Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Poor Grammar

A second paragraph of the article has several English grammatical errors. There does not appear to be any way to edit this paragraph.

You may not be able to edit this page because it is semi-protected to prevent vandalism. That means that unregistered users (IP's) and new accounts under five days old may not edit the page. But no matter, if you tell us what you want to replace it with, I am sure someone will gladly replace it. Nschoem 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments on proposed changes to The Great Global Warming Swindle section

This line appears to sound biased and disparage the group involved with The Great Global Warming Swindle: …”brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming.” It has been suggested that line be changed to read “brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the scientific opinion on climate change regarding human-caused global climate change” The second line reads as less biased and presents the same info while providing a link for the reader to find out more information on the prevailing consensus, how it was reached, and by who exactly. It has been suggested that this change would be more encyclopedic 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 08:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Had another thought on this. I’m not sure if this is proper procedure to add this here, I’m still a little new :-) I think the line sounds bad also because I’m sure that there disagreement is not with the “prevailing consensus”, it’s the science they’re disagreeing with. Like I said before, I have no problem with using the term “prevailing consensus” all over in the article, it’s just this one line that seems to marginalize and disparage the group it’s describing. Sounds a little weasel wordy to me, that’s all. I appreciate you guys taking the time to comment and thank you for your constructive input. :-) Elhector 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd support for the first line. I think it more accurately portrays the issue at hand. After lots of debate, the Global Warming article has ended up using the term "consensus". The American Association for the Advancement of Science calls it a consensus, the UN Academy of Science calls it a consensus, the Joint Science Academies call it a consensus, the American Meteorologic Society calls it a consensus, and so on. Softer language may appeal to people on a thorny issue, but going by the standard of verifiability, I think the term to use is "consensus". I hold the same judgement concerning the word "warming" instead of "climate change", since the "consensus" about climate change is for warming. -- Rei 15:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is the language that's commonly used in the literature and by scientific groups. The word consensus does not imply that there is no disagreement (there is some amount of dissent, but its amount is debatable), but rather that there is general agreement in the scientific community. Numerous scientific groups and articles use the term consensus to describe current scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming. If you really think there should be a source next to consensus, that's easy enough. Since that's the common language used, it's the language that should be used here. Oren0 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will remain neutral on this. I think the term "prevailing consensus" can be easily cited and used because of the IPCC's summary release in 2007 saying human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. At the same time, the second line does just as well because it leads to an article that says exactly this. Personal bias would have me favour the first line, but this is not the place for this. I'd say either sentence equally passes the NPOV policy, and therefore I remain neutral. -- Reaper X 03:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the first line as well. From the outside looking in, I would have to say that the use of the word consensus is wholly justified, seeing as it IS the consensus (otherwise the group in question wouldn't be called "skeptics," would they?). However, the word "prevailing seems unneeded and redundant, and only seems to have use as a weasel word. --Tao of tyler 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes prevailing seems redundant and weaselly. Remove prevailing, keep consensus. Berserkerz Crit 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I second. -- Reaper X 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I third (?). Seems fair to me. Oren0 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd concur. Voice-of-All 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes me fifth, but I would like to see it cited, if only to decrease the chance of it being changed because somebody else comes along in a month and likes a different word better. They might hesitate if it means removing a source. Pairadox 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been on vacation for a bit so I'm just now getting back and taking a look at what's been happening over here. To tell you the truth, I'd support the idea of just removing the word prevailing as well at this point. I'm pretty sure my original idea isn't going to go over so at least removing the word prevailing will make it sound a little less POV. Let's leave this up for a few another day or so and see if anyone else has an opinion. Elhector 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

From the footnote in my first comment:

Cheers. -- Reaper X 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the word "prevailing" from the line per everyone's suggestions above. As far as I'm concerned this issue is put to bed. Should I remove the RfC template from this page now? I'm not really sure what the proper procedure is at this point. Elhector 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list." Done. Cheers. -- Reaper X 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of date information.

Hello, I hope all is well. The first bullet under the section Political Response, subsection Education is no longer factually accurate or up to date.[[1]] While I would normally follow WP:BB, I don't want to be reckless given that the environment is such a highly polarized issue. Would the editors who normally watch and keep this page up to date, please correct that. If I don't see the correction within the next 24 hours or so, I'll go ahead and edit it myself. Cheers! --SimpleParadox 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It would have been reverted - since the verdict isn't there yet. Its due in a week. What a judge may have or may not have said to a newspaper is not binding - nor is it relevant here. I suggest that you await the ruling. --Kim D. Petersen 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, Mr. Petersen. I am in no hurry as I'm quite sure the judge would not be lying to the newspaper about his upcoming ruling next week. Cheers! --SimpleParadox 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The information is not just "out of date," it is actively misleading. In fact, the High Court found that it included at least 11 invalid contentions, including one that appears to be wholesale fabrication. The High Court found that school children must be advised that the film is politically biased, does not present both sides of the issue, and each of the 11 innacuracies must be specifically pointed out to the students. (See, e.g., http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html; http://talkclimatechange.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=166; http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/10/04/uk-court-said-schools-must-warn-bias-inconvenient-truth). This fact is burried as a mere caveat in the very last sentence of this tiny sub-section of this article--and one with an innocuous title, no less. It should be stated clearly and openly, in a section with a title that makes clear that the "response" was, in fact, a judicial determination that the film is not properly considered a documentary, but, rather, a piece of political advocacy. User: QBeam 4:26 EDT, 10 Oct. 2007

Controversial

Here are some links and quotes from media articles noting this film being controversial:

• 'An Inconvenient Truth' film causes controversy[2]
• [3]
• Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.[4]
• This is the Web site for Al Gore's controversial movie, An Inconvenient Truth. While that may turn some people off, the carbon calculator is the easiest to use of all the online calculators sampled.[5]
• Saul says that these books and the runner-ups were chosen to give new students an insight into college-level reading material. Each one contains some level of material relating to high-profile issues or controversies with An Inconvenient Truth focusing on global warming.[6]
• In "What's Up with the Weather?" NOVA and FRONTLINE join forces to investigate the science and politics of one of the most controversial issues of the 21st century: the truth about global warming. [7]
• This session introduces the controversial issue of cliamte change. You will analyze data to determine if and how the climate is changing, learn about personal causes of climate change, and identify other information you will need to defend your opnion about global warming.[8]

So, Whats the issue here with noting this film's Controversial Nature?--65.107.88.154 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Describing it as controversial shouldn't be. There are enough mainstream criticism with reliable source that is ideologically opposed to it to describe it as such. --DHeyward 06:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, this is clearly an attempt to manufacture controversy. Nobody seriously dispute the scientific accuracy of the film (It's may not be 100% accurate on every point, but it's pretty close). I have restored the old intro. Raul654 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at everything written about this film here and everywhere else. It is certainly controversial. And to say nobody seriously disputes the scientific accuracy of the film is also incorrect. Here is an example:

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html

This happens all the time. There are plenty of people who question it. I also would like to remind you that calling the film controversial by no means questions the accuracy of the film. For example, the upcoming film Valkyrie is already causing controversy because Tom Cruise is playing the role of someone who many consider a hero for trying to kill Hitler. Tom Cruise is a scientologist and Scientology is not well regarded in Germany where the film is being shot. The fill clearly is/will be controversial, but that doesn't mean that it will not portray what happened in a historically correct way. Same goes for An Inconvenient Truth. The film definitely is controversial regardless of whether or not the science is accurate in the film. Al Gore is a controversial guy and he tends to carry that controversy into any project he works on. I guess to some it up, calling the film "controversial' does not mean that the film itself is wrong, it just means many people have strong feelings one way or another about it. Also the fact that the film was released on 05/24/2006 and is still generating plenty of headlines and debate in the public arena is another reason to consider it controversial.Elhector 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Raul, you are mistaking the controversy about the film with facts presented in the film. Regardless of the veracity, the film has been met by controversy. To wit, the lawsuit in the UK, the finding by the court and most recently the comments by CNN's meteorologist. The film is controversial because of it's presenter, political overtones, conclusions, etc, etc,. Even if it's content is sound and well referenced, it's still controversial. --DHeyward 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are relying on the findings of the court, then please wait for them - the Daily Mail is horribly biased, but reading the article makes it clear that the case has not yet been decided William M. Connolley 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think whether or not this film is controversial hinges on this court case. Elhector 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Daily-Mail describes it as "controversial." That's the basis for the claim. It's hard to fathom that with this much opposition, it's not "controversial" regardless of the merits. --DHeyward 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you are shifting your ground: your previous rationale was: To wit, the lawsuit in the UK, the finding by the court and most recently the comments by CNN's meteorologist - now your rationale is the Daily Mail, it would seem. Please be clear which one you mean - your earlier comments seemed quite clear, though William M. Connolley 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mail is the reliable source that made the assessment that it is controversial. It seems rationale based on the separate accounts. There is controversy about the film even if the science is sound. I am not sure how you can deny this considering all the controversy that's been reported. --DHeyward 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is already a tag at the top of this page stating the subject is controversial. If that along with the debate here doesn't prove that it's controversial i don't know what else will :-) Elhector 23:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some searching and am up to 20 different sources calling the film controversial and counting. Sources include ABC News, Fox News, several state and local newspapers, several college papers (I'm less inclined to use these as a source though, college newspapers have issues with reliability sometimes.). Some of them deal with a situation that I was unaware of. Aparently the film has been banned from showing in a school district in Washington do to parental outcry. Would it be helpful if I post all these sources here for everyone to review? I'm finding plenty of sources calling it controversial. None of them are really questioning the science, they're just explaining how the film is causing controversy all over the place. Elhector 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. The film itself is controversial despite it's scientific merits. It fosters debate of opposing viewpoints which is the definition of controversy. --DHeyward 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That a film raises controversy and debate is not the same as saying that the film is controversial. There are quite a few uncontroversial films that have raised controversy. The question regarding whether or not the movie should be labeled controversial is one of WP:WEIGHT. The viewpoint that it raises some controversial items is already in the lead with the last sentence: "Global warming skeptics have criticized the film, calling it "exaggerated and erroneous".[7][8]" - placing it as the anon has is WP:Undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen 01:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A mention of the controversy caused by the film is justified, but putting it in the lead gives the controversy too much emphasis.THD3 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The film IS controversial. There is controversy about showing this specific film, not it's content. That's why the film is being challenged in court and challenged by skeptics. The content may be just as controversial but that does not change the controversial nature of the film itself. Al Gore, for example, is challenged as a political figure, not a scientist. That is a source of the controversy. It is not the content. The film itself is controversial and is just as defining of the film as "academy award winning". --DHeyward 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"There is controversy about" /= "The film is controversial". To take your school issue: If the film had never been proposed presented in schools then this controversy wouldn't have happened. It is the showing of the film in a particular location that is gathering some controversy - Not the film itself.--Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're dancing on the head of a pin. Why it is controversial is not the issue. A partisan politician presenting science with political implications is generally controversial especially when the claim is that it is "science" and not politics. This is why it is controversial in schools and it's why it's controversial in general. --DHeyward 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems CO missed the memo. GreenJoe 02:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I must of read this thread thrice. This film is controversial. Period. No one is debating the scientific value of the page in the lead, it's simply stating a fact that the film has been controversial. You don't need to look far to figure this out. Google "inconvenient truth controversy". Carbon Monoxide 03:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring what the others are saying about WP:WEIGHT, and that it's not the film but the content that is controversial. GreenJoe 03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversial nature of the film, and the fact that there is still controversy about it long after it was released (stil being talked about as being inaccurate[9] even today help to illustrate exactly why it should be labled controversial directly in the opening... Much like other controversial GLobal Warming related media[10] as well as AIT talking spicifically about items listed in the wikiarticle Global warming controversy. If AIT was not talking about anything in the article Global warming controversy, then I can see why all those may not believe it to be controversial.--68.115.80.156 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that the documentary is controversial, comparing it to another unrelated documentary is not a basis for applying the label here. TGGWS is controversial not because of the stance it takes, but because of the methodology used to produce it. One of the graphs had a faulty time scale which interpreted 1980's data to extend until the end of the century, and another scientist's interview was taken out of context to make him appear to be a skeptic of global warming when he in fact was a firm believer. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that call AIT controversial, and the movie in itself has generated controversy (viewings in schools, etc.). This argument has been done before at least once (in the archives somewhere). The controversies are notable and should be mentioned in the lead-in per WP:LEAD. It's not giving Undue weight because numerous sources mention the controversies. Oren0 02:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And there is a significantly larger number of "numerous sources" that do not call AIT controversial, or say the exact opposite. (if one goes by the WP:GOOGLE argument from above and examines the results - then a significant number says just the opposite) This makes it a WP:WEIGHT issue. The controversies are notable - and are mentioned in the text - and is mentioned in the lead as well. The film itself is rather uncontroversial seen from a WP:WEIGHT point of view - but there are some controversies raised by the movie that are significant, and which are mentioned in both the text, and summerized in the lead. --Kim D. Petersen 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The film must be controversial amongst reliable sources pertaining to it for Wikipedia to define it as controversial. Passion is actually controversial amongst theologians, and indeed was sold as such. If all topics that a vocal minority of partisans disagree with are controversial then most anything is controversial. Chris Cunningham 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

