Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 18

NOT Global Warming
If you've seen the film and payed attention then you would know that the film is not about Global Warming. The film is about Al Gore and his struggle to make Global Warming a prominent issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.120.41 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Viewings on YouTube
Should it be mentioned that the film has been viewed 1.5 Billion times on YouTube? This could be considered an example of how widespread the film is and how it has entered the popular conciousness. The link to document this is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7420955.stm Thought it important to note but would like someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia and more specific knowledge of this article to make the final decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cook006 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the surface, a YouTube view count would seem that it doesn't warrant inclusion, however in this case I would say the staggeringly high number and the fact that it demonstrates how wide spread the film's influence has been means it probably has a place, I'll go on and put it in. Inseeisyou (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

labeling of the Dimmick case
I'm seeing some back and forth going on between labeling the section the "Dimmick Case" and "High Court Case" in the edits of this article. To be honest neither of those labels are doing it for me. Would it make sense to label it "Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills"? I'm not sure if that's just an American labeling convention for court cases or not. I don't like like calling it "High Court" case for the same reason that was brought up here before; court cases normally aren't labeled after the court they were heard in. I don't like labeling it the "Dimmick Case" either as I think it's label really should include all parties involved. Let me know what you guys think. Elhector (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Screw it, I was bold and changed it. In my edit I wiki linked the name of the case and removed the further reading thing. I'm not opposed to removing the wiki-link part and adding back in the further reading thing though. Feel free to change it. Or change the whole edit, I'm not really adamant about it, just thought I would try something different to end the back and forth on it :-) Elhector (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever you call it, could you spell it right? It's Dimmock. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PULL OVER PULL OVER, TALK PAGE SPELLING POLICE! PUT YOUR KEYBOARD WHERE I CAN SEE IT!  Lol, J/K ;-).  As you can see here though  I did spell it correctly where it counts.  Part of the reason I probably mispelled it here is that I was using this dif  for reference while typing stuff out on the talk page and as you can see it was spelled wrong in the article.  I'll keep an eye on my spelling on the talk pages from now on :-). Elhector (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. First off, per the WP:MOS, you're not supposed to have links in section headings.  Secondly, people won't know what Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills is without further reading.  People do know what the British High Court is.  It's not a matter of naming conventions, it's a matter of convenience and understandability.    I don't know about Britain but in the US I wouldn't be surprised to hear "the matter was settled in a Supreme Court case: X vs. Y..."  I'd expect it, since the venue is the highest court of the land and that's extremely relevant to understanding context.  I'm changing it back. Oren0 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can understand where you're coming from. I think one of the other problems with simply labeling it "High Court Case" is that without knowing something about the UK court system you wouldn't know exactly which country this court case was.  See what I'm saying?  What about labeling it something like "UK High Court Case: Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills".  I know that's getting a little long at that point, but I think the heading should be as descriptive as possible. Also I thnk it would help anyone who is looking this up for research and already knows a little something about the situation already, that heading should lead them right to the part of the article they're looking for.  Just some thoughts, let me know what you think. Elhector (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with "UK High Court case" or "British High Court case". I just think the fact that it was tried in the High Court is relevant. Oren0 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not identify a case by the court in which is it tried. You do name it according to the case name. Cf. Roe v. Wade is not called rewinn (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I'm reverting part of Rewinn's recent edit here, particularly the intro part. We still have an ongoing discussion above on the intro and as such I think it would be a good idea to wait on making changes to the intro until that discussion is finished. Also, I believe the word "unsuccessful" is a little misleading. Changes in procedure resulted from the claimants complaint, and the judge is quoted as saying the case was a success for the claimant. Also I think the particular court is important and notable. There's a big difference between a local magistrate and High Court. Lastly, I know the fact that it was sponsered by skeptics is true, (I remember reading an article about it a few months back) but I really think need a source for that statement. Elhector (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I recall the case was sponsored by Monckton. (clickety click...) ah, here is one source. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I'll add the source to it :-) Elhector (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

High Importance?
Is this film really that important? Elementalos (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine that all Oscar-winning films are marked as of high importance. You could take it up with the Films project, who marked it as such.Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I look at the long list of Academy award winning films, I can't say I am impressed at all regarding the importance of them generally. Many were very enjoyable.  I don't think that the Academy gives oscars to "most socially important film" category.  "Important" seems very subjective to me, and an award for film making does not impress me for overall importance outside of the film industry.  Ryder Spearmann (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations and misrepresentation of cited source
I have made very small edits at the beginning, calling for citation where two specific groups are said to have "generally well received" (film critics and scientists). If there is a need to single out these two groups in this statement (why does it not say that the film was generally well received... specifying no groups?) then nobody should be bashful in providing a source for the assertion. Next, the citation where "Global Warming skepics" have called the film "exaggerated..." etc. was improperly cited. The source attributes the quote to "scientists", the editor has improperly altered it to "Global Warming skeptics". I have reverted to the term actually used in the source. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is there to summarize the content of the article. All of your questions for citation/arguments is answered there. The lead represents the result of long and tedious discussions here on the talk pages, i suggest that you take a look. If you still have problems after that - then please talk it out here first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Kim (may I call you that?), as you have reverted the material in the face if a citation problem, you have now assumed the burden (WP:PROVEIT) of proving the citation was properly done . Can you in fact show that the source says that "global warming skeptics" have make the quote cited?  Please do so with all haste, or correct to reflect the actual statement made in the source.  If you do not take up this burden, I will of course change it back again. I mean you no disrespect, but in the face of a citation dispute, I think you should have paused before assuming citation burden.


 * In fact the quote isn't from a scientist at all, but from William Broad, a columnist for the New York Times. So it needs to be rephrased altogether. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From the cited article by William Broad: "But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism." so Raymond, you have a point. No scientists are actually quoted... and is just a summary of Broads review of materials he generically attributes to "scientists" and not "global warming skeptics" of any sort whatsoever.  The entire sentance is indeed out of whack wrt its cited source.  Doesn't anybody read the citation links?.  At this point, Kim has assumed the burden of correcting the passage/citation, so I will defer to her judgement on how to fix it.Ryder Spearmann (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, as it is known to at least two of us to clearly need to be entirely reworked, I am removing the passage altogether until such a time as Kim can repair the problem, as she has not checked back in. She may swoop in again when the page changes. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. The specific names of scientists I've found whom Broad cites are indeed skeptics (e.g., Lindzen, Easterbrook). BTW Kim is a "him", not a "her." Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * but does the *source* say that? We can't do research or synthisize facts from various sources.  Also, I am curious, do Lindzen and Easterbrook call themselves GW skeptics?  They may simply call themselves scientists.  Regardless, we can't do our own research. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Broad calls Lindzen a "vocal skeptic of global warming." There's no question that Don Easterbrook (along with Robert Carter and Roy Spencer, whom I originally overlooked) are skeptics, as attested by multiple sources (see e.g., their Wikipedia articles). No OR involved whatsoever. Another whom Broad mentions, Benny Peiser, isn't a physical scientist at all; he's a social anthropologist. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "well-received" sentence should be dropped from the intro. Its origin appears to have been to balance some unnecesary references in the introduction to criticisms; since the latter are (at this instant anyway) more appropriately relegated to the body of the article, there would seem to be little need to note that the film was well received. rewinn (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, a clean article is a happy article. As the lead, it could be said that the film was "well received by some, criticized by others." and let the body of the article sort it out.  Ryder Spearmann (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just leave "Some like it, some don't" out of the introduction; since that can be said of almost anything, it doesn't really add anything. Words like "controversy" in the TOC should suffice. rewinn (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it is there in the lead, because it reflects what happens in the body below. It is a summary.  It is not supposed to be perfectly clear, it is just supposed to lead into the complete article that appears below it.  I think you should return it as part of a good lead point of summary. To not indicate any controversy in the lead is probably a disservice to readers. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the current compromise to be a happy one. Why remove the positive and negative aspects of the film's reception?  I think the lead is too short now compared to the article.  According to Metacritic, the film was well received by critics.  According to the NYT, some skeptics have criticized the film.  Both of these statements are highly relevant and belong in the lead.  It's also worth noting that the current lead is a compromise that has been reached after several RFC's and heavy debating.  WP:OWN notwithstanding, it's probably best to try to find some sort of consensus here before making sweeping changes to the lead. Oren0 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. (at least for most of it ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as it is KNOWN that the citation for the "exaggerated and erroneous" commet is totally incorrect, how can you possibly justify restoring it in its flawed state, Kim? Again YOU have assumed the burden of this citation issue by restoring it.  Please explain youself and defend the quote, or fix it.  Are we really going to include bad information in the name of avoiding a lead that "is too short"?  I am (nearly) speachless.  Also, how come those that received the film well are "scientists" while scientists that did not, are "global warming skeptics"? (which is a term that can be applied to the man on the street, thereby minimizing the stature of the scientists that are criticial)  Ryder Spearmann (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryder - i have not assumed any burden here. First of all because i haven't restored anything (as you mistakenly indicate above (take a look at the history)), and secondly because the lead accurately summarizes the body of the article, and while we can discuss if elements are presented with undue weight, it is the results of a long and tedious consensus process. Have you taken a look at the talk archives, as i asked you to? And as RA has already explained to you, the persons referenced in the NYT article are global warming sceptics (have you taken a look at their biographies as RA asked you to?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure you did: 04:30, 13 January 2008 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) (77,352 bytes) (→Citations and misrepresentation of cited source - its a lead - it represents a summary of the article.) (undo)
 * Also, since you are saying that a lead, which as a KNOWN BAD citation, is accurate to the body of the article, then you seem to be saying that the body has a BAD citation as well. Why are you not all over this? Can you explain inaction and restoring material that is improperly sourced?  I am flabberghasted, honestly.  Defense of bad citations boggles my mind.  Ryder Spearmann (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ryder - but the edit that you are referring to was my answer here on the talk page to your initial posting. Not a reversion on the main-article. (that one was done by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs) ). And frankly the citation is neither improperly sourced nor "known bad" (you seem to be the only one who "knows" this).
