Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 2

message: In other articles, it has been noted that citations to webpages should be expanded as footnotes that include the author/group, title, and date of a reference, so in case the webpage expires in a few months, the reference can still be hunted by title or author, perhaps found on other webpages or in print journals.  The problem caused by expanding most citations to have author/title/date is that the citations can become huge within a sentence and clutter the text of the article, unless formatted to avoid the "mass-of-text" appearance.  I have found that ref-tag footnotes can be indented (with restrictions), similar to a block-structured programming language, to improve readability of all the added details, without totally obscuring the original sentence with a "mass of text" about the cited author/webpage/publication.  The following is an example of an indented ref-tag (where "ref-tag" will be "ref" in the actual citation):
<ref-tag>
:: John Authore, "Title of Topic Story," MyOrganization, May 10, 2006,
:: webpage: [http: //www.sourcewebsite.org XXX-Story].
</ref>
The main restriction is to never split a bracketed link "[xx yy]" across 2 lines using a carriage-return newline (or the link could appear as unlinked text); however, each separate text line (after carriage-return) can be indented (such as by 5 spaces), similar to a computer programming language where each line has a carriage-return.  Also, the lead ref-tag cannot be separated by a blank line from the prior sentence phrase, or the Wiki-formatted line will split.  There is no reason to impose a standard indentation: it could vary, throughout an article, such as indenting the author name by 5 spaces, or 7, with no strict limit.  Indented ref-tags can make it bearable to have a dozen footnotes in a paragraph without appearing, internally, as a complex mass of text.  -Wikid77 05:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indent citations 

message: (I've taken to calling him—or her—that, after they were so labeled by another editor in an amusing edit summary; I leave it to those involved in recent dust-ups here to figure out who I'm talking about.)
Interesting: I went over to a couple of related articles (Global warming controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change) and looked at the histories, expecting to find lots of edits by O.H. Imagine my surprise when I found not a single edit by them on either article. That ought to tell us something, since those are the proper venues for the objections he/she has raised here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I don't "belong" to any of you, so it is highly inappropriate of you (or anyone else here) to refer to me as "our hedgehog" and I will thank you to never do it again.  Second of all, the objections I have raised, while they may or may not be relevant to the larger discussion of global warming controversy, are absolutely relevant to the discussion of Gore's film.  I wonder why you have failed to grasp this simple fact.  Maybe you're too busy thinking about summer homes.  --SpinyNorman 06:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we're being pedantic about an obviously flip comment, I don't consider myself to own my wife, my street, my country, or even my cat.  I certainly don't feel I own my annoying neighbour or my horrible pain in the neck. Somegeek 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a simple fact, it's an opinion. And it seems to be a minority opinion. Does anyone else agree with nobody's hedgehog on this point? I think we should consider a poll on the matter. Derex 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe; how much you wanna bet that 64.230.48.114, who has been putting back the metallurgical GW-denying stuff lately, is actually Spiny editing anonymously? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm; maybe I take that back, since among other stuff the anon editor put in this: "Yet the debate rages on even as Gore trains hundreds of follows to spread the message of his film." At least Spiny can write better than this. Unless he's being even more clever and disguising himself as a semi-illiterate editor ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if this editor is Spiny or not. But the user went over 3RR and I have just reported them on the board. JoshuaZ 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting facts about "our hedgehog" 

message: Currently this article says that Australian Prime Minister John Howard would not meet Al Gore to talk about the issue. That is refuted by an interview that Al Gore gave for the TV show 'Enough Rope', in which Gore claims that Howard is a friend of his and that they had a discussion earlier in the day. Could someone make sense of how to include this addition into the article? Thanks. Stuart mcmillen 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political response - Australia - John Howard 

message: Anyone know if/when the DVD will be released in Europe (i.e. region 2)? Or will it be region-free? It is not currently available for pre-order on any of the European Amazon sites, and the US site does not specify whether the DVD has a region code. Mtford 20:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the documentary is currently released on theaters in France since last week. Hence a DVD release would be ready 6 months from now, I guess. Lilliputian 13:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The disc I rented was region-1, though it plays fine on a region-0 player. I think DVD movies may be required to have them. The only DVD I've ever seen not have one was a collection of images (not a movie at all; not even any dialogue) by an independent filmmaker.75.153.221.227 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. By the official DVD consortium rules, Movies can be region 0 (i.e. not region-locked), and all players should play them. I've got few independent and European movies released this way. DVD drives are required to be region locked, but since the market really hates locked players, nearly all can be unlocked rather easily.--Stephan Schulz 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD release in Europe? 

message: Is there any comprehensive list of the studies Gore references in his movie? The closest I can find at climatecrisis.org is the "Science" section:
1 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate."
2 Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
3 World Health Organization
4 Krabill, W., E. Hanna, P. Huybrechts, W. Abdalati, J. Cappelen, B. Csatho, E. Frefick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J, Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas and J. Yungel. 2004. Greenland Ice Sheet: Increased coastal thinning. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
5 Nature.
6 World Health Organization
7 Washington Post, "Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change," Juliet Eilperin, January 29, 2006, Page A1.
8 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Also quoted in Time Magazine, Vicious Cycles, Missy Adams, March 26, 2006.
9 Time Magazine, Feeling the Heat, David Bjerklie, March 26, 2006.
I think some of these are vague, and do not mention the authors, etc. For example it references the WHO but not the name of the WHO study. Is there a better list available somewhere? If so, it should definitely be included.--72.75.82.125 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the Sources?? 

