Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Trumpeting in the lead

Since the lead has been such a touchy subject, I figured I'd be safe and talk these issues over here first:

1. The Academy Awards this film won are mentioned twice in the lead. Seems like unnecessary trumpeting to me. Which one should we remove? I think the second one can go, but I want the opinion of the group on this.
2. "A companion book authored by Gore has been on the paperback nonfiction New York Times bestseller list since June 11, 2006, reaching #1 on July 2, 2006.[3]" It's not on the NYT bestseller list now so obviously this is no longer true. Does anyone care to find out when it went off this list, or should we just remove it entirely? Oren0 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first reference as it amounted to cruft. I feel the second mention was the one 2 keep as it mentions it won 2 awards. I don't think we should remove the fact that it made the new york times bestseller list etirely as making the list is notable. We should just update it to include the date when it went off of the list. Basically this would show how long it remained on the list which is notable info IMHO. I'll dig around and see if I can find the exact date it went off the list. Elhector (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed to the idea of leaving the second AA mention only. I think the AA is notable enough to be in the first sentence, but if anyone else prefers the later reference instead, I don't feel strongly enough that I'd change it back. Oren0 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best in the first sentence as well. The number of academy awards (as well as other awards) is available later on in the article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's appropriate in the first sentence of the lead for the same reason I felt that the word controversial did not belong in the first sentence in the lead but should have been mentioned somewhere in the lead. For the sake of neutrality I think the first sentence of the lead shouldn't mention any praise or crticism of the film. I do believe that winning academy awards is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in the lead though, much like what was done with the controversial line. That's why I favored the second mention more. I'll leave it alone though and think about it for a while. Anyone else have any thoughts? Elhector (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring so much to it being in the first sentence as to the wording as it had been in the first sentence. I.e., the actual number of awards wasn't necessary in the lead. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Biblical Proportions" and "Planetary Emergency"

Please stop reverting these. I am not even exaggerating here. They are actual positions taken in the film and the subtitle of the book. I have provided more than sufficient references to substantiate this as fact. Why do you seek to hide the actual positions clearly articulated in the film and the book? --GoRight (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are doint WP:OR/WP:SYN - the "of biblical proportions" sentence is not about what will happen - but rather a comment on something that has already happened. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the quote appeared in a section where he was discussing current events that have already happened. In that section he referred to them as both catastrophes and comparable to "a major hike through the Book of Revelations" and his intent was to use these events as examples of how Global Warming has already begun. These are the first signs is the clear message and implication to the viewer in that section of the film. Given this, your observation is actually moot. The message from Al Gore, therefore, is not that Global Warming will become biblical in scope, but rather that it already is, so there goes WP:SYN. --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are doing WP:SYN because you are using inference to provide a point. Find an actual reliable source for this (and movie reviews/blogs/op-eds aren't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And your reference of the Tom Harris article is a non-WP:RS to boot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Harris reference, but if you don't like that one how about this one:

Gore's passion and compassion make world of difference in 'Truth' by Wesley Morris on 06/02/2006: "As he goes on, Gore cleverly uses scientific fact as ground for criticizing the Bush administration's disastrous environmental record. Aside from observing that recent climatic phenomena in Europe are like ``a nature hike through the Book of Revelations," he keeps religion out of his argument.

Movie reviews are not reliable sources about anything other than that the person has seen the movie - and has this personal opinion about it. Why? Because movie reviews aren't subject to the corner stone of reliable sources: fact-checking. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But the worst-case scenarios are, in fact, biblical. A scarier Power Point show has never been made about rising sea levels. One set of images featuring maps of Shanghai, Calcutta, and Lower Manhattan enveloped by water is more heart-stopping than anything in ``The Day After Tomorrow.""

I particularly like the comparison to The Day After Tomorrow. The films are indeed similar in their portrayal of the potential effects of global warming according to the gospel of Reverend Al Gore.

You are showing quite a bit of bias here: "reverend Gore"? Try a neutral point of view, please. And sorry this is not your personal soapbox. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that he said it in the movie. Here is another independent observer that made the same observation and connection that I did, so there goes WP:OR. Let me guess, you have something against Wesley Morris as well? You consider The Boston Globe to be some ill fact checked rag, perhaps? Or a description from a movie review isn't suitable for a reference on a page about a movie?