 * Once more try to read the talk archives to get a feel for the various issues and the consensus here. And try to be a little less confrontational - it betters the chances that people will actually take your comments serious and ponder them more. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Kim, here is where you earn your keep. Sorry to put you on the spot, but you give me no choice.  Please name the cited person that said "exaggerated and erroneous" within the quoted source, and who that person is, by name and occupation.
 * You are mistaken about me being the only one who knows this, I am not the person that even found it. From this very section: "In fact the quote isn't from a scientist at all, but from William Broad, a columnist for the New York Times. So it needs to be rephrased altogether."Raymond Arritt
 * Ryder Spearmann (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Broad attributes this to the sceptics mentioned in the article. I changed the lead to say argued as in the Broad article. The only possible contentious thing i can see about it, is the quotation marks around "exaggerated and erroneous" which could be taken as scare quotes. And please address the issue not the editor. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To say that some people liked the film and that other people did not like it is to say practically nothing. To mention the Dimmock case in the introduction is to give undue weight to it. Regardless of if you take on the burden for material you have personally restored, for the record here, do you say that the "exaggerated and erroneous" quote is correctly sourced? If so, your rationale for same is requested. rewinn (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Numerous editors on both sides of the global warming issue have agreed on this version.  Please try to get some agreement before overriding long-standing consensus as to the lead.  As for undue weight, the Dimmock case got a lot of coverage in the media and therefore a lead mention is not undue weight by any stretch.  Oren0 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rewinn. See WP:CCC. Why is it that the Dimmock case deserves mention in the lead, and Gore's Nobel doesn't? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple. Dimmock was about the film.  The Nobel prize went to Gore for raising awareness on climate change in general, not to the film specifically.  I don't have any problem with mentioning the Academy Awards in the lead, because they were awarded to the film itself. Oren0 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a reason not to include Dimmock in the introduction. This article is about the film, not about Dimmock or any other court case. The court cases do not belong in the introduction; the various litigations get adequate coverage in the article. rewinn (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD requires us to mention notable controversies in the lead. A High Court case is about as notable as controversies get.  The fact that "various litigations get adequate coverage in the article" is an argument FOR inclusion in the lead, not against it.  The lead is meant to summarize the contents of the article.  Oren0 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is simply not true that A High Court case is about as notable as controversies get. The plain truth is that anyone can file a case and that does not make it significant enough to put into the lead. There are millions of lawsuits filed every year. Dimmock is not important enough to put in the lead. rewinn (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that i disagree that a high-court case isn't notable - but in this case the controversy (and the court case) is about showing it in school - not about AIT itself, which is the basic reason that i think that mentioning it in the lead is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your argument that the case was about AIT in schools rather than AIT directly is a semantic one, especially given the ruling (nine "errors", etc). The case was a subject of a High Court case, and that's a big deal.  I'm American, so I compare it to the US Supreme Court; Supreme Court cases are generally a huge deal and are the kind of things that make it into leads.  The best example I can think of is the Racial segregation in the United States article.  Even though KDP might argue that Brown v. Board of Education wasn't about racial segregation directly (it was about racial segregation in schools), that didn't keep it out of the lead of the previously mentioned article.  If you really want to change it to "has been the subject of multiple court cases regarding its showing in schools," I wouldn't be opposed to that.  Also, I object to the language "failed" in the lead as the plaintiff declared success after the case was over based on the nine "errors". Oren0 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Monckton's suit against AIT quite rises to the social and political import of Brown. And of course the plaintiff is hardly a disinterested party in declaring whether the suit failed or succeeded. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on both counts. I don't think the lead should get into the results of the case at all, because if you do I think you have to mention the "errors" as well, and I don't believe that much detail is needed in the lead.  Oren0 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

British High Court
