Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

The "its one click away" argument.

These two edits (here, and here) represent a form of creeping bias that violates NPOV, IMHO. I don't know if this is conscious or not, so I wish to raise the group's awareness on this point. Note that I do not mean to single out these particular authors for anything other than to illustrate my point.

I have noted a tendency on the part of some editors to feel that if material which somehow "helps" the skeptic's case has been summarized or repeated in this (or any GW related article for that matter) article that the argument is made that such material is "only a click away for those who are interested." A similar exchange occurred on the Fred Singer page regarding my characterization of George Monbiot as being an "environmental and political activist" which is a term I took directly from his BLP summary. On the other hand, when the material in question "helps" the AGW proponent's case it is termed "brief and very relevant" and the argument is made to leave the material in the article in question.

Do people feel that this double standard serves WP:NPOV? Should we have a consistent position on this topic or do you want to simply continue to argue about it on a case by case basis?

--GoRight (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me the reason that we in a WP:SUMMARY of another article have to use 3 times as much space on the participants instead of on a description of the actual article? Give a description of TGGWS - let the interested reader go to that article to get the details. Frankly i can't see why we have to have a summary of TGGWS on this article at all. Your arguments about NPOV seem rather strange - since from my point of view, the only reason to add the peoples details is to bolster the "importance" of the TGGWS argument. (which is entirely POV). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why we should include here a list of those parties criticizing the film but not include a comparable list the film's contributors when the information is, as you say, only one click away? As you have just pointed out including such a list is a clear POV push. The difference between the current state of the article and what I included is that the current article already suffers from this kind of a POV push whereas my addition only seeks to balance that POV push out. Given this, would you not argue equally as strongly that the list of organizations disputing these claims should be likewise removed under your same logic? --GoRight (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What i was arguing against was the Peacock part of using 3 times as much space on the credentials and titles of the contributers to the movie - than on actual content. If i'm not entirely mistaken there is not much space used on credentials in the current version. There is a subtle difference between 'John T. Houghton' and 'Sir. John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group, former professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.', guess which version of these have been used by the regular editors - and guess which version your list of parties most looked like? (hint: one of these is unnecessary use of space - the other isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is fine I guess. But why then do you simply delete the entire passage rather than simply stripping out the "Peacock" portions? And I would argue that it is necessary to give some indication of the credentials of the individuals rather than simply listing their names as most readers won't know who these people are. Do you honestly feel that listing the names (and in some sense therefore their credentials) of their critics is not doing exactly what you are accusing me of? Why should the critics get to express an air of authority while stripping the names and credentials of the contributors thus leaving the clear impression that those claims made in the film are not backed by legitimate scientists? This is clear POV pushing as far as I can see. --GoRight (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing Stephen Milloy discussion

There's an ongoing discussion / vote relating to this article at /Stephen Milloy. I've moved it to a sub-page just now so it doesn't interfere with other discussion. Once consensus is reached it will be archived. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have not added this sub page to your watch lists you may wish to do so. I am planning to summarize the discussion there in preparation for bringing the discussion to a wider audience. You are all invited to insure that these summaries are fair and accurate for your respective positions. --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and accurate" sounds uncomfortably like "fair and balanced", but do what you like. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get to this later today. I understand your reticence at letting me write your position which is why I invite you and the others to modify the text to meet your approval. I only offer to make the first attempt so as to minimize your efforts. If you prefer to write the summary yourself please feel free to do so. --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer for now and may (or may not) contribute later. It would be most interesting to see your views of what you think the position would be. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Bias

I see that we are now referring to properly sourced material as vandalism and WP:TE. That doesn't sound particularly WP:AGF or WP:CIV to me. The high court case directly finds that the film has a political bias that had to be addressed in order to allow the film to even be shown in UK schools. This is a particularly notable finding (how many other films have this distinction?). As such a 2 word mention of it is not out of line in the film's summary.

Please explain why you have removed this properly sourced and not at all misleading material.

