Talk:Planet of the Humans

I removed the proposed deletion tag

This is a movie directed by a famous film director, it was reported on by Associated Press, and reviewed by Daily Kos. The idea that this article should be deleted is preposterous. Lunar Beard (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

False neutrality and POV pushing

Based on the premise alone, it is obvious that this is an anti-environmentalist propaganda piece financed by the oil lobby and promoted by Breitbart, yet the article doesn't go into the details of the false claims and misinformation presented in this film, nor does it cover the extensive debunking of said misinformation by credible sources. This sort of false balance is not up to Wikipedia's standards, and sounds much more like something written by a right wing sockpuppet account. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please add sources to back up the claim that this film was financed by the oil lobby and promoted by Breitbart? I didn't see those things mentioned in the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The oil lobby part i cannot back up, even though it's obvious. "Follow the money" is and always should be one's natural instinct when it comes to climate deniers masquerading as authority. I'm sure the proof is out there and will be presented eventually. As for promotion by Breitbart, that's easy. They must have an article about it, or a post on their twitter account. But there must be more criticism of this blatant propaganda piece. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you even watch the film? It's not pro-environment to cover the world with vast, new machine sprawl, built with the very fuels supposedly being replaced by it. Many people are so stuck on the claim that "renewables" are "fighting fossil fuels" that they refuse to acknowledge how "renewables" are built and show no aesthetic concerns for lost scenery and wildlife (Gemini Solar near Las Vegas is the latest case). Quasi-greens who used to protest structures like ski lifts and cellular towers now make endless excuses for massive wind towers and solar panels already spoiling millions of acres of scenery. They've done a full reversal of their old land ethic, if they ever had one. Even if such blight could magically be constructed with no fossil fuels, it would still be industrial. The whole point of the film was lost on green-techies who find concepts like deep ecology alien, and are all about growthism and the mantra of job-creation on this overpopulated planet. "Clean energy" is just a spinoff of what's conveniently branded as "dirty" to create us-against-them contrast. "Clean" energy people claim to be on a higher ethical level than "dirty" ones, but it's really all dirty and nature is the real loser. https://falseprogress.home.blog/2018/06/24/why-saving-the-planet-is-a-lost-cause/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.118.47 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your POV, but we're trying to edit an article here. If you have any concrete suggestions, hopefully the sort that actually comply with policy, then make them. If you just want to share your views, have you considered Twitter? I'm told that it's good for that. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you claiming that someone who skipped the whole point of the film has no POV? Who gives landscape-change-deniers moral authority to review a documentary about the ills of growthism and energy sprawl? Josh Fox is a good example; he's against fracking but supports wind power that demands natural gas backup and spoils scenery far more overtly. The film annoyed the very people it intended to, but it failed to firmly deliver an anti-growth message, probably because it would have offended a wider swath of denialists. I wish it had covered nuclear power (SMR) as a low-sprawl alternative to Big Wind. There was limited time, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.118.47 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In order to improve the article I would strongly suggest to show approximate calculations (and provide references) of the costs and benefits of each technology on large scale. Calculations should include, for example, ecological & financial costs to generate 1 GigaWatt of power using solar, life cycle or life time of solar panels, efficiency, loss in the grid, etc.. Without the credible calculations we get biased non-neutral movies, and biased non-neutral articles such as the one posted here. Sorry I'm not a renewable energy expect, so cannot help actually edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.59.85 (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In terms of calculations and numbers, as well as a more neutral POTH movie stance, I suggest looking at this website. http://www.energyjustice.net/planet-of-the-humans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.59.85 (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:or and wp:v, we do not do our own calculations, we use RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that documentary producer Michael Moore argues, in Planet of the Humans, that new measures promoted to save the planet are actually endangering it?

5x expanded by various users. Nominated by RTG (talk) at 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

• The article is new enough (expanded) and not plagiarized, but I wonder if the hook (unsourced) is correct. This simple statement is not found in the article, and I worry that saying so in our wiki voice is unjustified WP:SYNTH. Also I am not seeing QPQ review from the nominator (seems required?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's the whole basis of the documentary... That some measures to replace traditional energy with "clean" energy is done in a dirty way. I see no it's already been greatly expanded since I started it. It says now that the central theme of the doc is the use of "biofuel" being a synonym for "burning trees", but in fact it also criticising building and materials... questions like... how do you building thousands and thousands of tonnes of wind farm without burning a lot of coal and oil, and how many plants are built in conjunction with gas plants... I'm lagging behind a bit.. I'll see if I can source that properly, update, and do my QPQ over the weekend and I'll ping you then Piotrus, cheers. ~ R.T.G 03:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• It does actually say, "The film also claims that wind power and solar energy don't fare much better than biomass once all their inputs from fossil fuels are taken into account, and in some cases, pollute more"? Seems to be just a different wording to the hook above? ~ R.T.G 03:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I just saw the film. It's misleading at best to say that Michael Moore argues anything in the film. He executive produced it, but didn't write, direct, or appear in it. It would be more accurate to say something like "... Planet of the Humans, executive produced by Michael Moore, argues that new measures ..." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Good point. I think Jeff Gibbs is the main narrator / POV here. Stll waiting for an acceptable hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Considering how controversial the film has been and how its science claims have been questioned, I would highly suggest that any hook that ends up being used or proposed takes this reception into account and that whatever hook is used adheres to guidelines like WP:FRINGE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• How about instead of saying "...Michael Moore argues..." to just say ALT1 ... that a documentary produced by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, argues that new measures promoted to save the planet are actually endangering it? ~ R.T.G 14:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I claimed to have started the article but I didn't. I started a different article about a documentary around the same time. Planet of the Humans has an article more than six months. It got expanded by various editors after Moore released it free to watch on Youtube a couple of weeks ago. ~ R.T.G 14:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Another comment: while I'm aware that a lot of coverage for the documentary mentions Moore's name due to his involvement, I'm thinking that theoretically him being mentioned in the hook is optional since it's fairly incidental and the subject is the film and its content, not Moore. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moore is a big name in documentaries. He has won higher awards and had more success than any other documentarian. As a boss of the show, it is the hookiest thing to put his name on it. It may be worth adding "Jeff Gibbs" but it would not be worth removing "Michael Moore" in terms of maximising hits. ~ R.T.G 05:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, the goal is not information, but promotion. So no. --Calton | Talk 08:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the rules are at DYK for FRINGE opinions, but the movie has been found so rife with mistakes that the hook above might give more credence than is due. I'm planning (RSI, might not happen) to bring some reputable fact-checks more to the front in the article, maybe we can use some of those instead for a hook? If we want a hook at all. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on past experiences, hooks on articles about fringe topics have been allowed on DYK, provided that the hook itself doesn't make the fringe claim. For example, a hook that goes "that wongo juice is claimed to cure cancer?" would not be allowed, but something like "that alternative medicine producer ACME Corporation has been criticized for claiming that wongo juice can cure cancer?" or "that according to several studies, the popular alternative medicine wongo juice has no effect on the treatment of cancer?" may be allowed. Usually though these hooks going through would depend on the neutrality of the article itself, and there have been cases in the past where nominations were rejected because the articles failed to meet NPOV or the WP:FRINGE guideline. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems currently no consensus about the neutrality of the article, with discussion still raging about how to describe the inaccuraries. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would suggest putting the nomination on hold for now or even failing it, since article instability is considered a point against an article. Of course, that will depend on how the neutrality concerns will play out or if they can be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Article promotion is the specific goal of DYK. Yes it should be neutral. Moore is a key point of the facts about the article. If the hook says, "Michael Moore, who is never wrong..." without quoting that statement as a significant detail from the article, then there would be an undue bias. Saying "...produced by Michael Moore..." is about as neutral as it is possible to get without covering part of the information up. Covering up would be the same as acting out a bias... As for stability... the movie was recently released for free on Youtube. It is going to receive a stream of edits for a while. As the nominator, I haven't done a QPQ yet. I went about halfway through the list a couple of times and sadly I didn't find a review open that wasn't a more significant review than this one. Nominations often sit for months. Please be patient with it both in terms of the stability and the QPQ. In the meantime, I will take a look for the argument on the talkpage and see if I can help with the neutrality. ~ R.T.G 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• There appear to be concerns at the article talk page over the neutrality of the article, as well as article structuring and how to present the claims stated in the documentary; as such, I would recommend that the nomination is not approved until those are addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• RTG, this was nominated over four weeks ago, and you have still not provided a QPQ. That's simply too long a delay. If you want us to be patient, then a QPQ is a must. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• @RTG: Considering the article issues and the lack of a QPQ, if these are not resolved soon, the nomination may be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Per this comment on their talk page by RTG, it seems clear that a QPQ is not forthcoming, and that they have significant issues with the article as currently written. Under the circumstances, I think we have no choice but to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the film's budget. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Article in The New Republic

The New Republic has an article about this documentary here. The first paragraph has high-level observations that should be covered in the article body as well as the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we use this as a source?

I think it's a good and reliable link [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.60.143 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." Kire1975 (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Outdated claims

The line: "The film also claims that wind power and solar energy cannot produce enough energy to save the planet from the climate crisis, and still require fossil fuels due to intermittency." has three citations, but the following line: "The film has been widely critized for its misleading and outdated claims." has zero! This should have citations and be justified or otherwise be removed as unless it links to the movie being debunked it appears as nothing more than wishful thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.95.45 (talk)

I removed "widely" from that sentence because it is presumptuous per WP:NOTE and added a citation needed template because the user who posted the above comment is right. But my reversion was undone by @Calton: for the following reasons "Been there. Done that." Many of those who claim it is misleading and has outdated claims are biased people with vested interests in the environmental movement and green energy industry. In fact, @Femkemilene:, the wikipedian who made the statement, identifies herself as "a PhD candidate on climate variability", e.g. someone who intends on making money from the criticized industry after graduation. The least that can be asked for is adherence to basic manual of style rules and a citation or two supporting the claim that the criticisms are valid. Kire1975 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement has been removed again for the following reason: "wikipedian who contributed this statement works in the climate science industry. has also removed own comments defending the presence of this statement on the talk page. furthermore, widely is presumptuous pursuant to MOS:NOTE and it's only criticized as being misleading and outdated by people who work in the industry being criticized according to all sources" Kire1975 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

wikipedian who contributed this statement works in the climate science industry...

So?

...removed own comments

So?

...and it's only criticized as being misleading and outdated by people who work in the industry being criticized

"Industry"? Way to put your thumb on the scales. Try "subject-matter experts".

Did you have a non-bogus, non-FUD rationale? --Calton | Talk 08:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The user above is asking you for evidence to back up your editing. They do not need to provide rationale, you need to properly cite claims and allow uncited claims to be appropriately deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.203.103 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Calton you do not help yourself appear impartial and unbiased by being obnoxious. I would like the documentary to be debunked so we can switch to solar energy but if there are no credible impartial citations the line just makes the wikipedia article appear like it has a flagrant bias against the movie. It was correct for it to be removed for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.95.45 (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Impartial does not mean what you think it means (and no we do not have to be impartial, read wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's useful to distinguish three groups: industry, which has a profit motive, journalists who can be subject matter experts, but may also write for biased sources, and three: academics, which are often pretty neutral. These last two groups is what we should look for in RS primarily and specialized journalists are preferred over generalists if they both write for good-quality media. My uni doesn't earn a profit from investigating climate, so I don't think it's fair to say it's an industry.

As far as I'm aware, there is near unanimity in those two groups of policy experts that the film used outdated to very outdated video fragments (a 1990s music festival, ~2010 numbers for Germany's energy mix, ~2010 numbers about solar panel efficiency) that don't reflect the current technology. We discuss this, with sources, in the reception section. Per WP:LEAD we don't need to repeat those sources in the lede. As I've got RSI, I'm not keen to do too much, but as it's controversial, it would be good if we go the extra mile and find a summarizing source for the sentence I added. The lede probably needs more sentences that are not linked to the producers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for mentioning the lead. It's a disease all across Wikipedia, where people are adding the most important (read: controversial) claims into lead, then other people absolutely need to counter them for NPOV in exactly the same place. Eventually half of the article is magically rewritten into lead and whatever information you search you hit it in two different versions, one in lead, and the other in the article body. And whatever is added, obviously just needs to be added in these two places. Same story here, let's just have a simple "film is controversial period" or something like that in the lead without any specifics and expand it in the article. Cloud200 (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that would amount to a false balance. I'm okay with phrasing my sentence less strongly, but controversial and contains falsehoods/misleads are two very separate things. Something in the line of: many energy experts/renewables experts/fact checkers have indicated that the film contains outdated or misleading information to avoid the vague passive voice I put in there. A source summarizing the sources in the reception should then be easier to find. (i'm avoiding things I cannot do without speech recogniztion such as finding sources, sorry for that.) Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the phrase I used was an intentional oversimplification for demonstration purposes. I meant anything that indicates the existence of debate without going into specifics of he said/she said, as it immediately triggers the "lead creep". Cloud200 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. I saw this discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard while looking for something else. I think that the main problem with the reception section has to do with it not giving a proper context of the criticism and the debate within climate science and environmentalism. So, Gibbs is basically supporting a degrowth plan and is putting forward a critique about how the use of renewable sources of energy is conceptualized as technological deus ex machina against climate change in the modern environmentalist movement. His connection between population growth and consumption is problematic, but his point there has to do with the connection between individual and collective footprint. Criticism against Gibbs has to do with how the majority in modern environmentalism perceives and defines renewable sources. The reality here is that the debate of what constitutes a renewable source and what not is still very open in climate science and engineering science despite how that debate is portrayed in the media. The readers should be aware of the general framework of debates within which Gibbs makes his case and receives criticism, otherwise the readers are left with a list of sentences about "who said what", which looks rather disjointed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the sources show. Rather, it seems that Gibbs played fast and loose with the facts. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: is absolutely right that the debate on "what exactly classifies as renewable" exists and this is precisely where large part of the controversy surrounding stems from. The renewable energy debate has been driven -- largely by Greenpeace, Greens, WWF -- to a binary opposition between "renewable" and "non-renewable" because this is how media works. Engineering however is never binary because renewable generators such as PV panels or wind turbines are manufactured from mined resources, they use a lot of concrete, metals, transport etc. What should be cost–benefit analysis discussion was turned into a moral fight between "clean" and "dirty"... with quite a predictable outcome when someone decided to use the media attention potential behind the inconvenient question of carbon balance of the renewable energy technologies, which is precisely what "Planet of the Humans" does. Just to be clear, Gore's "Invonvenient Truth" and Fox's "Gasland" were just as "fast and loose" with the facts which was widely ignored by one side as it "served the right cause". This debate is currently reflected in the article to a very minor extent in the See also section so probably we need more links to representative articles on this subject in the Scientific accuracy section. Cloud200 (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception Section

I propose sub-headings in this section to divide the reactions to the film by "Film Critics", "Academics", "Climate Policy Experts", "Activists" and "People Named in the Film", etc. As it is, it's a wall of text and distinctly unclear how "widely" the claims of misleadingness and outdatedness the current last sentence in the second paragraph in the lede is. Ideas for other categories are encouraged. Furthermore, there is no guideline for "Reception" section in WP:MOSFILM. "Critical response" and "Audience response" are the only examples to go by. Perhaps an "Industry Reaction" or "Academic Reaction" or "Activist Reaction", etc. need their own headings. Kire1975 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agreed that the section is a wall of text. I'm not entirely sure whether we can divide the section into the categories you propose, as we might need sources for being able to put people who in these different categories. I think most people are journalists, and you forgot that category. I think we might first have to deal with the controversy section. A good article should not have one of those as it just collects name calling. Instead we should make a new section called factual accuracy, which might also needs some sentences from the reception section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The reception section is mainly just criticism, as is the section on factual accuracy, so I combined the two sections.Jdkag (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Now we're back to the wall of text again. And the film critics have been separated too far from the Rotten Tomatoes score, and it's inappropriate to put the RT score in the release section since it has nothing to do with the way it was released. Per WP:MOSFILM, a "Critical response" subheading is the typical place for film critic reviews. To create a "Critical Response" top-heading and overfill it with critical pages from non-film related opinion pages, editorials, political media, climate specialists and climate activists without separating them from actual film critic reviews gives the appearance that this page is burying anything that isn't in line with the dominant theme that the film is bad, context doesn't matter and everyone should agree or else. Whatever the heading is ultimately to be called, subheadings are needed here. Kire1975 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally discouraged so I renamed it to reception after a second look. At least the text is properly split with paragraphs. Subheadings might be appropriate perhaps. The section about the productor's response initially seemed undue (WP:ABOUTSELF, etc) but considering the amount of criticism it's probably acceptable... —PaleoNeonate – 04:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have created some subheadings and rearranged all the articles into the appropriate subcategories: Film critics, Editorials, Academics, Environmental Journalists, Green Industry, Activists. Kire1975 (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's essential to separate facts (the film's inaccuracies about life cycle assessment f.i., which now suffers from portraying facts as opinions) and opinions about the movie (f.i. it would be neomalthusian). The WP:MOSFILM gives a good solution to this by suggesting a factual accuracy section (their example is historical accuracy). To me, it's unacceptable to just mix the two and creating a he said/she said situation for the bits of the movie we can simply state the fact.

These subsections like film critics, editorials, are arbitrary and we would do better focus on separating facts (no in text attribution needed or desirable, just multiple highly reliable sources if controversial) and opinions (in text attributing necessary), which avoids clutter.

Also remember section titles are normal case, not title case; Environmental journalists instead of Environmental Journalists. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The sentence about life-cycle assessment is now placed under journalism, but is mostly sourced to professors. The fact that both specialist journalists and academics state the same facts, makes clear these subsections are unworkable. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clue about MOSFILM, I agree that "factual accuracy" would be a great name for a related section. This would be similar to "historicity" in myth related articles and is always better than "criticism". —PaleoNeonate – 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

And yes, recent edits also increased WP:FALSEBALANCE, relevant with already mentioned WP:YESPOV... —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: some good work was done since about this, —PaleoNeonate – 11:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing

I did some mostly minor cleanup of the article, but I realize that this is a polarizing, controversial topic, so I just wanted to open up a discussion in case anyone had specific objections. People have killed and died over the Oxford comma, and also over environmental issues. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! I may have accidentily changed something back because of an edit conflict. Hope I managed to make a good mix of our two versions. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any errors, but it's really hard to follow the diffs. It might make more sense to just read the final result and make sure it works. Thanks for your contributions. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I took another pass, making a few small changes, but I don't see any problems. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Critics parrot the claim that this film has "outdated information"

I think "outdated information" is a specious critique of this film, and a desperate one, coming from people who know it hit the mark about growthism and energy sprawl (https://www.google.com/search?&q=energy+sprawl+wind). They try to tear it down on technicalities while ignoring its main points.

The "outdated" theme hinges on abstract economic costs, not the true state of the environment as more oil/gas/coal-built construction projects clutter the land & sea. It doesn't matter that solar panels are somewhat more efficient or that wind turbines are relatively cheaper. They are simply more and more of them cluttering the world because they have poor energy-density. And they're still built with fossil fuels, so nothing has fundamentally changed in the ~10 years of filming that went into this project. Nobody has shown how you can do it free of fossil fuels without near perpetual motion technology. Many gullible people fail to understand energy scale (https://www.google.com/search?&q=cubic+mile+of+oil).

Today’s Greens focus too much on climate and forget the smaller footprint that thinkers like E.F. Schumacher used to encourage. Now, everything's about more gigawatts, more construction jobs and "installed capacity" where mountain scenery used to stand. Wind turbines in particular must be larger for efficiency, violating the whole premise of reducing Man's footprint, which contains far more than atmospheric carbon. You get blank looks from Greens when you tell them scenery still matters, and that birds & bats shouldn't be killed by any "clean" technology, even if fossil fuels had no role in its existence. https://falseprogress.home.blog/2016/11/03/windschmerz-wind-energy-is-not-green/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.118.47 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not true, and it's also not relevant. Do you have any specific suggestions that are supported by reliable sources? FollowTheSources (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess you're in control of this page and will endlessly deny the existence of energy sprawl and weak energy density of fossil-fuel-built "renewables" despite the search links included above. You could easily Google the topic if you really cared about the environment beyond just reducing carbon so society can deny that growthism is the core problem. But the point of the film is that "renewables" don't reduce carbon nearly enough, being built and backed up by it. You folks are eager to ignore that message because it questions your Green Growth income. Deep Ecology is alien to such people (who also seem fine with 40,000 Starlink satellites sprawling in near Earth orbit). At least Elon Musk claims he'll sell his possessions; he may have gotten a conscience about his eco-posturing and sprawling enterprises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.118.47 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to let me know when you have some concrete changes that don't contradict policy, as I am not interesting in discussing your POV. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums but to discuss the article and sources to support it (WP:NOTFORUM). The proposed links above are not usable as sources and are not about Planet of the Humans itself. —PaleoNeonate – 05:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of any renewable advocate who says that renewables alone can achieve sufficient change in emissions. Every discussion I have seen combines reduced energy consumption, more efficient use of the energy we do consume, and migration of that energy towards more sustainable sources. And that's been true since I was an electrical engineering undergraduate in the early 1980s. Guy (help!) 11:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX Kire1975 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not NPOV at all

No article should have sentences like this: “ The film uses footage of the renewable energy industry that is up to a decade old, giving a false impression of the maturity of the technologies, as the last decade has seen large cost reductions and innovations.” It doesn’t say who said it, or that it is an observation of someone about the documentary. It is presented like it’s a fact, but that’s not the encyclopedias role. It doesn’t matter what people think about the documentary, love it or hate it, think it’s all true or false, you must present all information in a neutral tone. The sentence should be written as “The film uses footage from (specify year), which critics such as (critics name) says gives a false impression” etc. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hear Hear Kire1975 (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is one source for the claim it uses footage a decade old (using "decades old"), and one that says it using other words (2009).Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Some critics" violates WP:WEASEL. And it only needs attribution if it is contentious. Is anybody saying that the footing is new? Is anybody saying that the technology has hardly changed since then? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry you’re right, it should be “some critics such as (insert critic) etc”. And yes, every part of this documentary appears to be very contentious, and would the general population know the exact state of battery technology in 2020? I don’t think so, and much of the footage that it is interspersed with, of the solar panel graveyards or biomass burning looks to be filmed in the present day. So it would be very easy for those reading a general use encyclopedia, such as this one, with no speciality knowledge, to be unclear as to which solar panel technology we are discussing, of what year and vintage, etc. Clarity is all. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"some critics such as (insert critic) etc" is still WP:WEASEL.

And when I ask "Is anybody saying that the footing is new? Is anybody saying that the technology has hardly changed since then?", I obviously mean people who know that sort of stuff, not the general population. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To not violate wp:undue a source that contests an RS claim must be of (at least) equal quality. And we do not what solar panel technology we are discussing, of what year and vintage the sources say from 2009.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if the statement is still a bit “weasilish”, it is miles better than declaring an opinion a fact, as that is not our role or Wikipedia’s to pass judgment. And since this is, as I have said, an encyclopedia for the general public, it matters that we are clear and speak so that people understand. The tone of this article is unencyclopedic and propagandistic whenever it makes these definitive pronouncements. wp:undue is a good page, but you have no encyclopedia at all without NPOV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

wp:NPOV does not mean we give all points of view equal status (nor should we). We do not inform our reader if we give them flawed information in the name of "balance" ("some have said the earth is round"). If this video presents out of date information then it is lying, and that is more important for our readers to know. If anyone has said it is not out of date then our readers should be told that, as long as its not from "Barry form down the pub" ("however according to David Irving"). So do you have any RS saying this information is not out of date, yes or no?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

And that is the core of it right there, you say it’s more important that readers know the truth. That is not correct. What matters is that reliable sources present information and readers decide what the truth is. It is not our role to decide, to judge, or to discriminate. You must present the facts as they are, and indicate who said them. The whole factual accuracy section needs to be dismantled and rebuilt attributing who said what and why, so that people know there is not a huge monolithic opinion, but a variety of beliefs from different people. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We we have asked you more than once to produce RS saying these claims are untrue. We are not deciding to exclude sourced information, you have failed to provide it. We do not need to say "the queen of England (who is not a space lizard)" or "Alex Jones (Who has never eaten babies". because no RS have said these things.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I have said my piece, are you saying if I have some RS you will consider including it? That is very gracious of you. If I have time I will gather some for your consideration. I want to make sure they meet the high bar for inclusion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying that is what policy says, if you can find some RS saying the claim the date is out of date is wrong then we must include it (per wqp:npov). I will go as far as to say that (personally) even if you can find just the film makers saying its not true I would support "which the film makers have denied".Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will see what I can find. I will report back when I find something. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, it is [may be] from a YouTube video which claims to debunk Planet of the Humans. The note the clothing and some other things which would suggest the video was from the late nineties. I will try to find the specific video. As far as I recall, most of the rest of the video, something like 50 minutes long, was disappointing in terms of a debunking, and was more of a biased complaint. I think to add the material, however, it will have to have been published several times by reliable publishers. ~ R.T.G 20:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Here is a source about the 90s footage (search the page for "Motorola Ultrasleek" ->[2] It draws from the fact their mobile phones, and apparently their dress code according to another source, is out of date. There should indeed be a criticism section if indeed criticism has been widely published, or even a small criticism section if criticism is not widely published, but published several times in an undeniable fashion. This article simply reports on the nature of the documentary. It is not the documentary itself. There should be no neutrality problem with including criticism or arguments as the the validity fo certain topics, as long as the criticism is not used as a queue to squash the article. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ~ R.T.G 20:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• The movie opens with footage from 1958, as it states that date after the footage. Then it moves on to the seventies, dating some footage specifically, not others, but discussing it broadly as "the seventies"... Then he moves on with a letterhead dated 2001, as he goes through part of his resume and life experiences from the seventies, establishing his relationship towards the Planet of the Humans issues... Then, to round off his involvement with "green issues", he says, something like "So I went along with green energy... what better place to go than a solar energy festival..." This is all in about 7 minutes. So in fact it would appear he may or may not give the wrong impression. He just does not spend a lot of time saying, "Hey watch out... if you haven't been following very carefully, searching for errors..." So it would not be fair to give the impression that it is purposely misleading. It may be fair to claim that some commentators have been misled or confused by this few seconds piece of the movie. The full content of the movie is available here ->[3]. About an hour and twenty minutes later in the movie he visits another festival, but it is clearly dated as an Earth Day festival in the 2010s. Hopefully that helps? ~ R.T.G 00:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RTG posted the documentary film as RS. See WP:CITEVIDEO. Can you find other RS that contradicts him? Kire1975 (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Except RS say the film says X. You need as RS saying it does not, not you interpreting the film.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I referred to the movie itself, not to use it as the source, but to learn why this issue does not seem to have heavy publication, so that we are not feeling around in the dark. We depend on reliable sources, but if we do not evaluate them at all, the article black would claim that black is now in fact brown because "brown is the new black" gets almost 200,000 hits including The Times, Vogue, the New York Times, Cambridge Dictionary defines it as the basis of rage:- "it is all the rage"...

Then, we must not make the article an example of our own research, but we must research and ensure that the article is not making false claims or being guided by bias. Wikipedia says something like, we must use reliable sources, but we must also be able to approve those sources on a case by case basis. We don't add stuff that isn't 3rd party published, except in specific cases where there is little publishing to go on or too much publishing to fairly pick one, and we check those sources for accuracy as much as we can. My opinion here is that the use of the 90s festival footage is not purposely misleading and is such a minor detail towards the entire movie, that it should not be used with undue weight.

Otherwise, should we mention that the 90s footage is misleading? Yes, definitely. I didn't realise it was 90s footage and I watched the movie twice. I would stress to this point however, the culture jumps between the 60s, 70s, 80s,and 90s are over. The efficiency of solar power, for instance, seems only to have jumped by about 50% in that time, and affordable examples not even quite so much difference as that. Nobody has pointed out that such improvement in solar power has not changed the fact that a thunderstorm is going to put a festival on other sources if it is solar powered. It is not for us to decide that the movie is not allowed to make such a point. It's a valid point, and it may be a valuable heads up to anyone dreaming of solar powering a party... Apologies for the lengthy response. Back in the nineties and the noughties people believed that blackcurrant juice was the key to better solar power, because it has something to do with the dye which colours the cell, but it was not archaic. Photovoltaics has no history section, but solar cell dates them to about 180 years ago, 1839. ~ R.T.G 16:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and we only use out own research in so far as finding RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We research the reliability of the source on a case by case basis, if there is a notion of bias or inaccuracy, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters. You've got to ask yourself, do the sources validating and/or debunking the movie give themselves a stake, by supporting one view or the other, and generally they do, so it is up to us to research either sources which obviously do not take a side, and if that is unlikely, in such a broadly contentious issue as this, it is up to us to research the most neutral POV. It's how we know what RS is rather than simply handing out license to popular publishers. You've seen the arguments about the Daily Mail. That is the second most popular publication in the UK. The one it is second to is even worse, so we do research the reliability in detail and give not a license to one POV, but a neutral POV, unless it is something completely ridiculous like brown is black and the source of all rage,which this issue is not. ~ R.T.G 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Then find a third party RS that disputes any of the claims this film uses dated data. NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Not us, RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• So far I have found only two or three sources complaining about the 90s footage, and one of those isn't really RS.

• The article is currently making a powerful suggestion that using footage a decade old from the energy industry proves a false impression, specifically using the word "maturity"... giving the impression that the current technology is able to support a rainy festival without actually substantiating that impression. Is it a false impression or not? Can solar support a rainy festival or not?

• The purveyor of the 8% solar panels makes a claim, that to feed the town of Michigan on those panels would require a solar field of 3 miles by 5 miles. The article says that affordable solar today is twice as effective. I calculate that to mean a solar field of 1.5 miles by 5 miles. Given that 100 efficiency is a.k.a black hole, is it "fairly and proportionately" to imply suggest the movie is unfairly downplaying major developments to come in that field?

• Just a quick clarification: there is at least two efficiencies involved: the efficiency of a single PV panel converting light into energy (which you describe), and the amount of energy (Wh) provided on average over the course of year as fraction of nominal output. You can improve the former by technological progress. The latter cannot be improved because it depends on latitude and Earth rotation. In case of solar panels, at latitudes such as United Kingdom, the output efficiency for solar panels is like 15%. Wind turbines reach 25% on land and up to 40% off-shore. Baseload power plants such as gas, coal or nuclear operate at up to 95% output efficiency because they don't depend on natural intermittency such as day/night cycle, cloud cover or lack of wind (beautiful German expression Dunkelflaute). This has a very important consequence when you try to replace one with another: if you try to replace a baseload power plant with solar panels only you need to accept that for 12h on average you will have no electricity at all unless you also build energy storage of capacity equal to 12h demand on average. And, more importantly, on average you will need to replace each 1W of coal, gas or nuclear with ~10W of solar and 3W of wind. All this is however science fiction for now because there is no storage or smart grid able to provide this balancing, which is precisely why Germany is adding more gas and coal power plants as we speak. And this is precisely what the film tries to say as I understand it @RTG:. Cloud200 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remember, this movie is not claiming we should forget about sustainability, but that if we are not critical of the methods, we will be misled. It is not claiming false figures on sustainable energy of the present moment. It is suggesting that claims on sustainable energy throughout history, are often misleading. Are any of the critical sources being careful to point this out? And if so, why are we not being careful to do so, if indeed we are being fair and proportional?

• The article says the movie claims electric cars will run on 95% coal. The sources referenced do not make that claim. Neither does the movie. It says coal is being replaced by gas burners. The 95% is about the GM launch of a new electric car being run on 95% coal. The launch demonstrated an electric car being charged. That electric car was being powered by 95% coal.

• The article is claiming that the documentary does not acknowledge the use of "mixed" energy sources. That is one of the main precepts of the movie... That is what they are talking about when they are referring to the gas burners. That gas is being promoted as "clean energy", but that this promotion represents an increase in fossil fuel burning. Are we being fair and proportionate in representing that complaint?

• The article complains that the movie doesn't even give options for sustainable biomass use... the sources used to support that assertion do not give alternatives either... even though they claim the news is extremely old...

• The criticism (scientific accuracy) section is about 20 of the whole article. Is the movie 20% wrong and misleading, or is that simply a perspective? ~ R.T.G 22:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And we are going round in circles, and not producing RS but engaging in OR. time for some new voices, I suggest an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Whoah! Did you just avoid me? This has become across two sections for me, but I realised something last night as I watched the movie again and again to humour these issues. The format of much of the movie, possibly the whole thing, from the start, is that it follows Gibbs professional experiences as a journalist through the years. It is totally clear from the movie that it is doing that. Doesn't that fact clear up why there is "old" footage and figures throughout the movie? And given there is so much apparent contention and confusion, we should put that fact directly into the lead, as well as the description... ~ R.T.G 09:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No I am saying we are running round in circles and there is nothing more to be said by us and we need third party input, we need fresh eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the movie is complaining about this, that, and the other, especially when you look at the criticism... In fact... the whole way through, it is trying to criticise, in particular, the use of burnable fuels, from various angles. How many of the sources say that, specifically? Does a source lacking statement of the chronological nature of the documentary, and the specific focus on fossil fuels throughout, show signs of lacking neutrality and/or thorough evaluation? ~ R.T.G 12:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have said all I will say, I oppose any change to the claim its uses out of date information.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

They've been fooling us for years, says Planet of the Humans. Ah, but a lot of that was years ago, say the critics. ~ R.T.G 12:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would remind users we are not a forum for discussing the subject, only for improving the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I second that. What the movie says is irrelevant. It's what reliable sources say about the movie. If I search on Google news, about half of the articles about Planet of the Humans are fact checks. The biomass ref was replaced by an English-speaking one, the previous source was better and with automatic translations also useful for people not fluent in Dutch. I used some Dutch (Netherlands & Belgian) sources, as the political debate is somewhat less polarized there, so I could make use of a conservative and centrist newspaper debunking the movie. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"What the movie says is irrelevant." Duly noted. Kire1975 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Malthusian catastrophe, really?

Since the topic of Malthusian catastrophe has been raised in the context in the film it definitely makes sense to mention and link it in the article where the topic is discussed, which is already done in the Producers response section. But what is the point of inserting the whole infobox and graph of a largely discredited 60's concept here? It's irrelevant to the article and WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Cloud200 (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The topic is not even discussed in the film.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox was not added. Malthusianism is discussed extensively on the page and by the critics. Specifically in respect to how it is discredited. Remove the photo or don't, but don't say the infobox was added. Kire1975 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It is discussed by critics as a sort of strawman argument in my view. The topic of population is such a taboo nowadays that any mention of it gets one branded as a "Malthusian" or an "ecofascist", even though major scientific publications like the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity and the landmark UN report on the biodiversity crisis which Gibbs refers to have noted it is something that needs to be discussed and addressed. In that sense, it's not much different from being branded a "communist" or a "socialist" if one dares to bring up the issue of economic inequality. Malthus and his theories were not discussed in the film and have not been advocated by the filmmakers.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't reflect the debate within climate/engineering sciences about what constitutes a "renewable source". The lead says The film argues that green energy sources, including wind power, solar energy, and biomass energy are not truly renewable or sustainable. The film has been widely criticized for having misleading and outdated commentary with bibliography of criticism which doesn't come from scientific papers but from other activists and/or lobby groups. In the relative bibliography, wind power is increasingly being abandoned as a "renewable source" of energy because it relies heavily on the extraction of rare earth elements and because of its impact on biodiversity. Gibbs hasn't suggested in his film anything in WP:FRINGE territory here - despite what people who aren't familiar with the actual interdisciplinary debates might think. One of the sources which criticize him tries to rebuke Gibbs by overplaying the role of wind power in Germany's energy system but the reality is that German wind energy stalls amid public resistance and regulatory hurdles and the resistance is not coming from some shady coal/oil lobby but from actual environmentalists who argue against the narrative of wind power as a "green deus ex machina". I think that the lead and the criticism sections should be reworked to reflect that debate and carefully attribute criticism to its authors. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

100% agree. Cloud200 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you rephrase the WP:LEAD @Cloud200:?--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(deindent) Something like (second paragraph of lead): "The film joins the ongoing environmental debate on sustainability, manufacturing and carbon footprint of renewable energy sources. The key claims are that wind power and solar energy are always supplemented by fossil fuels in the actual power grids due to their intermittent nature (nuclear power is not mentioned) while biomass demand leads to harmful deforestation. It also criticizes a number of prominent environmental and renewable energy activists for their alleged compromise with biomass investments." @Maleschreiber: Cloud200 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks very well-informed to me, thank you. In most debates in the media, the structure of the power grid and its non-compatibility with most RE installations is left out. Its fascinating how the same people who promote wind power and argue against new natural gas extraction actually drive up natural gas demand and the construction of reserve power plants which rely on its ongoing extraction. I would change RE activists to RE NGOs. If there is no dispute in the next couple of days, maybe the lead could be changed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just a proposal so everyone please feel free to improve on the style and wording. This is an incendiary subject so I guess we need to get literally every word right... Cloud200 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Dumbing down what the movie says is bias. It goes into great length about energy expenditure and misconception as to what constitutes "green energy". Definitely, 110%, not change the quoted section to the above suggestion. If the movie is biased, then it is biased. Wikipedia did neither produce, approve, or condone this movie, and should not be seen to behave as such. The only interest here should be reporting what sources have to say and describing any key topics which are missed by the sources. The suggestion to "reflect the debate within climate/engineering sciences about what constitutes a "renewable source"" is a bias which argues with the movie. It is not for us to argue with it in this way.

Towards the initial posting, there shouldn't be too much weight put into proving or disproving the movie. It has only recently been released on YouTube. It is attracting attention. External sources are going to decide what is most relevant. Yes all relevant issues should be noted, but not originally researched. When I checked just now there is a limited mention of a malthusian situation, and that seems appropriate. ~ R.T.G 09:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are trying to say that there is no debate about sustainability, manufacturing and carbon footprint of renewable energy then you certainly haven't seen large Environmental impact sections in Biomass, Renewable energy and then each of the specific energy sources and large-scale protests against wind farms in Norway, Sweden or Bavaria. The picture is far from being black-and-white but, as I wrote before, it's the environmental activists who tried to turn into black-and-white a topic that is by its very nature complex and can be only discussed in terms of cost-benefit analysis. Some parts of the film are biased, some are not - and excuse me, the fact that it says about energy efficiency of solar panels being 8% while in reality they're 15%... well, it may be inaccurate but does not change anything in the overall balance. Cloud200 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to this claim about the 15% in the above section. The movie does not actually claim that current efficiency is 8%. It takes us on a journey of the commentators professional life experiences. The movie explicitly states that at length. It simply does not add a warning for each item. We should perhaps make the article say clearly that it follows the commentators professional experiences. Please respond to it in the above thread not here... Then towards if I believe there is no debate on whether sustainability measures have been satisfactory or misleading... no, I have heard this before some time ago about the manufacturing costs, not only of sustainable energy, but of many modern things. I was a late bloomer in such understanding. What made it stick with me was a documentary series called "Last Chance to See..." which featured Madagascar for one series, specifically the "Aye Aye". The islanders decimated their island of its unique forest, so that they could grow recyclable materials, in order to save forests. This world is perfect, unless you disagree... ~ R.T.G 02:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, if reliable sources disprove the movie it should be made clear, but so far the debunking is more of an argument, so we don't have that bias to go on just now. The movie is probably correct to some degree. As has been said above, the movies claims are not new at all. ~ R.T.G 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The difficulty with the fact checks is that the movie does a lot of insinuation. This means that many of the fact-checks put in a more general background section. Like: the movie made this black/white, but in reality it's more complex. It's very difficult to put that in the section, so I understand that the factual accuracy section feels a bit off. The movie dedicates a lot of time to biomass burning, which is considered doubtful in academic circles and in the environmental movement. The factual accuracy section includes that the movie wasn't completely off the mark in that direction already. Can you give concrete suggestions of how you'd like to improve the subsection with RS? I think an extra sentence about how the movie's premise on biomass is supported would be balanced. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing, @Femkemilene: to insinuate means that you are being indirect and suggestive rather than making straightforward claims. In fact, the movies claims are direct and straightforward. When it says that solar is insufficient, it says that. When it says big oil seems to be in bed with green energy, it says that. The whole list. When sources criticise the movie, they tend to say the movie uses dated footage, but I haven't seen one yet, after going over about ten, which makes it clear, the dated footage is not presented as recent footage. They don't say either, that the footage is dated, because festivals can now run solar in the rain... One or two of the sources say that it can't, but most of them don't say it can't. You say here that the movie is wrong to criticise the use of biomass at length, as academics are now against it. But the movie isn't criticising the academic facts or those who are against biomass. The movie is promoting at least one academic who is against biomass, so how can we be fair giving the opposite impression? The movie is, in very large part, presented as a chronology of the commentators professional experience as a green energy investigator, explaining the routes that led him to be a critic. Sources which complain about that, but are careful not to actually state it, are biased, intentionally or not, and should be used with careful and neutral reflection on that bias. Almost all of the movies subject material revolves around efforts which have resulted in increasing use of burnable fuels. Most of the sources, critical or not, are not specifying that either. As for the criticisms, the main section on that is titled "scientific accuracy". The age of footage does not specify its accuracy, so we should not suggest blankly that it does. The issue with the 95% figure is a misconception, provided solely by Wikipedia, not the sources given or the movie. The section implies that the movie does not tell the viewer that "mixed" energy provides during low power output of wind and solar energy, but that is one of the most lengthy and significant things the movie does complain about, and anything which gives a differing impression, is blatantly misleading, that the movie isn't what it is. We must not present that as content. The section complains that the movie does not give alternatives to biomass, reference from articles which do not give alternatives either... Plus, it is unfair to claim, indirectly, that the movie is responsible for providing the solution to green energy to be allowed to critically examine what we have achieved so far... to do so is a skewed presentation. Bias. Quotes are quotes. I reserve on comment about the life cycle, I've yet to look something up about that. I've said all this in bulleted points above, please respond to it there if you wish to respond to it. I know nothing about the UCS, but given the string of contention about everything else, we really should try to find more information about whether they do or don't take corporate money, however, neutrally quoted responses from people who have been focused in the movie, I am not seeing much of an issue with at this time. ~ R.T.G 20:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I am not against criticising or evaluating this movie... but much of the criticism needs evaluated itself. ~ R.T.G 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Quite the wall of text.

  • In terms of outdatedness, the sources critisize the fact that the movie is misleading, not lying in this regard. It portrays a renewable energy section that is very different from today without dating fragments nor following up on them. Our current section makes this clear I believe, but open for improvements of course.
  • I don't understand your point about biomass
  • OR: sources are biased because they don't agree with your reading of the movie?
  • I already said we could include more positive fact-check about biomass (burnable fuel)
  • well spotted. 95% now sourced. Don't know what went wrong there.
  • Included further vindication of movie in terms of biomass. re-included source that did provide alternatives to biomass. Foreign-language sources should only be replaced if equally good English-langauge source is available Chidgk1.
  • We shouldn't be the ones criticizing the critisism. We should evaluate the sources for reliability and remove sentences and sources that are blogs, close to blogs or OR, but verifiability trumps the 'truth'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Your choice of words here, "without dating them", is much less loaded than what is currently presented, however, what is currently presented implies that the whole movie is out of date, that the issues have been resolved. There is nothing to support that.
• The criticism about the biomass alternative is unfair, and possibly even deceptive. The movie does not give an alternative use for biomass. Where I am from we could grow a lot of trees, so there was a bit of a craze around biomass, i.e., pellet burners. The government make a mistake and ended up handing out something like a million in subsidies to people who installed pellet burners. There is no alternative use for them. It was just an embarrassing waste of time. Nobody who pointed that out has been accused of not giving an alternative use for the pellet burners.
• You say something about... if sources agree with me personally, but you do not say what you are referring to.
• Add positives about burning fuel? If you source them as a response to this movie, perhaps.
• You are not hearing me. Open all three of the sources and search for "95". It's not there. Stop adding "sources" for it. It's just an error by another Wikipedian. Remove it and forget about it. What the movie does say about coal powering an electric car, is about a demonstration of a new GM electric car being charged at a press release, possibly the cars launch. The commentator asks, so where is the energy coming from which is charging this car. The promoters aren't sure... claim it is probably gas and solar... but the commentator checks it out and it is coal. It just does not say anywhere in the movie that electric cars will be charged on 95% coal. It's just a minor error by a Wikipedian.
• You are further vindicating the movies views on biomass? Look, the lead section of this article is rubbishing the whole movie. It basically says, this is a movie about xyz, and it is wrong about xyz. That is not neutrality. Not even close.
• No, simply being a blog is not the only measure of reliability. We check how the source is accruing its research, and we check how they are presenting that research, and that is only one step. We check, not simply if the are a blog, but if they are biased toward specific things. We check particularly if they are criticised for bias or inaccuracy. Note: Almost all of these criticisms are going to be OR. I have seen only one source which is reporting the criticisms presented by other sources, the site which removed the movie and put it back up again. ~ R.T.G 11:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  We are not understanding each other indeed. I'm typing too much and RSI hurts. Three misunderstandings I can quickly clarify. Really need to sign off now, sorry.

  • I've added "positive" about movie's portrayal biomass by saying the movie is right in criticizing it. Biomass burning is baaad in general, we and RSs agree.
  • sentence about other biomass is ambiguous, your (valid) interpretatoin is not what I meant. I added example to clarify.
  • 95% is mentioned explicitly in 3rd source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the film does not give it as an example of what electric cars would use. It is a series of interviews conducted at the demonstration of an electric car. They ask what sort of electricity generation is being used to power the car. They are not, not sure, maybe it's this or that. The boss of the electric company just happens to be at the demonstration. It is 95% coal, and why don't they visit a local solar power field, you know, the 8% one. The article is making out like the movie presents these things as figures representing the energy industry, rather than the experience of interviewing attendees at an electric car demonstration. That's deception and bias, something we are supposed to avoid. ~ R.T.G 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A background section should be considered

I know there's some discussion in the lead, but a section on the background on the issue would be useful for the article. Like Micheal Crichton (who had education in anthropology) discussing how environmentalism has become a religion.174.89.48.95 (talk)

This article is not about environmentalism or novelists. It's about the Planet of the Humans movie. Beside that, global warming is happening whether humans contribute or not. The global warming issue is that humans are speeding it up, not that it isn't happening, which was Crichtons opinion. Please see the article great year to understand this planet has more seasons than the four in a year, and global temperature record to see how we are approaching a temperature peak. ~ R.T.G 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Life-cycle energy

Can we clarify this sentence? This is classic MOS:JARGON and leaves the reader with nothing but a long "hmmm" :) What does this mean in layman's terms? Cloud200 (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The film inaccurately portrays the life-cycle energy of renewable energy as being comparable with the lifetime energy generation

Good point, as this is probably the most important criticism of the movie. I've expanded and rewritten. Better? Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense now, thank you! Cloud200 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The movie says, specifically, that the current battery capacity of the whole world, is less than 1000th of what would be needed to prop up solar and wind power. But the figures on the pie chart are 51 GIGA BTU, and 546,000,000 GIGA BTU. That's a 10,000,000x difference, not a 1000x difference, so something is not adding up here. It is almost like these critics have been baited. ~ R.T.G 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a transcript of the film available?

I am not very interested in this article so I don't want to spend 1 hr 40 mins watching the film. But if there is a transcript I could quickly read it before editing the article, as it seems a little unfair to edit without knowing firsthand what the film is saying. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Deplatforming

Is the deplatforming of this film notable? Apparently it has been removed from Youtube, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/26/michael-moore-film-planet-of-the-humans-removed-from-youtube

I'm guessing since the grauniad is a RS and it mentions it then yes.

Greglocock (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

deplatforming typically means to boycott something for a political reason. The official reason is copyright infringement, which is already included in the article. The reaction of the producers (that do believe political reasoning) has also been included for balance. Our RS don't mention the term deplatforming, as far as I'm aware. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, we already discus this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added the reaction of the filmmaker, which seems necessary considering this film is no longer in distribution or viewable. Digital20 (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been returned to YouTube. Among other things, the article is still saying the movie claims electric cars will run on 95% coal. This lie must be removed. ~ R.T.G 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Carbon neutral

Okay I have edited it to make it neutral and accurate. Complaints here please... ~ R.T.G 12:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the things which makes neutrality difficult here is the language from the very start of the article. The movie is trying to spread awareness, where terminology... magic words and phrases... are used to obscure plain facts. They play on common misconceptions, in a world where burning fuel was almost outlawed, and the big industries and governments responsible for industrial and toxic burning disowned, the language of the initial steps toward environmental friendliness have been used and used, and used again, until the public simply cannot believe more fuel is being burned than ever before, excused by simple, comforting words and phrases directly beneath their noses. Some of these magic phrases are, "biomass" and "renewable", used in circumstances where the public will only understand direct phrases, such as "burning", and "smoke". Surely such neutrality is easy to understand and support. Thankyou, ~ R.T.G 09:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed quite a few things further as they were against the manual of style, duplicate, vague or unexplained. Note that a phrase like "Complaints here please" may constitue a battleground mentality. That doesn't help us gain trust in each other in order to get to a compromise version we all agree to. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: they are not "scare" quotes. It is that or I will have to tag the word for clarification because it implies the movie has not explored the meaning of a "mix" of "sources", where in fact the movie goes to great length to point out such information is washed away with indirect, non-informative terminology, sending trusting people away with the impression they are looking at an attack on carbon neutrality, when in fact they are looking at a report which says "mix of sources" means we are burning more fuel than ever before...

The film does not "claim the carbon footprint of renewable energy is comparable to fossil fuels". It simply compares them. Renewable energy such as biomass is directly comparable to fossil fuel sources, but being indirect and vague in all these little ways leaves the trusting reader with the impression of carbon neutrality, which is not the case.

NOTE:- All of the entries in the "Scientific accuracy" section refer to something the movie is factually accurate about, simply to complain about the delivery, except for the complaint about battery energy, for which the complaint is factually inaccurate about the movie. ~ R.T.G 14:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That is simply not what reliable secondary sources say. I've seen the movie, and Ozzie Zehner does claim that renewable carbon footprint is comparable to fossil. I've clarified the mix sentence. Your prose here would be easier to understand if you used more full stops. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You aren't getting it. Comparing the renewable energy footprint to anything else just wouldn't make any sense. Of course it is compared to the fossil fuel industry. Can you explain how that affects scientific accuracy? No. And that is because it doesn't affect that. ~ R.T.G 01:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In that sentence, comparable is synonym to similar, same order of magnitude and so forth. The movie make an extremely strong statement in the movie that renewables are not better than fossil in terms of carbon emissions, which was unanimously denounced by experts as wrong. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't seem to be able to come closer to agreement. Would you accept the input of a WP:Third opinion? Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The movie does not say that renewables are no better than fossil fuels. Rather, it compares them, concluding that renewables so far, have a surprisingly large carbon footprint, and are not enough to solve global warming, while most people think, that renewables are irreproachable. They refuse to hear and cover up suggestions that renewables can be criticised as though one enemy to another, perfectly regular human nature... And this isn't even complicated. The problem here is perception and neutrality. ~ R.T.G 12:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeat: What has the comparison to fossil fuel carbon output got to do with factual accuracy? ~ R.T.G 12:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We've moving in circles. One of the movie quotes in question is: “You use more fossil fuels [manufacturing renewables infrastructure] than you’re getting benefit from. You would have been better off burning the fossil fuels in the first place instead of playing pretend.” That is plainly wrong. We could go for a formulation that stays closer to the movie if you want.

What about a third opinion, I don't think we're able to convince each other? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not about what I "want". Yes I demand that it stays accurate, whether I see it as fulfilling my own desires or not. ~ R.T.G 13:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We disagree fundamentally about what accurate and neutral is in this case. Could you please answer the question: will a third opinion be useful or will you reject it immediately if it doesn't fit your view of accuracy? If not, we should choose a less informal way to resolve this issue. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

From this source:[4], this image:[5] collating various publications, to claim indirectly, that solar power is similar and comparable to fossil fuels to the extent that, in some cases, the return is of less value than simply burning the coal. Will you reject and evade it immediately because it does not fit your view of accuracy? If not, we should move forward towards neutrality, whatever surprises that may turn up. It's not your fault... Let's get forward with it, yes? Woosh, bang, surprise... ~ R.T.G 13:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The return on solar is so poor, that even a slight miscalculation can leave it looking as though solar does not even put energy out.[6][7] As you are trying to impress on me... if you are wrong... will you admit it? ~ R.T.G 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I still find it difficult to follow you. Could you focus on content and procedure and leave out words like 'woosh, bang, surprise'? You've been asked this by other editors as well on your talk page.

Of course I will accept a compromise version, but climate denial talking points like solar energy being as bad as coal will not be allowed here and trying to push those may constitute disruptive behaviour. The EC piece you linked completely burned down the computation; that's not a slight miscalculation.

Can you sign us up for 3rd opinion? Still struggling with tendonitis here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The EC article relied on the Science Direct article (linked next to it above), which goes through the miscalculations in detail.I've pointed you the EROI on solar... The only fossil fuels I know of with worse EROI than solar is tar sands and shale. According to Wikipedia, the EROI on oil is higher, with Science Directs estimate as roughly the lowest, so it is still arguable that there is more emissions, vis a vis, it is not so wild to claim it might have been better simply to burn fossil fuels for that portion of the energy. So you'd still be weighing heavily on that one quote to support the sort of bias people are trying to achieve on this article. It's undue. Yes the imperfections of the movie should be criticised by critics, but this total rubbishing endeavour is in itself rubbish fraught with errors, far more so than the movie it is reacting to. ~ R.T.G 10:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC) P.S. is it not a whoosh bang surprise to you that this is the situation? Well, it is to me. Solar is not green enough to replace fossil fuels? Whoever heard of such nonsense... and yet... I have now. ~ R.T.G 10:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to sign off as well as previous editors interacting with you. Your prose is very difficult to follow, and in combination with a misunderstanding of the science, it's really difficult to get anywhere. EROI is not the relevant metric for comparing lifetime carbon emissions per source. I suggest you seek further input in the climate change WikiProject or the Energy wikiproject. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Misunderstanding of the science"... another cop out simply leaves the discussion without concession. I haven't misunderstood anything. There is a negative bias in this article and it is questionable, so we should not be over weighting it in the content. ~ R.T.G 17:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

newer edits

I really don't understand why this is so controversial. The false claims by the movie about the carbon footprint are substantiated by so many different reliable sources in so many different languages, platforms and so forth. The most recent edit by an IP address removed:

The film claims the carbon footprint of renewable energy is comparable to fossil fuels, when taking into account all different stages of their production. However, a large body of research shows the life-cycle emissions of wind and solar are much lower than fossil fuels.

The argumentation is that the person had seen the movie themselves, and some vague claim that one of the three sources is funded by an organisation accused by Exxon Mobile of masterminding a conspiracy against it. Shall we place it back reintroducing the sourcing by Trouw?: https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/pijnlijke-missers-nekken-michael-moore-s-milieudocumentaire~b2a63ecf/. Trouw is a somewhat conservative high quality Dutch newspaper? In the past, some people have deleted high-quality foreign language sourcing, even when only medium quality English language sourcing remains. (I would argue that Inside Climate News is also high quality, considering it has won the Pulitzer Prize..). Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Would a review box be apropriate?

The reviews section is currently rather disorganised, as a stop-gap solution I would like to add Template:Film_and_game_ratings to the page but I don't know if this would be appropriate for documentary films. El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead anyway... Still not sure about it, given that Film Critics (who gave it specific ratings) were generally more positive than Climate Scientists (who didn't). El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sentence in lead

@Femkemilene: and @HTowne:, with regards to the criticism sentence in the lead, I think that the 'some' in front of the "climate scientists, environmentalists and renewable energy proponents" was implied but if HTowne wants to make it explicit, I would be happy with that.

I feel that "including by several beneficiaries of the foundations critiqued in the film" is UNDUE weight in the lead given that many weren't and whether or not they were is not relevant to whether their criticisms were accurate, though it may be relevant in whether they called for the film to be taken down.

Further I feel the reasoning for the statements from the Climate Scientists etc (ie that it was "as misleading and outdated") is important for an encyclopedia. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the words sum is ugly prose, and also implies that there are climate scientists and renewable energy proponents that would not label the movie is misleading; I do not know whether that is true.

We could instead compromise on having fewer groups there. Environmentalists and renewable energy proponents are vague groups, and they do not imply expertise in the subject matter. As such, they don't really belong in the lead. We could instead just say 'climate scientists and energy experts'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And some IP editor is at is again. Anybody else want to see whether reversion is appropriate? Don't wanna end up in a slow edit war. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted one of the edits as it failed verification. The others will require further input.

1) Are popular resistance and Tampa Dispatch reliable sources? The former doesn't look like it. The second one also raises red flags with that capitalization in the title. Popular Resistance is just a collector; the actual source stems from Grayzone, which has been deprecated on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources. I'll remove that one and what for input on the Tampa Dispatch. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

2) Is Yale Climate Communication a reliable source? Normally, it's one of the best sources I use for climate / climate denial info. The IP editor says that we shouldn't use it because it's funded by people "exposed" in the movie. Considering their "exposing" people has been questioned, I'm not sure this is valid. Of course, I can replace it by commentary from Dutch climate experts in high-quality dutch newspapers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

While in theory we should treat sources of all languages equally, trying to persuade people to accept evidence presented in a language they don't understand can be difficult especially if they don't believe what the evidence shows in the first place. I would note firstly that most news sources are publicly traded companies who sell adverts widely, we accept that they do not have a conflict of interest because they separate the funding end from the journalism end. Secondly, as I understand it the movie alleges that he has an interest in promoting biofuels because of his timber investment. The fact that Climate Connections calls the part involving biofuels "A valid critique of wood biomass" casts doubt upon this conflict of interest influencing the reporting. (TL;DR: Climate Connections says that the bit of the movie criticizing the person who sponsor's Climate Connections is accurate). Regardless I have posted it on WP:RSN just in case. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Producers' Response

Regarding this edit, first off The Hill is not a primary source. Next, the entire section is literally called "Producers' response". The primary tag's demand is unmeetable because no matter how you slice it, it is a response created by people who are directly involved. The tag is just clutter.

And to answer the questions in WP:INTERVIEW, interviewer: Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball are notable interviewers with their own wikipedia pages, interviewee: Michael Moore and Ozzie Zehner are notable enough to get their own wikipages, and Jeff Gibbs is the director and producer of several films that have their own wikipages, the subject of the interview is a film that is notable enough to have its own wikipage, the publication is The Hill which is currently green on WP:RSP.

User:Femkemilene claimed this interview is still a primary source while reverting my edit , even pointing to WP:INTERVIEW as justification, but does not show her work. Are we done here or what? #removethetag Kire1975 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that that entire section is made up from the response of the producers is problematic. The section should be condensed significantly and integrated into the text. The quote showing that interviews about yourself are primary source: The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Femkemilene The tag claims "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." Whereas, the article currently contains 61 references that are not this particular citation, the tag continues to be misleading, has unmeetable demands and should therefore be removed. Kire1975 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Kire1975, I've replaced it with the correct template now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene. The Factual Accuracy section of the page has more than 25 reliable citations besides this one. You have also not addressed the fact that alll four questions in the Who, what, where section of WP:INTERVIEWS have been satisfied.You have also ignored for the third time the question about unmeetable demands. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from making the changes you feel are necessary. Even if you could find a tag that specifies the disputed material is in a subsection, leaving the tag up there indefinitely is just clutter. Kire1975 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The WHAT from the "who, what, where" is the problem here. The guys are talking about themselves, which, as explained in the Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary_or_secondary?, makes this source primary. It's bad form to use too many primary sources in a controversial article like this. If all those climate and energy experts were wrong in their criticism of the documentary, there would have been other climate or energy experts saying this. There aren't however.

The tag is quite easy to meet: a lot of material needs to be removed and quotes shortened. Fyi; it wasn't me who placed the tag.

Please, WP:focus on content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's bad form to use too many primary sources". The count is currently 61 to 1. How many more secondary sources should be added before the demand can be met? None of the quotes are written by the publication, can we just say that the producers responded to the criticisms in an interview with the Hill, link it and call it a day? Nothing says all primary sources are forbidden. If that were the case, they wouldn't be getting the courtesy fo a tag. Kire1975 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

An entire section should not be made up from primary sources (I count three; the Hill article, the Hill youtube video, and planet of the humans own website). That's why that tag exists. This material can be condensed to two sentences and put into the normal text, which is a more appriopriate weight for primary sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi indicated they wanted to work on this in June. Would you have time to draft a text that gives DUE weight to the opinions from the producers? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on this. Jlevi (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll briefly describe my intentions. If anyone has any opposition (or support!), please let me know. I agree in principle with Kire1975 that use of the interview is totally admissible in this article, and I intend to retain a fair bit of this source. However, Femkemilene brings up the point that this subsection is entirely primary, and that it might be better to break the section apart and integrate it to directly respond to points, rather than in this separate subsection. (I notice that this 'Producers response' subsection has essentially not been altered since it was added back in May.) So what I'll do is exactly that: take sections of the section and move them to directly respond to criticisms and probably shorten them. If they don't connect to any direct criticism we mention, they can be excised. Sound fair. Jlevi (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair :). I also agree that interviews are admissible. I think their input is useful especially with respect to multhusianism and their quote about environmental leaders, as these are opinions.

As the movie's treatment on EVs, wind and solar has been universally critiqued (by climate scientists and energy experts), do watch out for a false balance there. Not saying we should delete everything, but I find the current quote about old footage misleading, as it implies that that solar festival was the only instance. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SECTIONS, the disputed material is not a section. Editing the material sounds like a great idea. The tag is inappropriate. Kire1975 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)