There seems to be some confusion among the American editors as to what a British High Court is. It hears a wide range of contract law and personal injury / general negligence cases, divorce, children, probate and medical treatment, patent disputes et cetera. It is not comparable to the American Supreme Court. Cases filed in the High Court are not, by that fact, notable. The case for the notability of Dimmock being sufficient to mention it in the lead remains to be made; one might with equal force argue that any person who has been sued should have that fact mentioned in the lead to their biography. Litigation over the film is sufficiently discussed in the body of the article not to merit mention in the lead; however if it is discussed in the lead, it must be noted that the plaintiff failed since otherwise the purpose of putting it into the lead is inappropriately to disparage the film. On a related edit, quoting only climate sceptics and not scientists in the lead gives undue weight; quotes in general do not belong in the lead. rewinn (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In accord with the above, I have shortened an excessively long section title (Nation, Jurisdiction and Case Name) to just the Case Name. Including the Jurisdiction is not necessary and, in the case of our non-British readers, gave an inaccurate impression of the level at which the case was filed. rewinn (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Livestock Issue
I suggest that we cut this one entirely - it's based entirely on a single source of criticism (PETA). And while it is entirely correct that the movie doesn't mention this - there is no reason that it should've specifically mention it. In my opinion it is undue weight to a fringe critique. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless this is an issue that was picked up by newspapers or other sources. Oren0 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick search for other references that blame Gore for not mentioning this issue - and while not exhaustive, i didn't find any. There are articles that mention both AIT and methane from livestock - but these aren't connected as in "Gore should've mentioned this". My take is still: delete. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does not the BBC program, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." criticize Gore in precisely this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryder Spearmann (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find it in the transcript. The TGGWS transcript mentions "animals and bacteria" but not agriculture. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the only comment on Gore in TGGWS is on the Dome-C/Vostock temp/CO2 graph. Btw. TGGWS was not a BBC program, but from Channel 4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Error lists
In the section on Criticism, I have inserted a paragraph on Error lists. I refer to my own extensive scrutinizing of a large series of alleged errors. I hope this is OK. --Kåre Fog (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we can't include it - Wikipedia has a standing prohibition on the inclusion of such material. See No original research for details. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree with ChrisO. I have consulted the page on original research, and I do not see that it applies here.
 * What is more important, it is bad and contraproductive to leave out material that is useful to the wikipedia users. The sources that I link to will be very useful both for those who are for Al Gore, and those who are against Al Gore. There are extensive lists of arguments pro et con which will be useful to everybody. The text on "error lists" increases the value of the wikipedia article, without increasing subjectivity.
 * Please tell me: what harm is done if this section is included? Does any kind of subjectivity sneak into wikipedia?
 * Your interpretation of the term "original research" is quite special, and I think that in this case this interpretation is very contraproductive. I need a bette explanation why this should be left out.--Kåre Fog (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia forbids users from conducting their own research and using it to influence articles. This is cast-iron policy. Is your work known or acclaimed by secondary sources that Wikipedia considers acceptable? If so, you may have a case. if not, policy prevents us from using your material. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I still do not accept your explanation. How does the term "original research" enter the picture? The paragraph on Criticism refers to a few articles etc. that bring a few points of criticism. I could have extended that paragraph greatly by giving an overview of those sources that have produced extensive and allegedly serious criticisms of the film, but a fair treatment of that subject would take up much space. What is written here in wikipedia gives very little information to the reader as to what are the points of criticism - ridiculously little relative to what should have been written if the reader should have had a fair impression of the issue. There is quite a number of lines referring to an article in the March 13, 2007 issue of the New York Times, and there is an inclusion of a sentence saying "the article also states that . . ", that is, the author of that newspaper article has drawn some conclusions. Why use so much space for just one newspaper article, when there exists material on the points of criticism that have a much higher quality? You have the possibility to refer to thoroughly worked-through sources, instead of epehmeral sources (some of the linkes to newspaper articles already do not work anymore, e.g. no. 66), but instead you have a policy in which newpaper articles are allowed, but thoroughly worked-through sources are not allowed. Now, I could have written about that in wikipedia, but that would have taken up much space. Instead, I have written about it on my own web site, and I think that it would be a great help to wikipedia readers to be made aware that the information they are seeking is to be found there - if they want to know about what was the criticism about. So, if I write this text directly on wikipedia, it is not original research, but if I write the same text on my own web site, it suddenly becomes classified as original research, and the readers are prohibited from getting to know it.
 * I have done this work exclusively for idealistic reasons - because I think it is important for the whole society to get a better overview over the criticism - what criticism hits the point, and what does not (most of it certianly does not, but some certainly does). Of course, it must be presented in a fair and objective way, which makes it possible for the reader to judge for himself, and to check the sources. To gather this kind of evidence has taken me three to four weeks full-time. Now, how is it possible to ensure that the public receives the benefit of this work having been done? Well, it could be presented to the public via a link on wikipedia.
 * So, somebody has done the work that should have been done on wikipedia, but which has not been done there - the overview over criticism on wikipedia is very deficient. By prohibiting the admittance of the public to the information available, you are ensuring that the public remains badly informed. This is what I call contraproductive.
 * I am sure you have not studied what actually I am linking to. If you checked that, I hope you would become ashamed that you had tried to prevent people from seeing it.
 * --Kåre Fog (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To Chris Cunningham: As I have got no answer yet to my latest comment, I write once more.
 * The wikipedia paragraph on Criticism cites various sources, such as an article in The New York Times. It says: "The article quotes both defenders and critics of the film". So here we have a relatively low-quality, ephemeral source where the journalist tries to get a little overview over the criticism, presenting arguments from both sides. I understand that it is OK to cite this source. I also understand that some of the sources that are cited, make evaluations. Source 80, for example, writes: "The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood".
 * Now, where is the difference between these sources and the sources I tried to refer to? In principle, my source is like the newspaper article, except that it is much more thorough and is based on not half a day´s investigation of pro et con, but 3-4 weeks of such investigations. It also attempts to create an overview over the criticism, and it also brings arguments from both sides. Only, it has a higher quality and is less ephemeral. It does make statements about certain alleged errors which are clearly not sustainable, but so did e.g. source 80.
 * So why is it that my source should be designated "original research", whereas the newspaper article is not "original research"?
 * If wikipedia has a policy that it is OK to cite newpaper articles, but not OK to cite sources where people have made serious and balanced attempts to create an overview over the issues, then this policy will mean that relatively low-quality sources are included, whereas higher-quality sources are excluded. Then you get the kind of article that you have here - a lot of citations of newspaper articles, but the reader does never get a fuller understanding of what is the issue. I refuse to believe that this is official wikipedia policy. It seems to me that there is a misuse of the term "original research". I have neither studied melting ice nor rising sea levels myself, but I have taken upon me the task of reviewing what others have found out. How can this be called "original research"?
 * I am quite angry with the rejection, and I therefore plea for a satisfactory answer that adresses the questions that I have raised. I really hope to get such an answer, because otherwise I will have the trouble to write an official complaint.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We all appreciate that you have put in a great deal of work and you'd like to improve the article. However, there's really not room to budge on this.  Your list is original research because you haven't had it published anywhere but on your own website and Wikipedia.  Information in articles has to be verifiable and published in a reliable source in order to be valid for inclusion.  If, for example, you were to publish a magazine article or book with this information, it would no longer be original research and it might be eligible for inclusion (though even then it might be a conflict of interest for you to add the info).  There are lots of criticisms of AIT from which information can be gleaned that might be appropriate for this article (here's one, for example), but you can't write your own criticism and then source it here.  If we allowed this, anybody could place their own opinions on their own websites and then publish them on WP, greatly diminishing its accuracy.  If you want to get the opinion of more users, the next step would be requests for comment, but honestly you'd be wasting your time.  We don't mean anything personal by this, but the policies are in place for a reason. Oren0 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To OrenO: You have just proven why it is necessary that I insist. You refer to count Monckton´s list of errors. This is one of the lists that I refer to on my website. I know that it does impress some people who look at it at first sight, but upon closer scrutiny, it is severely flawed. Quite a number of the alleged errors are definitely non-errors; Monckton postulates that Al Gore´s film has as many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations. If that were true, it would be really bad. As a citizen, I therefore cannot accept that such a postulate remains unchecked. I want to know: is the postulate right or not? But, as a citizen, how do I find out? Where is there a site where Monckton´s postulates have been scrutinized? I know of no other place than the web page I have made. If you know of others, I would be happy to hear about it.
 * So, my postulate is that society needs a possibility to find out if such claims as that made by Monckton are approximately true. I have done the best I could to aid in that process. Please tell me what else I could have done, or what else I should do. In what way should it be possible for our society to gradually approach a clarification of what is true and false in all this? Given the severity of the subject of Gore´s film, we cannot just lean back and say: nobody knows the truth. We must sort out those alleged errors that quite obviously are false allegations, so that what remains are the few points of debate that really cannot easily be settled. Only if that clarification process proceeds, can society take proper action to prevent climate change, or not prevent it.
 * We know that the most important tactics of climate skeptics is to postulate that there is still doubt and we do not know for sure. So anybody who blocks the clarification process helps the skeptics and is an enemy of Al Gore. The position that "we don´t know" is not a neutral position. As to Monckton, I find it very difficult to believe that his criticism is honest. I guess - but that is only a guess - that he deliberately formulates his claims in such a way as to imnpress people who do not know the truth. To cite him is more or less an endorsement to    manipulation and lies. When you put his list on the smae footing as mine, you inadvertently insult me - so that is what you have just done.
 * Now, talking about insults leads us nowhere. Instead I will ask: how do we open up for the clarification process? How do we give users of wikipedia access to the attempts by me or others to check which allegations are justified, and which are not? I insist that we need a good answer to this.
 * A crucial difference between Monckton and me is that Monckton is onesided and strongly biased against Gore. I have taken upon me to evaluate his and others lists, and in doing this I try to follow very strict rules as to fairness and objectivity. I am sure that this is not so for most of the lists that I review. But before you judge about this, please take a short look at the websites that I refer to, before you make your judgments (www.Lomborg-errors.dk/Goreallegederrors.htm).
 * If you create a situation where it is impossible for people to be heard who try to be strictly objective and to bring the clarification process further, then you contribute to a bad society that is unable to take proper action when and only when it is needed. Then it is much too easy for those who want to block progress to create doubt and thereby obtain what they want.
 * So my conclusion is: I insist. I want a good answer to my questions.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First the bad news: insisting gets you nowhere around here, and only alienates people. Now the good news: Your material on Bjorn Lomberg has been discussed in top-drawer reliable sources such as The Times. When and if your material on AIT is similarly discussed, it can be considered for inclusion here. But until then, we have to follow WP:SPS. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A few things: 1. Monckton is a notable individual.  You're not (as far as I know), therefore his opinion carries more weight than yours, no offense.  2.  Monckton's list isn't even cited on the page; I was using it as an example.  3.  "Please tell me what else I could have done, or what else I should do." - There's really not much for you to do.  Again, Wikipedia is not a platform for original research.  If you can get your work published or noted by a reliable source then it can be included.  Third party sources have editorial scrutiny that presumably helps ensure their accuracy; your personal website has no editorial control. 4.  "How do we give users of wikipedia access to the attempts by me or others to check which allegations are justified, and which are not?" - Unfortunately, we don't.  If you want Internet users to browse your site, try to get traffic some other way.  Buy ad space on Google, whatever.  But Wikipedia is not and cannot be a platform for original research.  I invite you to look over WP:5P, WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), and WP:NOR if you haven't already.  Oren0 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To Raymond Arritt: First thanks for contributing and the positive words. But I might turn the argument about and say that insisting on a strict interpretation of rigid rules does not help us to proceed in the clarification process which is necessary for democracy to work (politicians can only make the right decisions if other citizens provide the best possible level of information).
 * Wikipedia has the goal to provide the best possible level of information. If the rules aid in this, they are good; if they don´t aid in this, they are not perfectly suitable.
 * 'I am sure that some citizens want to know about what points of criticsim have been raised against Al Gore´s film, and if that criticism was justified. If they consult wikipedia, they only get rather vague information, and read about an extremely small part of the many criticisms. What I would find optimal in the present case, would be that the article referred to the sources of criticism: Bjørn Lomborg, Kristen Byrnes, M. Carter, Bob Edelman, William Kininmonth, Marlo Lewis and Christopher Monckton (there may be others that I have not yet heard of). Everybody would then and only then have the possibility to see what has been been criticised (to my knowledge, an overview of such critics does not exist elsewhere). So I suggest that the wikipedia article refers to these critics, even though most of the sources are more or less private web sites, or are web sites of organisations with special interests (Marlo Lewis on the web site of Competitive Enterprise Institute). For instance, even though I certainly do not like CEI, and even though they are certianly neither neutral nor objective, when you want to know about criticism, you should be led to their web site. And then, when people wonder if all this criticism is justified, they would not be completely helpless, because there would also be a link to my web site. In this way, the wikipedia article could be vastly more informative than it is now, and the number of references to newspaper articles could be reduced.
 * But is it dangerous to use unchecked web sites as a source? It could be, but the whole idea of wikipedia is that everything is checked by a lot of editors, especially in an article like this that is studied by so many people. The ultimate test for quality is the strength of argumentation, and only that. And the strength of argumentation is checked and tested continuously - that is just the unique quality of wikipedia.
 * Relative to this, the check obtained by adhering to certain rules must be secondary. I have read the WP:SPS article, and from this I want to cite: "Self-published material may, in some circumstance, be acceptable . . . however, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." My point is here that I think the information that I present on my web site IS worth reporting. So it ought to have been published also elsewhere. But has it? I suggest that we all consider what serves the purpose of wikipedia best. The rules are good in most situations, but I think that every situation should be evaluated separately, and as you understand, I think that this situation is different.
 * If everything else fails, I must ensure that my material on AIT be referred to in The Times. I guess it is worth it. But how do I advertise to the journalists there that they should take a look at the material?
 * To OrenO: Monckton is known to be a cheater (see the wikipedia article on Monckton. I am not. Maybe he is notable, and I am not. But is notability a criterion? The only criterion that I accept is the weight of the arguments.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone more to say about this conflict? I have thought it over since yesterday, and I have come to the conclusion that the way I have been treated here is completely unacceptable to me. COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. The concept of "own original research" is being severely misused here, and what is going on is against my concepts of ethics and democracy. The assertion that MoNckton´s opinion carries more weight than mine is especially insulting. Since when have we abandoned democracy and gone back to aristocracy?
 * So - I will go on with this in a broader forum. Before I do that, has anyone something to add?

--Kåre Fog (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. You have had four other editors explain to you why this is unacceptable under WP policy. You have had people telling you the same thing about your attempts to rewrite articles for almost a year (see Talk:The_Skeptical_Environmentalist). Nobody but you sees it as anything other than Original Research. You are welcome to take this to a broader forum, but ultimately you will be told the same thing; your personal analyses and website don't belong in articles. Pairadox (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is primarily OR - I could solve that by including it myself. But it is a case of RS. Is KF's website a RS? It might be. Its clearly not necessary for this particular page to be cited by a newspaper before being considered reliable. However... KF: you will get nowhere by insisting OR SHOUTING. If you want to appeal (well, not really appeal, just ask for other opinions), I guess the talk page of WP:RS or WP:OR might be good places to try. Having said that, I personally thought the very first point in KFs list of errors was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To William M. Connolley: Thank you for a constructive reaction. Thank you for having consulted my web site. You write that personally you think the very first point in the list of errors is wrong. Please explain - because it is very important to me that the text on the web page is as reliable as possible. I guess you refer to the "alleged errors" page and to the question of the influence of the sun? (Not to the "acknowledged errors" page and the snow on Kilimanjaro?) In that case, I would like to know what you think is not correct. You need not answer here. I would be glad to have an email (kaarefog@teliamail.dk). --Kåre Fog (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't think that our reluctance to cite your website is a comment on the quality of your work. It's not - it's simply that because there are so many potential sources that we could include, we have to be very selective. Essentially we have to confine our selection to published mainstream sources. That does have the unfortunate side-effect of excluding many good self-published sources, such as personal websites, but it's necessary to protect the overall quality of Wikipedia articles. Because we're required to present a neutral point of view in articles, fairly representing positions on an issue without supporting or rejecting them, we're required to be objective in our use of source material - we can't use or reject sources simply because we like or dislike them. That's why we have to set an objective standard, namely the requirements set out in Verifiability and Reliable sources. And unfortunately your website isn't eligible under those criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello! I came here from a link on the Talk page of no original research. I would humbly submit to the editors that you open a case either on NOR Talk or on reliable sources noticeboard. Instead of allowing your conflict to go in circles here. Once you have arrived at a *general* conflict on the interpretation and application of policy and/or guidelines. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To Wjohnson. I will think it over, but I do not have the time today. I am not used to this - what precisely do you mean? Should I just start a discussion there, or should I establish another "Request for Comments" there?

--Kåre Fog (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC Referring to error lists
Is it OK to refer to error lists in the articles on "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist" ? (Note added by Oren0: this is a diff of the proposed addition)


 * Comment: Articles relating to global warming are some of the most hotly contested and well policed articles on Wikipedia. In regards to the lists of blogs/self published sources, I'd imagine that most of them are appropriate.  From WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  In the case of RealClimate, those citations are considered appropriate because RealClimate's members are generally climate scientists with numerous publications.  I know that since I've been editing global warming articles here (over a year), RC has always been assumed to be an acceptable source.  I imagine there was some sort of large consensus or decision reached on this at some point, but I couldn't point you to it.  The next reference you point to is the blog of John Quiggin, a published and notable economist.  The reference is to the economic effects of global warming, so again this is acceptable per WP:SPS.  The determination to be made as to whether your own blog is acceptable is whether you can be considered an expert in the field based on your own publications, and I haven't seen any evidence that that's the case.  (Note: to avoid any perceived conflict of interest, it's worth noting that some members of RealClimate and John Quiggin are Wikipedia editors and regularly edit global warming related articles.  However, that doesn't change the fact that they're experts, and I'm sure they didn't add the referenced material themselves) Oren0 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To Oren0. Thanks for commenting. You have looked up two of the references, and your comments illustrate some of the issues. If you or somebody else take the time to look up some of the other references, you will find that they are of fairly mixed quality, which means that there are other issues to be discussed also.