--GoRight (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its provocative and unbalanced to the point of being vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no more provocative than (collectively) insisting on calling TGGWS controversial or polemic in its summary. And exactly how is it unbalanced? Do you have a court case or any other objective evidence that shows it is NOT a politically biased film? --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• The high court judgment does not contain the word "bias" anywhere. Even if it had, this is certainly not a view shared with near unanimity, and hence cannot be stated absolutely. As for the notability claim: How many other films had a judge declare them "broadly accurate" and "supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists"? What you do is indeed tendentious cherry-picking. And finally, of course not everything of note has to be or can be in the lead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The scientific perspective of the film is irrelevant as the court case itself states. The issue at hand is one of having a political bias that required specific note to students in UK schools. I see no reason to deprive wikipedia readers of that same notice, do you? And it is not cherry picking on my part, that is the entire focus and purpose of the court's ruling (on being politically biased as opposed to be scientifically accurate). The very fact that the court ruled as it did is by definition of the statutes involved an indication of political bias. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In thinking about this further, I believe that we may have an obligation to even take this a step further than merely calling the film "politically biased". I quote from item 2 at the top of the decision:

"406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are

(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or

(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school

they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."

Note my use of italics is to highlight the relevant portions of the text only.

The following seem to be reasonable assumptions:

1. UK secondary school students may come into contact with this article as part of their normal school day routine.
2. As wikipedia editors we should endeavor to aid the UK school system in the commission of their obligations under statutes 406 and 407 as quoted above.

Given this, it would seem to be "reasonably practicable" for us to place a suitable warning at the top of this article to alert those students to the fact the a UK court has ruled that some portions of this film have been found to be in violation of those statutes and that they should contact their school administrators for further guidance in this regard. It would be a trivial matter for us to provide such a warning, right?

Are there any objections? --GoRight (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't stop laughing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that this comment is in the spirit of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV. Please confine your comments to debating the subject at hand in an attempt to achieve consensus. --GoRight (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you occasionally make a good point but I have to go with Stephan here. As wikipedia editors we should endeavor to aid the UK school system in the commission of their obligations under statutes 406 and 407 as quoted above. That's, ah, shall we say, a novel and imaginative interpretation of the goal of Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are in some danger of becoming an unfunny joke William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that I will formally inform you of the same, just for the record. I don't believe that this comment is in the spirit of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV. Please confine your comments to debating the subject at hand in an attempt to achieve consensus. --GoRight (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

All laughing and silliness aside, if you object to including such a warning please provide your reasons. Wikipedia is meant to be informative, so is not informing the impressionable youth's of the UK about the dangers of this politically biased film something that we should be concerned with? It is not an idle concern, after all, the UK government considers it sufficiently serious that they have enacted statutes specifically addressing it, and those very same statutes have become the basis the of UK ruling we are discussing. --GoRight (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When you're in a hole, the usual advice is to stop digging. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I interpret this response to indicate that you don't intend to address the question at hand? Is it your intent to simply revert any such warning without engaging in any debate on the topic? I don't want to misunderstand your meaning here so please clarify. --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, folks. We are supposed to be working on reaching a consensus here and you appear to be willing to run roughshod over the minority. Please either engage in the discussion or withhold your objections, assuming you have them. Whether you do or not is not clear as you are not expressing any here. I have provided a clear and rational explanation for my actions and desired additions to this article whereas I have received taunts and jeers in return. I quote from WP:CON:

"Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected."

as well as from WP:PRACTICAL:

"Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example."

I am simply attempting to follow the Consensus decision-making process in good faith. If you are unwilling to even discuss this matter or have already decided that there is nothing that will change your minds on this point, please indicate as much so that we may move on to other matters. If you have legitimate objections to my proposal I would very much like to hear them.

--GoRight (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion that we place a suitable warning at the top of this article to alert those students to the fact the a UK court has ruled that some portions of this film have been found to be in violation of those statutes and that they should contact their school administrators for further guidance in this regard has been laughed out of court. You appear to have an appetite for discussing this endlessly; no-one else does William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this response does not appear to be in line with WP:AGF or WP:CIV. Please clarify your meaning here. Are you indicating that you refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion of this matter? If you have a legitimate objection please state what it is as you have not yet done so. You have merely engaged in taunts and jeers which does not constitute good faith discussion as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. To avoid any confusion, can you please give a concise and clear description of what you mean by "this matter" in the above paragraph? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it. There is one primary point, that the High Court case clearly ruled the film was politically biased (i.e. that it did not meet the standards required in the statutes) and hence ruled that the changes to the study guides were required to allow the film to be shown in UK schools. Can we at least agree on this point as it seems to be a straight forward interpretation of the ruling?

In as concise a manner as possible "this matter" comes down to:

• I believe that this is notable enough to bear some level of mention in the summary.
• I have proposed two options: 1) simply calling the film politically biased, 2) placing a warning to match the ruling at the top of the summary.
• You all have objected but I do not feel that you have given any rationale or explanation as to why you object given these circumstances, only that you (collectively) do.