I'm not happy with the prot: this is largely warring by anons, and could be solved by semi-protection William M. Connolley 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. GreenJoe 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Warring by anons with registered users. It's not fair to protect it so the anons can't edit. It's a content dispute, not generic vandalism. Carbon Monoxide 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think just a semi-protection would be better. That way anons won't be able to edit and we can enforce the 3 revert rule. I think that would cut down on the edit warring long enough to finish up the conversation here on the subject.Elhector 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not anons - one single anon using two IPs [11] who I previously blocked for POV pushing. Raul654 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)]

It's not POV pushing, it's a content dispute. A block for edit warring, yes, for POV pushing, no. Carbon Monoxide 00:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In addation to the fact that Raul's block was swiftly un-done, noting that it is not a POV issue[12]. Perhaps you Raul should review wiki policy as to what is POV and what is not... based on your edits in the past, you do seam to have difficulty with this.--68.115.80.156 03:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also noting that though you don't believe this issue to be controversial saying that "Nobody seriously dispute the scientific accuracy of the film"[13] however CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano thinks you are incorrect.[14] stating “There are definitely some inaccuracies. The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming." but then again, you probably don't agree with CNN now, thats not very accurate of a source is it? amazing thing this YouTube...--68.115.80.156 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed, look at source 1, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906652/posts source 2], source 3, source 4, etc. Carbon Monoxide 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And again with the WP:WEIGHT. Plenty of cable news bobbleheads disagree with evolution; is that "controversial. Period"? Chris Cunningham 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Factual and controversial are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is controversial even though it is well supported by fact. See Scopes_monkey_trial and tell me that wasn't controversial. Based upon your analogy I think the word controversial is a an apt way to describe this movie. If it generates controversy, its controversial.Dman727 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My analogy was specifically intended to highlight Wikipedia's problem where topics which conflict with the point of view of the American right wing are labelled as "controversial" as a euphemism for "factually challenged". That the Earth orbits the Sun was controversial at one point, but it turns out that the complaints of the Papacy in the seventeenth century are not, in fact, worth tagging such a claim as "controversial" even thought the complainee was very notable in itself. The term "controversial" is, as per discussion here, obviously to be avoided for this reason per POV concerns. Chris Cunningham 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, we are so critical of the american right wing but yet not critical here of the environmentalists who stand to gain the most from this topic? We are not critical of things that conflict with the point of view of the American left wing? I don't understand the longing for those who remove a controversial tag from a controversial item... other then for them to hope that others don't see it as controversial, but without error?--66.242.90.65 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have made a false comparison. This isn't "Global Warming" or science at all. It is a publication by a partisan politician using hollywood to market a political idea. It surrounds itself with science and it may be factually accurate. But it is not scientists presenting scientific fact. It is a politician trying to achieve a political goal. A better analogy would be Intelligent Design proponents using John Ashcroft to host a film on the science of intelligent design (or evolution for that matter) and trying to get it shown as curricula in schools. It would highlight the controversy. Today, a John Aschcroft film on Intelligent Design or Evolution would be controversial. Flat-earth used to be controversial. It is no longer. Eugenics used to be non-controversial "science" too. Public opinion changes. AIT is controversial now for a lot of reasons, the least reason is it's science. Maybe in 50 years it will be either quaint or prophetic. But htat has no bearing on it's assessment today. --DHeyward 05:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to conflate creationism and global warming as often as you want. Oh, and I heard Gore was in Futurama; that makes it a "controversial" show now, right, what with Gore's involvement in anything automatically making it controversial? Chris Cunningham 09:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, only Gore's involvement in science. He's a partisan politician, not a scientist. Historically, we can compare global warming to the science of eugenics and the politicians that made slick propaganda pieces advocating the politics of it if you like. --DHeyward 17:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, eugenics is definitely comparable to global warming. I'm going to disengage from this conversation now while I still have some faith in humanity. Chris Cunningham 08:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Historically, it is comparable as it was largely accepted as fact by scientific community and politicians adopted polcies based on the science. --DHeyward 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the propaganda advocating eugenics, and get back to us. In the mean time, there are 4 sources that show this topic's controversy. can we please get over the need for the environmentalists here to limit what is displayed to things that only help their cause?--207.250.84.10 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you tone down the name-calling. I'm not an environmentalist - but i still have to point out that the issue on the table is WP:WEIGHT not sources. --Kim D. Petersen 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point (split section)