What i personally think or not is irrelevant. It is what we can attribute to reliable sources, taking into account the reletive weight of the source, that matters. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For people who make such huge protestations about integrity and intellectual honesty, you have a funny way of demonstrating them. --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The flim has generated some controversy..."

I've removed the following from the lead, as I think it either a) needs more work, or b) should be dropped.

The film has generated some controversy, however, including a British High Court case regarding its proposed showing in schools. Global warming skeptics have criticized the film, calling it "exaggerated and erroneous".

Sorry to be a bug about this, but the way it is written still leaves much to be desired. I don't think that it is correct to say that the film has "generated some controversy." Sure some diehards have targeted it. That doesn't equal controversy (which is defined as "prolonged, public and heated disagreement." I don't think that this belongs in the lead at all. Sunray (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording has now been adjusted to make it more factual. Much better. Sunray (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider the following arguments against you:

• There is a wide consensus on this change (you're so far the only expressed voice of dissent).
• There is already a large Controversy section in this very article.
• The BBC ("But, he added, this controversy could ...") and Daily Mail ("Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming") articles on the High Court case refer to this as a controversy.
• WP:LEAD states that the lead should describe the article's "notable controversies, if there are any."
• This compromise has quieted an otherwise fierce issue that has resulted in massive edit wars and fighting on both sides.
• One of the main arguments used by the pro-AGW editors who watch this page against using the word "controversial" was that the film has generated or been the subject of controversy, rather than being controversial itself. This compromise addresses that argument.
• Precedent for handling controversy in the lead in this way exists at Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11, as well as other documentaries.

It just seems like a preponderance of arguments against you. Oren0 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I just quoted the dictionary definition of controversy and questioned wording to that effect. BTW, these "controversy" sections are rarely appropriate (although Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11 would be candidates for sure, since Michael Moore aims at controversy). Calling Gore's film "controversial" is plain wrong (at least according to the definition of the word). Saying that it "generated controversy" is highly questionable. Don't shoot the messenger. Sunray (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying there is no "prolonged, public and heated disagreement" about this film? Elhector (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stick to the facts -- the British court case -- without editorializing over whether this rises to the level of a controversy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are the facts, there is a 7 to 1 consensus on the proposed compromise language. Please respect that as you wish others to do when you are on the majority on an issue. If you want to continue to discuss the matter here that is fine but please stop reverting that wording until you have effected a changed in consensus here. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not immutable. I've raised valid concerns about the use of the word "controversy." Raymond aritt produced a wording that was superior, and avoided the issue. Producing the best articles we can collaboratively is what this project is all about. Improvements in wording are an important part of this. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, consensus can change but as far as I can tell it hasn't since you're the only one that has really weighed in on the section above dealing with this. Also, yes, producing the best articles collaboratively is the was Wikipedia is all about. The issue is that what you view as the "best" is not what many other editors view as the "best". You view Raymond's change as an improvement in wording, but many of us view it as a detriment to the article. That's why we're collaborating in the section above and why many editors agreed to the compromise we had going. Elhector (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Consensus to no longer 7-to-1, and at any rate, a poll that covers only one or two weeks is not authoritative. There is no need for the introduction to list every minor aspect of the film, such as a failed attempt to ban it in Britain. Otherwise, a great many other works would have much longer introductions. rewinn (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, calling the court case a failure I think is incorrect. I haven't seen anything calling it a failure. As a matter of fact I would call it a victory. The film can't be shown to students in school in an entire country without a warning letter being issued to the students concerning the film. I think the fact that the film can't be shown in schools in an entire country without special guidance notes is a pretty big deal. I also think this is but 1 of many times this film has been subject to "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement" per the large amount of evidence that has already been provided in this debate. Elhector (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight in Intro to 'controversy'

The Dimmock case doesn't deserve a full-sentence description in the intro. The fact that deniers don't like the film may deserve a sentence (including a link to an editorial) and perhaps Dimmock, as the summit of their effort, merits a mention. But remember, it's an introduction only; the controversy already has a huge section in the body of the article. Why, Federal Way and Yakima each get their own sub-section!!! And I deleted the word politicians from that "well-received" sentence since there are politicians on both sides of the "controversy". rewinn (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good points. I think that the "Controversy" section needs a long hard look. Sunray (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up section headings in Controversy as follows:

