Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 5

message: Hmmm - is this true - or is it WP:OR?
:The title refers to a passage from Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. p. 302 of the Penguin edition.
I couldn't find any immediate sources for it on Google. Anyone else have an idea? After all it might be correct. --Kim D. Petersen 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that suspect as well.  Even if such a passage exists, that doesn't mean that the title is a reference to it.  Leave it out until a source is found that claims that's where the title comes from. Oren0 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, plus I dont find Tocqueville much compatible with Kyoto. --Childhood's End 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexis de Tocqueville claim. 

message: I've unprotected this page, having blocked Zeeboid and Greenjoe (for 3RR/edit warring) who seem to have caused the protection in the first place William M. Connolley 08:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks WMC.  Protecting this page for 5 days based on the edit warring of those two seemed inappropriate to me given the large number of editors who have been working constructively on this page.  I agree with your decision. Oren0 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see 3 other people edit warring, and one of them isn't me. GreenJoe 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Un)prot 

message: Please don't make changes like that without discussing them here first.  Using "exaggerated and erroneous" data and sensationalizing the threat of GW are two different things.  The first refers to facts and figures he uses while the second refers to the conclusions drawn from those facts.  Numerous criticisms from Exposed, TGGWS, or articles can go here, I think a summary of two points is a reasonable number.  If you prefer, we can change it to Some skeptics have claimed that some of the film's "central points are exaggerated and erroneous" and that the film ignores dissent in the scientific community.  (a ref here could be any number of things, I'd probably stick Exposed back in there).  Given the decent volume of criticism, I don't think a sentence with two criticisms is unreasonable (remember, according to you, "controversial" is not a negative, leaving the current rv with only one). Oren0 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oren0 - its the same basic critique, so its rather redundant. The text in the above has not been discussed here in detail - so there is no specific reasons for assuming that anyone feels deeply about it. We all agree that "controversial" should be mentioned and that the sceptic view should also be mentioned as per WP:LEAD - but you are going a bit too far and giving WP:Undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight?  Several articles and documentaries that criticize this film exist, and you call mentioning two criticisms in one sentence undue weight?  They are different: one regards the data and figures used and one regards the conclusions and predictions based on said data. Oren0 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are giving WP:Undue_weight to the sensationalizing part - without putting to much faith in Google - the terms "sensationalized" (both z and s) combined with the topic gives 1020 hits. while hype gives 117,000. So i've changed the lead to a compromise that i hope you can accept. --Kim D. Petersen 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "redundant text" 

message: ...but this article barely discusses the documentary, in particular: Gore's opinion about the importance of nature; his life-long interest in global warming which began at his University; his son's accident which led him to change his paradigm, his campaign to get the world to take the issue more seriously; his failure to win the Presidency and the implications of that defeat; in other words, this article fails to address this topic at the most fundamental level of importance: in human terms. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs more meat about the movie itself, currently the article is more critique than content. The items that you mention, while important, should only have focus proportionally to the amount in the movie (ie. around 1/20th or so), deeper focus on this can be done on the Al Gore article. --Kim D. Petersen 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The human terms are 50% of the film, both in relation to Gore, and to people in general.  The other 50% involve non-human aspects such as science and technology. —Viriditas | Talk 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you take as human terms. My comment on proportionality was about the biographical items in the movie. ie. the "fillers" between segments of the slideshow. --Kim D. Petersen 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sight & Sound gets it right: "The film-makers also accompany Gore on the road, recording his musings about his near 40-year engagement with environmentalism and his moral commitment to communicating the message that humanity is facing nothing less than a "planetary emergency". These informal conversations and scraps of autobiographical material are used as cutaways from the public forum. Although about two thirds of the film is devoted to the lecture itself, it is the back and forth between Gore's public and private faces that drives the narrative."  Bingo. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas is exactly right.  The content of the film is largely interspersed with biographical material about Gore and so is an important core element that needs to be addressed in the article.  And as Kim also says, the bulk of the article should be about content (not critique). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Viriditas - you are right. And i'm surprised, i've seen the movie a couple of times, and it didn't strike me as that long. (so much in fact that i had to find the exact number: 31.58%). --Kim D. Petersen 10:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "bulk of the article should be about content (not critique)?"  Are you willing to apply that same standard to TGGWS, or other controversial films?--Zeeboid 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeeboid - this article is about AIT - its edited in the context of AIT - other articles are absolutely 100% irrelevant in this context. So stop you "TGGWS this..", "TGGWS that..." - since this meta-discussion is absolutely irrelevant here. Argue on merits. --Kim D. Petersen 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate to spoil all the fun 

message: It really needs to be trimmed down. Wikipedia isn't a directory. GreenJoe 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Curious that your first removal is Exposed: The Climate of Fear, a special which devotes a significant portion of its time to AIT, yet you leave the link to polar bear.  Of course no link to E:COF is the status quo, the page didn't exist two weeks ago!  Since it's been created, however, there's been a link to it on this page pretty much continuously. Oren0 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm - are you selectively reading the history of the page? It has been consistently removed, every time it appeared. Specifically because Z. was trying to get an entire summary here. --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really matter what gets removed, but both "pro" and "anti" AI links need to be cleaned up and that list narrowed down to 4  or so "see also" links. GreenJoe 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who decided that The Planet stays but Exposed goes?  Exposed is easily more relevant to this page. Oren0 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now, thats a good question... because removing an easily more relivent addation to the page while using reasoning that removes many other items on the page, without actually doing so screams of bias... which realy is what these Global Warming related articles are all about lately, aren't they?--Zeeboid 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "See also" section

message: I believe WP:TRIVIA calls for the merge of the information in this section into other article section.  From the guideline: Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. As many of the items listed in this section is not critical to this article and can be placed elsewhere, we should remove this section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that bulleted lists like this tend to be unencyclopedic, but it's very well referenced, and it seems a shame to remove it wholesale.  In general, what do others think of the recent edits by the multi-IP anonymous user?  I've removed the word "tortuous," because it also seemed out of place to me, but I'm not sure about the others.  Regardless, I've s-protected the page, because the anon's method of enforcing his viewpoint was innappropriate to the point that it was vandalism.  Canderson7 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have the text on my clipboard, and was planning to add a lot of the things to different articles throughout Wikipedia.  But I got busy with other things and never got around to actually doing it.  It's my fault for not making this clear in my edit summary.  I was not supporting deletion, just moving it around to make it more encyclopedic.  For example the commercial mentioned should go into the criticism section.  The blurbs on Colbert and Stewart can go into their articles, etc. But if there is a consensus to keep it, that's fine. As for the anon's edit, placing controversy at the top of the article is misleading as it makes it seems this movie is along the lines of the "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "Bonnie and Clyde" where people wanted to stop it from getting to the theaters.  This is different the controversy comes from the science used in the film, and the protagnist.  I believe the last sentence of the lead is adequate. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for misunderstanding your original message.  I agree that redistributing this information is a good idea, and I also agree that "controversial" is an unnecessary remark. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences on Popular Section

message: Claims that the diminishing glacies on Kilimanjaro are not due to global warming seems to be getting more credibility. See for example . Should we add a note about this to the article? JoshuaZ 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a new thing: these people are part of the published-research disagreement; I think they are just putting forward the same views again William M. Connolley 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. This is a long running controversy, and not something that (imho) is going to be resolved quickly. The main culprit here (iirc) is that the other variables that the scientists are mentioning may be caused/partly caused by global warming. The solar aspect is doubtfull for the last couple of decades though (where the melting has accelerated, and solar rad. has fallen). Here's a link for another researchers page on this--Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilimanjaro