Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 17

message: Since the lead has been such a touchy subject, I figured I'd be safe and talk these issues over here first:
#The Academy Awards this film won are mentioned twice in the lead.  Seems like unnecessary trumpeting to me.  Which one should we remove?  I think the second one can go, but I want the opinion of the group on this.
#"A companion book authored by Gore has been on the paperback nonfiction New York Times bestseller list since June 11, 2006, reaching #1 on July 2, 2006.[3]"  It's not on the NYT bestseller list now so obviously this is no longer true.  Does anyone care to find out when it went off this list, or should we just remove it entirely? Oren0 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the first reference as it amounted to cruft.  I feel the second mention was the one 2 keep as it mentions it won 2 awards. I don't think we should remove the fact that it made the new york times bestseller list etirely as making the list is notable.  We should just update it to include the date when it went off of the list.  Basically this would show how long it remained on the list which is notable info IMHO. I'll dig around and see if I can find the exact date it went off the list. Elhector (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not strongly opposed to the idea of leaving the second AA mention only.  I think the AA is notable enough to be in the first sentence, but if anyone else prefers the later reference instead, I don't feel strongly enough that I'd change it back. Oren0 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best in the first sentence as well. The number of academy awards (as well as other awards) is available later on in the article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it's appropriate in the first sentence of the lead for the same reason I felt that the word controversial did not belong in the first sentence in the lead but should have been mentioned somewhere in the lead.  For the sake of neutrality I think the first sentence of the lead shouldn't mention any praise or crticism of the film.  I do believe that winning academy awards is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in the lead though, much like what was done with the controversial line.  That's why I favored the second mention more.  I'll leave it alone though and think about it for a while.  Anyone else have any thoughts? Elhector (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring so much to it being in the first sentence as to the wording as it had been in the first sentence. I.e., the actual number of awards wasn't necessary in the lead. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trumpeting in the lead 

message: What's with the random plug?  Is this small time political magazine known for its authority in the realm of film criticism or environmentalism?  If not, why the heck is it there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.72 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone must read Reason, seeing as it's been around since the late 60's. I'm not sure why we would consider there review any less relevant than any other politcal magazine. Elhector (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is why a review in such a small and insignificant magazine should be given more weight than reviews in many other periodicals of greater circulation and expertise in the subject matter of either cinema or of science. That a small political movement's magazine should endure for 40 years is not terribly relevant; Lyndon LaRouche, CPUSA and numerous small religions have done as well.  I would suggest adding a balance of reviews.  rewinn (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason Magazine?