Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 7

message: The following was recently added to the article:
"However, Fred Singer's independence has been questioned since his not for profit organisation has accepted funds from the oil industry (main article Fred Singer).
The source used for this is a Greenpeace run web site.  Is Greenpeace considered a reliable source here?  I'd be surprised if it's considered a reliable source.  I'm not opposed to the line being added to the article, I'm just wondering if anyone has a different source for this besides Greenpeace.  This is a group that participates in many activities that a lot of people view as being borderline terrorism. I just think it's a bad idea to use radical groups as a source.  Anyone else have a better source for this?  I'll look for one in the meantime. If I find a better source I'll replace it.  Thanks! Elhector 23:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the wrong approach. Is Fred Singer a reliable source? If so, the text stays, and the "questioned" text should be removed. If not, Singer's statements should be removed. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying any text should be removed...  I'm completely fine with the text about him being accused of having ties to Exxon.  I'm just asking if we all really think Greenpeace is a reliable source for the info.  If it's true I'm sure there is more sources out there then Greenpeace reporting the info.  IMO Greenpeace is simply not a reliable source for anything.  Even the founder of Greenpeace who has since left the group will tell you that.  I think the the section is fine the way it is if it's got a different source. Elhector 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverted Raul654's edit, to remove his POV.--65.107.88.154 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On the issue of Greenpeace being a credible source, consider the fact that Ted Turner's Turner Foundation has been a major contributor to Greenpeace, and considering that Ted Turner is investing in Solar Power he has a vested interest in promoting the global warming agenda and discrediting any one associated with Big Oil. --71.79.70.16 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenpeace as a source

message: Editors put reports of Dimmick case (2007 EWHC 2288) into two different places. I combined them and cut out a bunch crud. Rather than list every point of the case, linking to the actual case itself so readers can decide for themselves is smarter. The main points: the judge found the movie to be "broadly accurate" and requires the use of the Guidance. rewinn 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of an amended guidance notice has been required because the judge also found the movie to be partisan. --Childhood's End 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining duplicate reports of Dimmick case

message: From beginning to end, this article is an embarrassement to NPOV.  The opening paragraph reads like a promotional trailer--like a trailer, it's factually accurate, but designed to paint the most attractive picture possible.  Likewise, the content addressing "response" to the film is carefully organized to give the impression that, while most of the world has happily embraced the film as gospel truth, a few flat-earther types have not.  The fact that there's a lengthy argument on this page about whether to even permit the article to mention that the film is controversial illustrates just how divorced from reality it really is.  The article has been edit protected, according to the top of this page,  because the subject is controversial .  Yet people are trying to argue that it's unclear whether the subject is controversial?!  
I suppose it's unrealistic for me to hope that people would care more about the integrity and reputation of the wiki project than for their pet political beliefs.  But come on, folks--do you really think you're advancing your political agenda by trying to pretend that TIC is the gospel truth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.238.2 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Who do we think we're kidding?