message: Umm... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this article is not the place for a page-by-page hostile critique of the book. Summarize criticisms and link to critical authors in the appropriate section of the article. Also, Sympa's criticisms are a mix of well-founded, adequately sourced criticism, along with some questionably reliable sources, some original research, and some unsourced patent nonsense (for example, it's actually not "paradoxical" that GW could cause droughts in one area and floods in another). In any case, this is not the place for a blow-by-blow of the GW controversy, and major additions/changes need to be discussed here first given the controversial nature of the article. MastCell 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to dispute your comment, but the "unsourced patent nonsense" you refer to is actually Gore's own words; he says "Global warming paradoxically causes not only more flooding, but also more drought." 24.60.196.65 04:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely true. It's the use of that "paradox" (floods and droughts in different areas) to argue against the existence of global warming that I had in mind when I used the phrase "unsourced patent nonsense". I should have been more clear; thanks for pointing that out. MastCell 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sympa's edits 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Where is the presentation held? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) .
:In various venues, all over the world.Crust 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: The image that shows Earth as a dot circled in blue is practically invisible in the article. Could someone enlarge it so it will be easier to see without clicking on it? Thanks. AstroHurricane001 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and you could have. It the XXXpx part of the image tag (the original is large, it gets scaled down for the page).--Stephan Schulz 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Earth as a dot image 

message: Discussing the nature of Inhofe's campaign contributions before one even quotes what he says is clearly poisoning the well. The intent is to plant in the reader's mind the implication that whatever his quote is about to say, it should be discounted; I don't know of a more dishonest way of quoting someone. I could very well go around and every time Al Gore is quoted, note that his various campaigns have received N amount of dollars from environmental groups A, B, and C who advocate radical positions X, Y, and Z. Let's play fair, please? - Merzbow 02:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhofe quote 

message: well-referenced, broad coverage of topics under the film, good lead, etc. etc. IMO. what do others think? Berserkerz Crit 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An Inconvenient Truth was nominated for Good Article status at WP:GAC by Berserkerz Crit.  I think it meets the criteria at WP:GA? therefore it passes. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to keep it's status, it's going to need to fulfill the two citation needed requests. Either sources need to be added or the statements removed.--Nehrams2020 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I still think it meets the criteria. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick. I didn't expect GA nominations to be that swift. =D. I wasn't a significant contributor or a frequent visitor of this article before but ever since having watched this film, this article is on the top of my WP priorities. Berserkerz Crit 14:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually it is swift when an article advances the obvious left wing agenda of this web site. ONe is allowed to post criticisms of any/all conservative topics - Christianity, Creationism, Republicansm, Gingrich etc, but counter points are not allow on left wing talking points - evolution, communism, socialism, global warming, etc. Ymous 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've delisted it; there are still citation requests, sections that need turning into prose, and POV disputes.  Jkelly 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your delisting. For one, the article hasn't had much time to be totally different from the reviewed article assessed as GA by JamesKidd. Second, the citation requests aren't requests per se, the request is for the existing references to be listed under one format (ref instead of sup and external jumps). Third, I don't see any sections needing to be turned into prose. And POV disputes will always exist because Global Warming at present is controversial, with people either believing it or skeptical about it. This is not a Featured Article that demands the strictest standards, GA status is still apt for the article's current form. And really, there isn't much edit wars for POV disputes in the article, it is only here in the talk page that there are POV disputes, and that's because the purpose of a talk page is to talk about how the article should be written. Some of the comments here aren't even about the improvement of the article but just comments on the article's topic which is Global Warming. Berserkerz Crit 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this be class A already?

message: I was reading through the article and got to the An Inconvenient Truth#Political response section and read through Bush's comment which says: 'He later stated that "we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects."' My first impressions were, what a moron and what should we be focusing on then? Interested in what else he said I followed the reference and found sure enough that the quote was shortened to give this exact POV. What he actually said was: "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment." That second quote doesn't really make him look stupid because he's talking about trying to solve the problem by developing new technologies, which is just another take on how to minimize human contribution to Global Warming. I've added the rest of the comment to minimize the POV. --Codingmonkey 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Berserkerz Crit 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we do not need to "set this aside", as the source of greenhouse gases is not under any reaonable debate. This question is really settled among anybody with a shred of knowledge, even the usual deniers/sceptics.--Stephan Schulz 12:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the quote is abridged is to point out Bush's audacity in not seeing the film, while at the same time saying we need to "set aside" whether global warming is caused by man. The lorax 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as I stated before, when you read the original abridged quote, you get the impression that Bush is a moron because he doesn't seem to care about Global Warming as he says that you need to set it aside, but doesn't say anything about tackling it. The full quote shows that he does actually have a plan. --Codingmonkey 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah you are right, we all know that main source of greenhouse gases is naturally produced (i.e. not anthropogenic) . Anyways, I don't really think that your comment is appropriate to this particular discussion. If you want to comment about the topic of the Bush quote, go ahead. --Codingmonkey 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's comment taken out of context, leads to POV

message: Why is this film rated as being of "top importance?"
:That rating is subjective. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berserkerz Crit (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because liberals run Wikipedia. That's all there is too it. They even go so far as to delete conversation on talk:pages that provides documented evidence of their left wing bias. Ymous 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "they"? Derex 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree as well. I've changed the parameter. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top importance