I think you're all missing the point. The film IS controversial. Look at the controversy that's being generated above :-P Calling the film controversial does nothing to question it's scientific accuracy. I think this whole arugment is getting silly and out of hand. Can anyone explain to me what damage is done by calling the film controversial in the article? Are we supposed to ignore the constant arguing about this film that goes on in society? Are we supposed to just pretend that this film has been accpeted as gospil by everyone who's ever viewed it and that no one has had a differing opinion? Can we honestly ignore that fact that this movie stirs the passions in both sides of the argument? To be honest with you I think refusing to call this film controversial relegates the film to non-importance. The film was meant to be controversial to begin with. It was meant to make people argue, debate, and discuss the issue. What would be the point of even making the film if everyone already agreed with it's premise. This film was not made to preach to the choir, that's pointless and wouldn't help the cause. It was made to show people what some members of the political and scientific communities believe will be the consequences of our lifestyle. It was meant to educate people who weren't aware of these idea's and to change the minds of the non-believers. To do this without stiring up at least a little contoversy would be impossible. Plus lets remember that in the end one of the other major purposes of a films release is to make money. Films are profit driven. If a film won't make money you're going to find a hard time finding funding to make the film. People want a return on there investment. Controversy is one hell of a great way to get a film to make money. Controversy sells. Look at The Passion of the Christ. That film was more than controversial and Mel Gibson is now sitting and laughing atop a huge pile of money because of it ;-). Seriously, let's put all this partisan bickering aside and just recognize the film for what it is. Let's make this article accurate. Elhector 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The film must be controversial amongst reliable sources pertaining to it for Wikipedia to define it as controversial. Passion is actually controversial amongst theologians, and indeed was sold as such. If all topics that a vocal minority of partisans disagree with are controversial then most anything is controversial. Chris Cunningham 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point you're trying to make but I have to respectfully disagree with you. I look at it this way. If you walk into a room full of let's say 100 randomly selected people and say "What did you guys think of the film The Lion King no one will probably have much of an opnion further then I liked it or I didn't like it. There were a few people that felt the film was controversial because they felt the characters Pumba and Timone (the warthog and the meercat) were portrayed as a gay couple and felt that was inappropriate for a childrens movie. So there was a small controversy with the film that made national news but I highly doubt in our room of 100 people anyone is going to remember the conroversy or disucss it. Now let's take this same group of people and ask them "What did you guys think of the film An Inconvenient Truth?" I'm willing to bet after asking this quetions some in the group would say the liked the film and agree with it and another group would say they hated the film and disagreed with it. At this point the room would probably degrade into a huge argument, then a shouting match full of name calling, and lastly possible sectarian violence  :-P See what I'm saying. This film has really shaken up the global warming debate and caused much discussion and arguing all over the place due to it's controversial nature. Like I said before I think leaving out the fact that the movie has been controversial portrays it in an inaccurate light. I'm not saying we should call it controversial because some people disagree with, I'm saying we should call it controversial because of the large debate it has created in the public forum. We can't deny that this film has increased the amount and veracity of debate on the subject. Elhector 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as being particularly true, especially not from a global viewpoint. Insofar as the use of "controversial" can (and is) seen as a euphemism for "possibly false" when pertaining to the film (it's the subject matter, i.e. global warming itself, which is controversial, rather than anything about the film itself, irrational Gore-hatred aside), we should avoid using this adjective in the article's lead sentence unless the implication (i.e. falsehood) is well-sourced. Chris Cunningham 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I have to respectfully disagree with you. The statement "Men are generally physically stronger then women" is considered a controversial statement in regards to the idea that women and men are equal. It is however a true statement for the most part. Even though the statment is "controversial" it's still a true statement. Know what I mean? Elhector 23:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" does not address truth[[15]]:

1. Of, producing, or marked by controversy: a controversial movie; a controversial stand on human rights.

2. Fond of controversy; disputatious.

I think that Elhector has a good point. If the movie wasn't controversial, it probably would not even be notable. Rather it would simply be another also ran on the Discovery channel or PBS. Its it controversial nature that has garnered attention for the movie. As for those who want to use alternate definitions of words, I'm not sure what to suggest. This movie isn't just another flick. Its entire purpose is to incite controversy about climate change and there are RS's that endorse it as such. But go ahead and demote the film as a non-controversial also ran if it suits your political purpose. Dman727 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know we're on the same side on this thing, but simmer down a little :-) Let's try and avoid bringing politics into this. I know that can be hard to do but it's necessary if we ever hope to settle arguments like this one. Remember to assume good faith :-) Elhector 21:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it isn't a vocal minority that consider the film controversial. Your reasoning that "controversial" equals "possibly false" is specious. The science of global warming is not particularly controversial. No one has asked that the journal "Nature" be removed from public libraries. Yet, when a politician politicizes science, alarm bells are sounded in peoples psyche for a variety of reasons. This is the main source of controversy. It has nothing to do with the truth of the material. POliticians injecting themselves into science is practically the definition of controversial. It's true when they inject themselves into evolution, it was true when they injected themselves into eugenics and it's true when they inject themselves into global warming. This doesn't change just because you may agree with them. --DHeyward 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you two are doing anything to convince me on this one. This notion that science is somehow controversial in itself might well have been true in the seventeenth century, but not now. The idea that AIT wouldn't have won anything at the Oscars if it hadn't been about a "controversial" subject (i.e. that documentaries on other - what, safe? - subjects are consigned to PBS) is specious, and the statement "POliticians injecting themselves into science is practically the definition of controversial" is just entirely groundless.

Again, you're not addressing what we're saying. Look at it this way. If AIT was made by someone else besides Al Gore this would all be different. If you took that film and replaced Al Gore with me no one would care about the film. It could be the same film, same science, and same script. Identical frame for frame and word for word. The fact that it's me narrating it (a complete nobody in the grand scheme of things) no one would care. No one would see the film. No one would be arguing about it. It wouldn't have won any awards. There wouldn't even be a Wikipedia article on it. Throw Al Gore in the mix and it becomes controversial. Why? Because Al Gore is controversial. Every time Al Gore gets into an SUV or private plane or even farts it’s automatically headline news and everyone is calling him a hypocrite for making the film and then not following it. This piled with the multiple school districts arguing over whether or not to show the film in schools (the situation in the UK and the situation in the Federal Way school district here in the US are just 2 examples.), scientists demanding there names be removed from the many of the reports used in the film, meteorologist and scientists from organizations like NASA and CNN among other questioning the film, and the constant headlines this film still receives just add to the controversy. Adding controversy to the article does nothing to question the science. Please don't bring the science up in the film in your arguments again. It's not getting us anywhere. We're not discussing that here. We're trying to point out, accurately I might add, that the film does stir up much controversy and debate all over the place. You keep using the science argument when that's not what we're talking about which is why this debate continues. You have got to agree this movie is controversial. I mean, have you not read the news and articles everyday on this thing. Even if you agree with film 1000% you should still be able to agree that people argue over it. That's all we're trying to get across here. Elhector 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While "controversial" does not address truth, it certainly questions it, even if only implicitly. As there's nothing here which isn't truthful, labelling the subject as "controversial" serves no purpose other than to appease those ideologically opposed to it. Chris Cunningham 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your argument. See my example above. Does calling the statement "Men are generally physically stronger than women" controversial question the accuracy of the statement? No it doesn'tElhector 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are creating a strawman argument. No one said science was controversial. No one except you seems interested in the seventeeth century. The issue is the politics of science ARE controversial. Whether it's politicians injecting themselves into evolution, which is sound science but a controversial political topic or eugenics which was considered sound science until World War II when politicians actually proved it was harmful. Global warming science is very sound. Al Gore making pitches for it, however, is political and controversial. --DHeyward 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain to me once again what exactly it is that makes Gore's presence controversial? Gore isn't a politician, he's an environmental activist, and I would imagine that most presentations about global warming are given by activists. I've yet to hear an argument which explains why Gore's involvement is controversial from anyone higher up the food chain than those who insist that environmental activists should be taking cold baths for the cause. Chris Cunningham 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Al Gore and politician. It is very difficult to WP:Assume Good Faith on your part, when you are clearly unwilling to focus on the content and rather make snide comments about various contributers instead. Controversy is defined as a "debate, discussion of opposing opinions"[16] while controversial is defined as "arousing controversy."[17] Nowhere within either of these definitions is truth, fact, or consensus implicitly or explicitly mentioned. This film arouses debate and/or discussion of opposing opinions. It is therefore, by definition, controversial and should be designated as such. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not arouse debate and/or discussion to any degree further than the underlying concept of global warming, which is itself not labelled as controversial. I have argued several times now that the dictionary definition of the term is inappropriate here due to WP:CONTROVERSY's insistence on ensuring that minority opinions are not given undue weight. As for making this personal, my apportioning of responsibility for the "controversial" label upon detractors of Gore is no different from said detractors' insistence that Gore's inclusion indicates controversy, and it is difficult to argue with the latter without drawing comparison to the former. Chris Cunningham 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying this film generates no debate or arugment in any forum? Also, do you really believe adding one word to the article would "give undue weight to a minority opinion"? I've heard the pen is mightier then the sword, but i don't think one word is going to change the entire tone of the article and give weight to anything. That's really besides the point though. We're not adding the word "controversial" to denote there is another side. The word is being added to correctly indentify the fact that this film stirs up passions and news headlines. You're still failing to address the actual issue here. Basically, either the film is not controversial which would mean there is little or no news, debate, or argument over it or it is controversial and there is a healthy amount of news, debate and argument over it. It is what it is. Are you saying this movie hasn't stirred any passions, generated news headlines, debate or argument? I guess I just don't understand how you could think that it doesn't do any of these things. The word "controversial" is not a negative term and does not question anything about the film. Do you believe the word "controversial" is negative? I'm just trying to get a feel for what your side of the issue actually is. Elhector 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reset Indent

I appreciate your response, Mr. Cunningham, but the premise that the film as presented and the science are one and the same is inaccurate. Your citation of WP:CONTROVERSY and your mention of WP:WEIGHT are inappropriate when considering the context. No editor is asking that we "give equal validity" to a minority view/opinion. The mere statement of the existence of controversy does not nearly equal the the body of text within the article espousing the majority/consensus view. In fact here is the exact text of WP:WEIGHT that is pertinent to this discussion:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

Again, I reiterate that the description of the film as controversial (a single word that I have demonstrated does not implicitly or explicitly call into question the "truth" of anything), which can and has been attributed to a reliable source, is proportionate to the prominence of the view espoused by the minority in this case. I will be happy to posit (as I am operating under WP:AGF) that the alleged "detractors of Gore" are making a flawed argument when stating that the word controversial should appear in the article only because Mr. Gore is involved. My contention has little to do with Mr. Gore's involvement and much to do with the fact that a topic is controversial if it arouses as much debate or discussion of differing view points as this film has (reliably sourced, of course). Elhector, has of course eloquently stated a similar opinion to mine, as I was writing my own. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If we enter into your specific viewpoint, then you are not following WP:NPOV, or WP:LEAD. To state that the movie is controversial is presenting a minority viewpoint outside of its relative WP:WEIGHT. The controversies that have been mentioned are minor, and do not in general reflect back on the movie itself. For instance on the school issue, its the choice of locality, rather than the movie (and a minor issue), with regards to the science its easy to establish that the critique and controversy stem from a minority view, and with regards to the policy implications, its a debate issue not a controversy (otherwise all politicians and political views are ipso facto controversial). Demonstrate first within the article that the movie is controversial to more than a minority - and then it can be discussed whether or not it belongs in the lead. Finally that this movie should be controversial is very much a U.S. centric view. (again WP:WEIGHT). --Kim D. Petersen 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, calling the film controversial does nothing to push a specific viewpoint. Also, you've failed to demonstrate how 1 word would give undue weight to anyhing in an article that is already full of plenty of information pointing out that the viewpoint against the film is a minority viewpoint. Again though, we're not dealing with viewpoints here. Calling the film "controversial" accurately describes the amount of press, argument, and debate. Calling the film "controversial" speaks nothing of the viewpoints for or against the movie. Plenty of reliable sources have called the film controversial while still praising it's scientific accuracy. One does not preclude the other here. I'm finding it really hard to assume good faith here when all the arguments against adding this descriptor are so concerned about the films accuracy comming into judgement. That's not what we're doing here. All we're trying to do is accurately portray the fact that this film has made quite a large "splash" since it came out. You honestly have never encountered any debates or arugments when reading about or discussing this film? Do you deny that this movie has generated a lot of press and stired passions on both sides of the aisle? If you reply to this please address the specific arguments and questions I have posted here and try to avoid simply quoting wiki guidlines and using the arguments "disagreement with this film is a minority viewpoint" and "no legitimate source has called the science of the film into question". We're fully aware that this viewpoint is minority. We're not dealing with the viewpoints themselves here. We're just trying to document all of the rancor, debate, passions, and arugments this film has generated. Elhector 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to be speaking from a pure U.S. centric viewpoint "stired passions on both sides of the aisle?".. which aisle? Yes i've encountered plenty of debates and arguments, but debate /= controversial. Arguments /= controversial. And i've also noted that this particular viewpoint is rather limited. There are a number of reliable sources saying that the movie is controversial - and much larger number (order of magnitude or more) who just consider it non-controversial. Putting this into the first sentence in the lead - is putting a minority viewpoint to undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should