Talk:Martin Durkin (director)

message: I have found a website where Durkin refutes the critics claims here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml
----204.75.178.4 17:17, 9 April 2007
I have added the POV tag, as this article clearly has neutrality issues and a neutrality controversy. It represents only one side of the perspective on Durkin, uses biased pro-environmentalist publications for most of its references, and quotes the most extreme statements from those sources. Remember, Wikipedia is fundamentally about presenting a neutral point of view on every topic. It should neutrally incorporate the published response from Durkin (above), his more substantial response after initially saying 'go f...yourself', and a variety of the the published, authoritative references he cites... none of which are cited at this point. He has some very substantial support on his side, including the NAS report written by the head of the statistics section of the US National Academy of Sciences. The controversy over AGW and AGW modeling is most certainly a statistical controversy. The shoddy scientific work represented by AGW modelers is one of the "elephant in the room" issues that alarmists want to ignore. This (Durkin) article truly is a terrible hatchet job right now. Please please clean it up.Mr Pete 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expand his response, if you want. As regards the rest of your claims, maybe you should consult the relevant articles. You seem to confuse the NAS report, which supported Mann et al, with the Wegman piece commissioned by Joe Barton. This is all in Hockey stick controversy.JQ 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This material belongs in The Great Global Warming Swindle, not in a biographical article. Also, it's too long for a response to a single point in the film. Unfortunately, TGGWS is locked at present, but I'll move a summary of this material when it reopens.JQ 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Severinghaus quote

message: I deleted a direct link on this article yesterday and noticed this line: 'several of the scientists interviewed for this film claim that their views were misrepresented and that they were lied to about the nature of the project'
The Great Global Warming Swindle lists 19 participants (not all scientists,) and out of all the names I clicked on Carl Wunsch is the only person who makes anything close to this claim. (It would be easier to cite the programme in the bio of every participant to help with these matters, but i've been there, done that, and it was wikilawyered to death so it isn't) Are there sources for the 'several scientists'? --Dean1970 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afaik - Wusch is the only one that has claimed this - so your cut of the line is correct. Of course its possible that more have stated this since - but that would require documentation/references.  --Kim D. Petersen 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit confused though about which Wikipedia policy that you refer to for deleting  the link to the Wunsch letter. It follows WP:RS and is verifiable as per WP:ATT. We can argue about the relevance of including the letter (which imho is adequately summarized currently - and sourced on the TGGWS page) - so i'm not arguing against your revert - just questioning the reasons given for it. --Kim D. Petersen 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to have misunderstood.... I'm not against your deletion - but was wondering what the "Deleted link as per wiki policy" was....? --Kim D. Petersen 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TGGWS

message: I searched Ofcom.com for the "around 300" complaints made against TGGWS. Their website cites one complaint - . (scroll down near the bottom). --Dean1970 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ofcom

message: I have reverted a POV edit: we should try to keep this article neutral, rather than espousing just one viewpoint. Peterlewis 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Edit

message: It is both POV and inaccurate to refer to "leaking a private email". The recipient of an email (particularly an abusive email) is under no obligation to keep it private. But if you can cite a source criticising the recipients for publicising the email, feel free. Just don't add your personal thoughts on the subject. 
And as regards the content of the email Wikipedia is not censored. Reference to "expletives" is fine in Richard Nixon, it has no place here.JQ (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Private email leaked"

message: I've added the full exchange.  Just including Durkin's 'daft cock' and 'go fuck yourself' lines misreprents the story and Durkin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maughamish (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Leroi email exchange"

message: JC undid my revisions without really considering the content.  You can criticise or make amendments but undoing everything is just plain lazy.  Also, labelling my rewrites as 'POV editorialising' is pretty ridiculous.  All I've done is added facts.  Please feel free to adapt, amend, change language etc... but just undoing is clumsy and disappointing particularly since I see from your other entries that you're quite capable of making well-considered changes. 
My thoughts: I think a reference and link to the actual ITC report rather than a partisan George Monbiot article is more relevant (although I left the Monbiot link in).  Also, you may not realise it being all the way in Oz but the ITC doesn't exist any more hence my reference to the 'then broadcasting regulator'.
152 complaints against a programme is enormous so it's worth including the stats to illustrate the back-lash; and their ruling, both the dismissal of 147 complaints and the actual statement is fact rather than interpretation.  The Against Nature story is important to convey Durkin's background, but let's include all the info. (81.145.240.56 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Against Nature and ITC"

message: Just how POV is it to describe his documentaries as tendentious? The documentaries themselves are POV, of course; they clearly set out to promote a particular point of view - rather than to offer a balanced argument. It's not POV to say something is tendentious, surely ... Except to the extent that every statement about everything expresses a POV about it. But, with that sort of reasoning, we'd all end up swallowining the hemlock. Contrary opinions welcome. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were less tendentious maybe they wouldn't sell. Kittybrewster  ☎ 14:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take that as a vote in favour, then.--OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendentious 

message: I've been through all five of the sources given to support this assertion. Durkin is not mentioned in the first three; the fourth one is a highly dubious looking Wikipedia lookalike called Sourcewatch (which I removed), and in the fifth one, a piece by Dominic Lawson, the following rather garbled sentence appears. 
The then environment editor of the Guardian immediately accused the programme makers of being in league with the far right, describing them, bafflingly, as "overtly racist". If there had been any extreme political input, it was from quite another direction. Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Not exactly convincing, and in view of Durkin's stating that the Marxism accusation is a smear, perhaps this section should be removed altogether. Jprw (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the three the Guardian one does seem to be irrelevant, but the What Next article directly mentions Durkin and the New Statesman article links Against Nature to the RCP.  JASpencer (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged affiliation with Marxist groups 

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello,
Would you please explain why a summary of the film ch. 1-x was removed? I do not know Mr. Durkin, did not participate in making the film but thought it would be interesting to have a written summary in the run-up to the referendum. There are also summaries of films on Wikipedia, so why not for this documentary as well? Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.157 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brexit the movie summary 

message: The redirect Climate: The Movie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Leyo 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Climate: The Movie]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: According to scripts.com Durkin was born on 23 January 1962 in South Shields. Is this regarded as WP:RS? Just for info, it matches the record given at FreeBMD here and gov.uk here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like scripts.com falls under the category of WP:SPS, being entirely user-created content. Then again, his full date of birth is also mentioned on IMDB, but WP:IMDB. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and the advice was not to use it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth details