Talk:Al Gore's Penguin Army

message: This reads like the guy who wrote it heard about, but never saw, the clip.
The penguins in the video do not "resemble" Tux, they ARE Tux. The creator of Tux, Larry Ewing, only grants license for use of Tux to those who credit his authorship.
See
http://www.isc.tamu.edu/%7Elewing/linux/
If Ewing would pursue legal action, we'd find out in short order who financed the clip (which, by the way, does not look as "amateurish" as some say).
Gore is in a Batman "Penguin" oufit.
And this is far from NPOV. 
This should merge with the film entry, but pretty much needs rewrite from scratch when that is done. Bustter 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why merge with the film, instead of YouTube or DCI Group? Better to keep it separate. Yes, I agree, others can apply better writing skills than mine... much more needs to be written. //// Pacific PanDeist * 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'license' (if you can call it that) for Tux is VERY lax.  You can basically do whatever you want with the Tux image so long as you tell people who created it - and that he used the GIMP paint program to do it.  You only have to do that if someone asks.  So you can use Tux anywhere for anything in any way - just so long as if someone asks you "Say - where did you get that handsome penguin from?" - you say "Larry Ewing painted it using GIMP".   So unless the authors are denying that this is Larry's Tux - they are on solid legal/IP grounds and nobody is going to be suing anyone over that.  HOWEVER: The Batman penguin is a different matter - although the laws on fair use for the sake of parody would probably allow it (IANAL). SteveBaker 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It really has nothing to do with YouTube other than someone posted it there.  Thousands of videos are posted there daily.  There is no scandal here on YouTube's part.  That is like saying it's bittorrent's fault that a movie was released online before it hit theaters. If YouTube wasn't around, someone most likely would have posted it to Google video.  --Bschott 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't the 'traced to computer' be questioned?  No one traced this to a single computer as DCI does not assign external IP addresses to each of their company computers. The newspaper traced it to an IP address that is owned/used by DCI. The problem with this research is no one, beyond DCI knows what happened. It may have been a user acting alone, it may have been a corporate 'scandal', it may have been someone spoofing the IP address to make it look like it came from DCI...the facts are unknown at this time and leaves this this article as pure speculation. Beyond that, is it even notable? --Bschott 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been renamed as per statements above, and edited to remove any unproven and unsourced finger-pointing to YouTube. They are providing a service with a staff of 35, and over 10,000 videos are submitted daily. They can not view them all, nor do they investigate the motives behind the posting of videos to their site. --Bschott 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, wow, relax, take a breath, you are totally misreading this... I had YouTube in there cause that was the type of video, not saying they were part of the scandal, just where it originated-- could've just as easily been a MySpace video or whatever... and is this notable? Front page of the Wall Street Journal does it for me!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the title is just confusing, anyway - should the hyphen's be quotations? //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps rename it at "DCI Group's video scandal", but from a Neutral POV if you look at the article before, it was suggestive that YouTube was some how in on this scandal.  Like saying the Watergate Hotel was in on the Republican break-in of the DNC's offices (but this isn't YouTube-gate yet :P ).  In any case, now that the video is hosted all over the internet and the YT staff have unofficially stated they have no ties to this video, we can remove any suggestion to that fact. --Bschott 03:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that's the best analogy for what you're trying to say, since I've never heard the Watergate break-in called anything but "Watergate" (even though we all agree the hotel did nothing wrong)... how about we just call this Al Gore's Penguin Army? //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if that is what you want, I have no objections, as long as my previous concerns are kept in mind.  I just was concerned people would take a wrong idea that YouTube was some how 'in on it'. --Bschott 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I could care less what the name of the article is as long as the info is preserved for posterity... I was just making a suggestion, I don't want to start moving things around again... but the current title is a gramatically incorrect use of the mighty hyphen... //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the change or don't, just stop talking about it. Be BOLD and just change the title.  If you do not like it and want Al Gore's Penguin Army as a title.....then change it. As for saving the info for posterity, that isn't up to me, but a suggestion is to find 3-4 more articles (not blogs...they do not count as major media sources) from major media sources that also talk about this...otherwise you may have a verifibility problem or a notability issue later.  --Bschott 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments on Tux penguins

message: *The video has been described as "Propaganda 101" --- By Whom?
*...but presents a highly negative image...  --- Not worded in a Neutral POV, also where is the source to back up this claim? 
*DCI Group cryptically responded --- What was the questions they were asked?  Companies do not have to give any information out and we have no idea what questions were asked to have the company respond in this way.  Where is the citation?  Who is the source?  What reputable independent third-party publication or source asked these questions and where is the link?
*shows a grotesquely rotund(sic) -- Pure weasel wording
*The video was purported to -- Weasel wording. Cite the source. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about any of the rest - just passing by - but "presents a highly negative image" sounds NPOV to me and should require no additional proof, considering that the video is an obvious slam of Gore. --Kizor 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is 'Highly' because that is concidered a weasel word in this context and it is POV...because it depends on a persons personal political veiw.  A US Dem. may concider this highly offensive while a Rep. might not.  Also, the video can be viewed as a spoof/satire that holds no sway over a person's opinion of the ex-Vice President. If Gore appeared on southpark generally it would be concidered a spoof/satire. Highly negative image or just Negative image in this case is completely POV. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, friend!! I have reconnoitered and repaired your concerns!! The description of the video was right straight out of the Wall Street Journal, quoting a professor of communications... so was the statement that it presented a "highly negative" image... you kind of shifted arguments midstream, I see, arguing over whether 'Highly' was weasely if used with "offensive", but no one said it was a highly "offensive" image, they said it was a highly "negative" image. Do you see the difference? The question to which DCI Group responded was also in the Wall Street Journal, which is how did the video end up coming from their computers-- did they say they had no idea? or that this was a mistake, or just some lone nut employee on a lark? No, they said they don't discuss work they do for clients!! As for "grotesquely rotund", well yeah that is a judgment call, but they drew him to look like a basketball, you know kinda saying "haha ha, global warming is not real because look how fat Al Gore is"!! Anyway I changed that to a quote from a newspaper too, which instead says they made him "grossly overweight". I am just happy to help!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: Why did they use Tux?  This should really be mentioned in the article.  I don't see any relation between Al Gore's global warming stuff and Linux, so why did they go with Tux?  Is it possible that they just did a generic GIS for penguin and ended up using the Linux mascot without even realizing it?  --Cyde Weys 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Tux? 

message: Since no one has come forward to point out anything innaccurate, down comes the innaccuracy tag!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: if anyone (exxon or otherwise) really paid money for this, they are idiots. i have never seen a youtube-video that was soooooo boring. it amazes me that this could stir ANY controversy at all. why do people watch this? don't they have anything better to do, like reading wikipedia ??-- ExpImptalkcon 02:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much a reflection of how smart they are as it is a reflection of how smart they think WE are!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  are they stupid 

message: In an attempt to discredit a video for pushing an agenda, this article pushes an agenda itself. Only the video never claims to be neutral. There's very little information here of relevance - it should be stripped down and possibly just tacked onto the Inconvieniant Truth article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.144.224 (talk • contribs) 20:09, November 2, 2006
: Stop biasing my face 88.96.135.14
Yes. Who did make that edit, anyway? I read it and it kept tacking "this claim is false, the Wall Street Journal is bad" into my face. 206.21.131.243 (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty, this was fixed in Neutrality below. Und thank you! Now, how do I sign again? Four tildes? Right. 206.21.131.243 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: :Image:PenguinGore.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PenguinGore.JPG

message: The current wording, especially in the intro is unacceptable. Everyme 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality