 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this isn't the place to rehash the debate over AGW as a whole, but it is certainly the place to question claims made by Al Gore in his movie, wouldn't you agree?  --SpinyNorman 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what is appropriate to evaluate in this article is whether Gore's statements are accurate from the consensus scientific point of view (and the answer seems to be largely yes as per e.g. James Hansen book review, RealClimate review, etc.).  We should also note that there are dissenting scientific points of view that disagree with the consensus (e.g. Lindzen).  I think we should mention that there is a debate about the reality and extent of AGW, but this is not the article to go into the weeds of that debate.Crust 13:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus isn't proof of anything.  Consensus is opinion.  What wikipedia policy says is that facts are to be reported.  Some people say Gore is right, other people say he's full of shit.  Both facts should be reported and let the reader decide for themselves.  The problem is that too many POV-pushers here seem to think that people are too stupid to be allowed to see both sides of the issue.  So they insist on removing valid criticism of Gore's claims in the film.  Clearly, this page isn't the place to fully service the debate on AGW, but that's what links to other pages are for.  However, this page IS the place to talk about what various scientists think of Gore's claims in the film...  wouldn't you agree?  --SpinyNorman 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus isn't proof, yes.  But that's a straw man.  If I thought it was proof, I wouldn't advocate mentioning skeptics at all.  As I said, I think it is helpful to state that the film is apparently accurate from the consensus point of view (with some minor caveats).  Naturally, skeptics like Lindzen disagree with AIT (and this should be mentioned), but I don't think Lindzen has any disagreements with AIT that he wouldn't also have with e.g. James Hansen to pick the arguably most prominent climate scientist working today.Crust 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, Lindzen et al's material objections to AIT are really objections to the consensus scientific view not specifically to AIT.Crust 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, since Lindzen specifically mentions AIT, his comments are relevant to it - as are comments by any other scientists relevant to the claims made by Gore in the film.  --SpinyNorman 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A scientific consensus may not be proof, but it lends extraordinarily more credibility to the notion that somethings is true rather than it is false.  It would be POV to attempt to balance the consensus view with the minority view in this article or make it seem that a minority view should be accepted over the consensus view; the views should be represented in the article as they actually are in reality.  Do you not agree, Spiny? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  History is littered with examples of the evangelists for the "consensus" being completely full of shit.  Skepticism is the only rational and logical approproach to those who can't tell the difference between consensus and science.  --SpinyNorman 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And once new research uncovers further knowledge, a consensus view may be changed.  That does not mean that what exists right now should be discarded.  As of right now, a consensus view on this issue exists, and that is what this article should portray - not serve as a sounding post to refute it. Furthermore, to compare the hundreds upon hundreds of legitmate scientists who agree on this matter to non-scientific evangelists is an incredible stretch; this matter is a scientific consensus, not a religious consensus seeking to portray itself as truth.  You cannot legitametly compare the Global Warming debate to a religious debate--as much as you may disagree with it, there's a reason why scientists around the world agree on this matter, and it's not because God told them to. The skeptics are fine in the article, for as you have said science is based on healthy skepticism; but to portray Global Warming as a mythical consensus equal in validity to a historical evangelist consensus would be misrepresentative and is unfounded. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an absurd example.  First of all, there is no "consensus" that the earth is spheroid.  It is an established fact - a fact that can be verified by anyone who wants to conduct any one of a number of conclusive experiments.  AGW is not a fact.  It is a theory that cannot be proved or verified with our current level of technology and understanding of global climate.  Therefore, there is no valid comparison between the two debates.  --SpinyNorman 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we re-hash the minutiae about global warming science in this article?