I would like to understand 1) the nature of your (collective) objections, 2) whether you have already made up your minds to the point where discussion is futile, and 3) whether there are any options you might consider to address my concern that this deserves some measure of recognition in the summary. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Try hard! The film expresses strange ideas that not even the IPCC supports, such as the gross exaggeration of sea level rises. The film is quite blatant propaganda, which is why the UK judge ruled as he did. Peterlewis (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See? That's why I asked for clarification. I have no idea what your comment has to do with the ongoing discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What a surreal discussion this is. We're simply not in the business of advocating for or against Gore's film, so any "health warning" for English students (note - not UK!) in this article would be totally misplaced. There's no way this one is going to fly and, frankly, the suggestion seems to be more to do with an anti-Gore agenda than Wikipedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"We're simply not in the business of advocating for or against Gore's film ..." This is actually the surreal statement if you ask me. If one compares the arguments used by the primary contributors on both this article and the TGGWS article it is immediately clear that this page is heavily biased towards protecting this film while demonizing TGGWS. There is clearly no comparison, frankly. We can frequently find arguments on this page that are used to keep "anti-AGW" criticism out while the same parties use the opposite arguments on TGGWS to get "pro-AGW" criticism in over there. This whole "it's politically biased" discussion came about because, completely in the face of a court ruling to the contrary, some editors don't want even 2 words of criticism in the summary to that effect. This is not a case of it being some subjective call, there is undeniably a high profile court case which has ruled on that exact subject and unambiguously so. Yet the two words are blocked not because they are wrong, or inaccurate, or misleading, but because a small group of editors act in concert to block anything that they don't like on this page. If that is not "advocating for the film", then I don't know what is. --GoRight (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Oh look - everybody likes the Dalai Lama, but nobody like Kim Jong-il. The world is so unfair". The two movies are very different in content and reception, and we document this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And your comparison makes my point so very well regarding the objectivity and neutrality involved here. --GoRight (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's take another approach to this one to see if I can get the powers at be here to accept some legitimate criticism of this film in the summary.

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment:

"In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change."

Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills:

"11. Again there was not in the event much difference between the parties in this regard. Although there was some earlier suggestion on behalf of the Defendant that partisan might relate to 'party political', it soon became clear that it could not be and is not so limited. Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided"."

Movie Takes: An Inconvenient Truth:

"I am not a scientist and am unqualified to offer an opinion on the science that he uses to prove his point. As far as it goes, it sounds as persuasive to me as it was meant to sound. But it doesn't go very far. For even if we accept that the science of man-made global warming is air-tight, there are only three questions about it that matter, politically speaking. They are these. How much of a difference in the worldwide rise of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures can we make by our political choices? What are the choices available to us? And how much will those choices cost us? The former vice president deals with none of these questions in any serious way."

Warmed Over: Al Gore's new movie is the feel-good hit of the summer--but not much more.:

"Mr. Gore did not discover global warming and hasn't been a voice in the wilderness. Our political system has looked at the question closely, in a way Mr. Gore's film doesn't, and repeatedly concluded that the cost of action is greater than the known or surmised risks."

So. Here we have four articles from reputable third party sources which all discuss the political aspects of the movie and how the film presents a one-sided view of the politics involved. Based on this can I get you to accept any of the following in the summary?

1. An Inconvenient Truth is a one-sided American Academy ...
2. An Inconvenient Truth is a political American Academy ...
3. An Inconvenient Truth is a politically one-sided American Academy ...
4. An Inconvenient Truth is a politically controversial American Academy ...

--GoRight (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I numbered your suggestions for ease of discussion. I think numbers 1 and 3 are obviously not going to fly. I wouldn't have a problem with 4, but I still prefer adding another sentence to the end of the intro that briefly mentions some notable controversies, per WP:LEAD and the WP:WEIGHT discussions mentioned previously. Currently, the intro and the article are WAY out of proportion with one another. Oren0 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I am also open to other suggestions that capture this nuance sufficiently but still satisfy the NPOV concerns of those who object. I was considering being WP:BOLD again and try #4 but I fear the reaction is completely predictable so I decided to fore go the the revert dance this time around. The problem is I predict that we will hear only silence until someone is WP:BOLD on this point and then the edit war will begin. I continually provide sourced data for my points which, ultimately, is simply ignored by a small group of editors with sufficient numbers to enforce their views. --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly i find your POV pushing is getting a bit boring... Your references are inadequate (#1: doesn't support your conjecture. #2: ruled out per WP:SPS, #3 Op-Ed - opinion of one person, #4 Op-ed same) - all in all WP:POV with a good sprinkling of WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, your ability to ignore objective data and valid references is impressive. Regarding my references:

1. In what way does "the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis" not fit my summary points?
2. All fixed. Replaced with a more direct source. My bad.
3. An op ed from a major news outlet carries the same weight as a posting at RealClimate in terms of being WP:WEIGHT (more so, in fact, for political commentary).
4. Same.

--GoRight (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So now your #1 and #2 cite the exact same source - which has been covered elsewhere... #3 Err.. is a major news outlet? (It has a circulation of 50.000) #4 it is still a single persons opinion. Realclimate has nothing to do with this - and hasn't been used in this discussion at all - you are mixing things. And not to be repetitive (although i am) - you are pulling this completely out of proportion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you confused? #1 is a reference from Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter at TimesOnline and the quote in question is NOT from the court decision. #2 is from Mr Justice Burton in the court decision itself. #3 and #4 are from reputable sources. As I said, I can find more, but this should be sufficient to make my point as long as we are actually engaged in a good faith discussion. --GoRight (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No - i'm not confused, are you? Try reading #1 again (hint: Its Mr. Justice Barton who is cited for this - and who is he? ;-)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're definitely confused. The #1 reference is a piece written by Lewis Smith describing the court decision and in some cases providing direct quotes from Mr Justice Burton, but the entire piece is not Mr Justice Burton's work. The phrase I quote above (i.e. "the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis") does not appear in the court ruling. Go check. The key here, is that in the #1 article the author uses the customary notation of including quotations from Mr. Justice Burton within quotation marks (i.e. ""). The parts outside of those are the author's words and opinions. --GoRight (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A more full quote is:

Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

(sigh) Notice the introduction to the section? Guess why Barton is invoked first? Its a paraphrase by the journalist - but still directly attributed to Barton. If you are going to cherry-pick, at least be honest about it - Ok? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not find your comment to be in line with WP:AGF or WP:CIV. I have cherry picked nothing. The entire article is a work of its author and no one else. --GoRight (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Its a cherry-pick because its apparent that you picked the quote for its wording, and have ignored the context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, well for the sake of this discussion let's just pretend I gave you three examples instead of four. Better now? --GoRight (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, I'll even give you a replacement like the magic number 4 means something here:

An Inconvenient Truth: The former vice president worries about the state of political discourse.:

"Even as a citizen activist, however, free from the burdens of office and campaigning, Gore nearly always manages to sound like Gore. His documentary film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," is sophisticated, provocative and in many ways convincing. But it is also smug and self-centered, and its failure to consider even moderately differing points of view serves to alienate skeptics rather than to persuade them."

Can we move on now? --GoRight (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on removing Google data

Removing talk page content that is clearly relevant to improving the article is a gross violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette. I don't want to make personal attacks, but I'd expect better from an administrator. There is no reason in the world this should be removed, and frankly it is a slap in the face to the editors that worked hard on that section. Why should any of us be in the business of removing the contributions that others make to the talk page? Oren0 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 - everything is still on Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Some_Google_Queries_to_Provide_Objective_Data_on_Purported_Levels_of_Controversy where exactly the same information was copied. There is no reason to keep the exact same discussion in 2 places. (Nb: if i'm not mistaken - i count 3 admins as removing that section). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that it's relevant in both articles. Any time someone tries to bring up AIT at Talk:TGGWS or vice versa, you're always one of the first people to jump up and say that we should keep the treatment of these articles separate. Since it's relevant to both articles, I don't see why it can't be in both places. Also, I don't see why this shouldn't have been discussed on the talk page before being reverted back and forth 15 times. Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly i find that discussion irrelevant on both articles - its an attempt to use google to prove point. But unfortunately that point isn't as simple. (it btw. might have been, if it had been possible to sort away blog postings and other false positives). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to not participate in the discussion if you find it irrelevant. Others are particpating and your attempts an censoring the discussion in light of your repeated calls to discuss things on their respective pages is quite telling. --GoRight (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given my input on your WP:GOOGLE attempts - it was just on the previous attempt. But you can mostly find my opinion in the same corner as Stephan's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)