Talk:Not Evil Just Wrong

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Not Evil Just Wrong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Film: British / Documentary

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

A lot more info on this from blogs. But we can't include that right? Kmm8392 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are generally not included but you can read about self-published sources which includes information on when their use is appropriate. Wperdue (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I added a category for documentaries but it says there is no categories. Also-doesn't the official site count as a source? I want to make sure I'm getting this right... Kmm8392 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the category at the bottom of the page. As to your other question, you will want to add reliable third-party sources to establish that this film is notable. These can be newspaper, magazine, television, or internet sources and even things such as radio interviews. They just have to be verifiable in some way. I started by adding one from the Irish Times. Just follow that template, and you should be fine. Wperdue (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many resources before we can take down the wiki citation alert? Kmm8392 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Re:POV?-

Hello... Just a question, this is a currently controversial subject, & I am interested in reading viewpoints opposed to any issue seeking a general consensus- like environment policy change - but this article seems more like a publicity page for the film-makers? Has there been NO counter-arguments about the films at all in trade magazines or related issue journals? Would be nice to see even one 'Negative' review for a sense that it has actually been viewed by someone in the larger world. Or are these productions so small, (or just 'vanity' productions) that they do not attract a high enough level of interest to have developed ANY serious criticism? Also the article itself is badly composed & could use a going over for grammatic clarity. Run on sentences & so on. I don't have the time but maybe someone could try & spiff it up a little, it just 'read' awkwardly. 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)mbd71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: POV
I agree with the previous commenter that this page seems more favorable than neutral--particularly under "Previous films" and "people involved." I also find the section on funding inadequate--who provided the original $1 million? Whether or not it was the fossil fuel industry is a relevant question, given the industry's record of funding skepticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.159.225 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it does not only seem. IT IS POV.. --Dubhe.sk (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of the article

Don't you think the tone of this article should be revisited given current revelations. There is a distictively skeptical tone vis a vis the tone of the article on "An Inconvenient Truth"

ACB Feb, 18, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.135.185.187 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

You can't source facts to the films website. You can source it for its own opinions William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested cleanups for NPOV and tone

The tone of the reference to the premier not being the first showing of the film seems petty as most films are screened extensively prior to the official premier. The long quote from "Mother Jones" should be paraphrased and cited as it currenly reads like a POV paragraph. Many references to Micheal Moore are desultory and out of place. It seems from the comments that most editors have not seen the movie the article is about. Good practice would be to have at least this familiarity with the subject prior to submitting edits.

A.H.Tuttle (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Not Evil Just Wrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100415034019/http://balanced-ed.org:80/about/ to http://balanced-ed.org/about/#jump

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]