1. "Dimmick" instead of "High Court": Cases are typically referred to by the name of the case, not the Jurisdiction. The use of the jurisdiction to colour the presentation of the matter is POV
2. "Local School Districts": Although Federal Way and Yakima are fine cities to visit, and better cities to drink in (as I know from personal experience) the short-lived attempts of a minority of their citizens to suppress AIT is not notable enough to rate individual sections. At most, they collectively might be of interest as school boards, in the same way that other types of reaction is grouped into "Media" and suchlike categories. rewinn (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually like what you've done with this section. All of the info is still there, it's organized better, and reads a little easier. I do still completely disagree with you guys on the intro, but good work here :-) Elhector (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there's a huge controversy section is an argument for inclusion of controversy in the intro, not against it. The lead is supposed to be representative of the contents of the article. Oren0 (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As i've said before - the huge controversy section is an argument for trimming. We currently include things that are presented significantly out of proportion (see: weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with you on this. Per Sunray's statement above controversy is "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement" which there is pleny of concerning this film and which has been more than demonstrated by the large amount of evidence provided by multiple editors. These editors have already agreed to a compromise and to tone it down in the lead by having it at the end of the lead as opposed to having it in the opening sentence of the lead. If you disagree with this compromise it would be really helpful if you could state as much and your reasoning in the section above so that we can deal with this disagreement in a logical way instead of having to argue with each other up and down this talk page. If everyone will please do this then once everyone has weighed in we can address everyones issues one by one all in the same section and in a civil and logical manner. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement" about the two small school district cases. They are presented here - because of what? Why isn't there anything about Scandinavian schools using AIT in the curriculae? (i can tell you why i didn't put it in (and actually deleted it in the lead): I believe its trivia). The trouble is that some people here believe that any controversy per automagic is notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it could simply be a US/UK-centric bias. Hanlon's razor and all that. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who you calling stupid? :-P Elhector (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is already a section under Political Response called Education where a few schools systems are listed that are using the film in there curriculum. I don't think there would be any problem with adding the fact Scandinavian schools have done the same as long as it can be sourced. I'm sure it can be though, you being the type editor that you are I doubt you'd bring it up with out knowing it to be true :-) That being said, districts that make a ruling against using it I believe are just as notable. Also, the 2 districts listed in this section are a completely different issue than the issue of having a line discussing the controversy around the film in the end of the lead. The 2 districts are just a small part of the whole concerning that issue and as such are part of but not the only example of the "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement" about this film. If you would like I can re-list here the many reliable sources calling the film itself controversial or showing examples of controversy concerning the film that have been given here by several editors. I could also include the several examples of criticism of the film from reliable sources that have been listed here by several editors which I also believe add to the prolonged, public, and heated disagreement about the film if you would like. But I again state that I'm in favor of just adding a line at the end of the lead stating the film has generated controversy instead of just labeling it controversial right off the bat in the lead per my comments above in the section actually dealing with that issue. Elhector (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If temporary flurries in two small school districts that led, ultimately, to a decision *not* banning the film were notable, suffice it to say that there would have to be a substantial expansion of the articles for a great many other movies and cultural artifacts in general. As to the "controversy" --- that there are critics of the film and an unsuccessful lawsuit is a fact; that the film generated a controversy is a value judgment both as to the existence of a genuine controversy and, of greater import, as to the source of the controversy. In fact, the "controversy" pre-exist AIT and was generated by GW deniers, not by the film. AIT is simply an object of a pre-existing controversy, and did not generate that controversy itself. rewinn (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think calling the lawsuit unsuccessful is a little bit of a misnomer. The filer of the lawsuit himself said he deemed it a success and written instructions stating the film contains political bias must be given to students before it's shown to them. That being said, judging the the actual success of the lawsuit might be dabbling in a little original research. This still does not change the fact that all of this did happen and is notable. I guess the disagreement here is exactly how notable these events are. How do we judge that? Is it based on the number of reliable sources available concerning the event? Maybe we need to discuss that first and go from there. Elhector (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be judging whether the lawsuit was successful or not. Filers of lawsuits usually try to claim victory. We should thus stick to the wording of the judgement itself or to reliable sources that describe it. It is hard to determine the relative importance (i.e., undue weight) of recent cases, but this one is of interest because it should send a message to the deniers. Of course, as they are in denial, it is unlikely that will happen. Sunray (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Any other source stating there opinion on whether or not it was a victory shouldn't be inlcuded. But surely the opinion of the primary parties involved in the case are important. He filed the case and was partially satisfied with the result. As for "sending a message to the deniers", that's not really appropriate here. Elhector (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we would want to quote his exact words and probably give a countervailing opinion from another source. Because his statement is at variance with the facts. In the words of our own article:

The plaintiff sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth on the grounds that schools are legally required to provide a balanced presentation of political issues. The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown...

We could always add the Responses to the judgement from our article on the case, to give a neutral perspective. However, that would be undue weight in this article and surely better dealt with in the article on the case. The other option would be to omit the plaintiff's statement. Which approach do editors favour? Sunray (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this. We leave in the plantiff's statement, but also add the defendant's statement. The plantiff's statement that was already in there was only 1 line and adding another line for the defendant's statement wouldn't hurt the article. That will make the section balanced. I also think that will make the section complete and also helpful for readers that came to this article to get a complete albiet small version of the issue without having to go to a second article and read through all that if they don't want too. I think this would make the article more useful from an encylopedic standpoint. Lastly both statments should be sourced. I just realized the plantiff's statment that was in there wasn't sourced (can't believe I missed that...). So I'm also in favor of keeping both statments out of the article until we can source them. That shouldn't be real difficult though. Would you be opposed to doing a small poll to see what the other editors think and get some more feedback? Elhector (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have outlined a very sensible approach and I do agree that we may be doing the readers a favour. A poll might be overkill. Why not just work out how it would look here? Anyone who wishes to comment could do so. When we have something we agree with we flash it up in lights um, that is, put it into the article. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. I'll try and put something together and post it here. I have to go to my employers Christmas party tonight so I probably won't have time to put anything together until tomorrow. (I learned a while back not to drink and wiki :-P) Like I said I want to cite each of the statments so if anyone else comes up with anything along these lines before I do please post it here so we can discuss :-) Elhector (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to put what I've come up with in a new section below this. This topic of conversation as strayed a little from the heading above so I figured for ease of discussion on this I'd put it in a new section. Elhector (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dimmock Case participants statements

OK, here's what've I've come up with:

The Minister of Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan, declared the outcome a victory for the government, stating: "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film

Stewart Dimmock also declared victory but expressed dissatisfaction at the verdict, saying that "no amount of turgid guidance" could change his view that the film was unsuitable for the classroom.

Let me know what you think. If nobody has any objections to this I'm going to add it to the end of the Dimmock case section in the article. I also found in my searching and found it interesting [1]. In this article Justice Burton is quoted as saying "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act". I don't really think this is appropriate for this article but if it's not in the article about the case itself I think it should be inlcuded there so I'll take a look real quick :-) Elhector (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. If what you're saying is that a detailed examination of Dimmock should be in the Dimmock article, I agree. This article is about AIT, not Dimmock.
2. You'll note that both sides claim victory in nearly every case that doesn't end with someone's execution. I wouldn't give too much weight to such claims. rewinn (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Elhector, that about nails it. I like the references you have used. Nice balance. I agree with Rewinn that we need to limit how much of the case we include in this article. I also came across the article Elhector refers to above. The quote from the judge is indeed interesting — made me want to read the whole judgement. The plaintiff (a member of The New Party and backed by that organization) certainly did a magnificent job of PR and It is interesting to note the media response to the case. Here's a reference that focuses on the politics at play, which will be useful for the main article on the case [2]. There is obviously much more to the story than first meets the eye. Sunray (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason Magazine?

What's with the random plug? Is this small time political magazine known for its authority in the realm of film criticism or environmentalism? If not, why the heck is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.72 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone must read Reason, seeing as it's been around since the late 60's. I'm not sure why we would consider there review any less relevant than any other politcal magazine. Elhector (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is why a review in such a small and insignificant magazine should be given more weight than reviews in many other periodicals of greater circulation and expertise in the subject matter of either cinema or of science. That a small political movement's magazine should endure for 40 years is not terribly relevant; Lyndon LaRouche, CPUSA and numerous small religions have done as well. I would suggest adding a balance of reviews. rewinn (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)