clarify a little. By both sides of the aisle I mean both sides of the global warming debate. I'm not talking about political parties or anything. I would like to restate though that we're not talking about viewpoints here, just sheer volume of debate, argument, passions, and press. That is controversy. I wish I could find this interview that I saw with Al Gore that he gave when the film was initially released. In the interview he said he hopped the film would stir up quite a bit of controversy because that would just help the cause and end in a Pyrrhic victory for the other side in general. The problem is I saw the clip of the interview on E! I think so I doubt I'm going to be able to find it. But I think it would demonstrate the point we're trying to make here beautifully. Everyone against this keeps viewing the word "controversial" as a negative which I think is just short sighted. Controversy is a good thing for these kind of causes. I mean it's clear that the only reason this film has made it to where it is today is precisely because of the controversy it's left in it's wake. Elhector 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No sheer volume doesn't make controversy. Are you aware of the sheer volume of debate and argument over (insert favorite religion/political party here)? How about tagging every religion/political party as controversial? By your argument this is what we should do. And frankly it doesn't fly. --Kim D. Petersen 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a few more thoughts concerning you're post above. You state that the controversies have been minor. This would seem to be negated by the sheer volume of press and debate out there about this film. Also you state that calling the film controversial is "a U.S. centric view". I'm not sure I understand this statement. One of the controversies being used in the arugments here is in the UK. Also I know that more then a few scientists and politicians from other coutries have taken issue with the film. There was one guy in particular that stands out in my mind. I need to find the news story but it was like the leader of Latvia or something. I'll find it. I thought it was funny at the time because I was thinking to myself "Who cares what this guy has to say!" but in all reality his point of view is just as important as people and leaders/politicians from the US. so, to tell you the truth I would venture to say that ignoring these things is a very US centric viewpoint. Elhector 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no "aisle" in the "global warming debate" across which this film is controversial, as has been demonstrated by the article's (sourced) indication that the accredited bodies which broadly represent scientific consensus amongst the environmental community have agreed that the film's content is factual and plausible. For the rest of your arguments, you're presenting nothing but anecdotal evidence. Your comment that "one of the controversies being used in the arguments here is in the UK" does not indicate that there is "controversy" over the film in the UK; the film's content was and is almost universally accepted as truthful by accredited scientific and media bodies over here (I'm in the UK) and there was no (read: zero) public argument against the film upon its release. Chris Cunningham 00:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This film was not made for the scientific community. It was made for the common person to try and educate them. Now you may be right about there being not much of a debate in the scientific community about the film right now, but there is plenty of debate about it among common people and politicians. That's who this film was made for. I understand that the science behind the film is well sourced in the article. That's not what we're talking about here. As far as you saying there was zero argument among the public in general, the news services and sources from your country would tend to disagree with you. I read new sources from around the world everyday and there has been plenty or rancor and argument from citizens in your country. Either that or the news services in your country are lying to people outside of your country. Why would major news agencies still be covering the waves this film makes if there is nothing to cover? I can't believe you guys are just willing to ignore all this and pretend that 100% of the people who've seen it agree with this film and there is no debate ongoing about it. It makes the article really inaccurate. The only reason this film is even popular is because it's controversial. Do you think if the film wasn't controversial there would be so many books and articles written and movies made arguing against the film? Like I said even if you agree with the film you have to admit it stirs up controversy Elhector 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)