 * Of special interest to my case are those references that more or less have the character of error lists or evaluation of errors. Maybe what I think is that such error evaluations are a special category of source which do not fit in well in the categories of source that are being used elsewhere. My main focus is how Wikipedia becomes as useful for the readers as possible, and I think that referring to such error lists is of considerbale use to many readers, whether the error evaluations turn out in the end to be appropriate or not.
 * I have thought things over a bit and got the idea that maybe we need some kind of "Wikicheck", that is error lists inside the Wikipedia concept. If for instance we had a "Wikicheck" of An Inconvenient Truth, that would mean that all editors were free to place there alleged errors, e.g. "The inhabitants of Tuvalu have not been evacuated." Then some other editor might add a comment that after all, some of them have indeed moved to New Zealand, and the text might end up to become a fair description of what is right or wrong. Such an article does not fit into the Wikipedia encyclopedia concept, but it might be another branch of the wider Wiki concept. I think that there is a large uncovered need for such Wiki-based error-lists, and if somebody catches this idea and turns it into reality, I guess that such error lists might become very useful and much sought.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I encourage you to bring up sources on the relevant talk pages if you think they're inappropriate.  It's entirely possible that you're right.  But just because something exists elsewhere doesn't give it the right to exist here. Oren0 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I could mention one example. In the article on The Great Global Warming Swindle, reference 49 and the sentence where it occurs is in my opinion of a quality too low for Wikipedia.
 * But apart from such examples, my point is the opposite - as I stated already: I think that (most of) the listed references are OK. In the Great Global Warming Swindle article, refs. 3, 4 and 5 deal with error corrections. Apparently they have been accepted because the authors have som authority. But how much authority is required to make a private letter acceptable as a source? I suggest that instead of trying to define this level of authority precisely, we do something completely different. We define a new category of sources, namely sources that treat alleged errors, and the delimitation of what sources should be included in this new category will be orthogonal to other delimitations, such as authoritative/ not-authoritative, or original-research/ not-original-research. My reason to suggest defining such a new category is that I see a demand for it. If there is any response to this, I could try to be a little more precise about what I mean.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Several issues on the proposed edit:
 * The big issue with the proposed edit is not the content ("errors lists") but the sourcing, which fails on issues discussed above and below. I'm glad Oren0 went to the work of carefully analyzing the comparative sourcing issues in the above comment; I'm too lazy for that!
 * To the extent that the issue is with WP's sourcing policies in re self-published mateials, that is best discussed elsewhere. Whether or not I like that policy, this is the Talk page for AIT, not for WP policy. In addition, persons unhappy with WP policy are free to create their own 'pedia and invite contributors; it is unreasonable to demand that the Wikipedia Foundation's property be turned over to their use just because they don't agree with the Foundation's policy.
 * To the extent that the issue is the Dimmock Case's list of "errors" (a technical term, not to be confused with the common English word "mistake"), such list is best discussed in the Dimmock article
 * To the extent that the issue relates to errors not found in Dimmock: there is sufficient properly sourced coverage of criticism in this article's Criticism section. No article can or should contain every factoid on the subject; that's why the internet has links.
 * This is only wikipedia; I would not get too worked up over having my blog entry (...however excellently it may be written...) not included as a source. Search engines will pick it up, if it is great material, as fans recommend it to each other.   rewinn (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Background
I recently suggested to add a paragraph on error lists in the article on "An Inconvenient Truth". This was rejected by several editors with the argument that I was referring to "own original research". Last year I suggested a complete rewriting of the article on "The Skeptical Environmentalist". I did this because I thought that the article as it were was so biased that it could not be helped in other ways. The article now still remains approximately as it were, and I still think that it is hopelessly biased. Among the arguments for rejecting my suggestion was that I referred to "own original research".

Apology
I apologize for the trouble I have caused, and for referring to own material. However, I did this because I thought it was relevant and would improve the value of the article, and I still think so. I especially apologize for having completely rewritten the very long article on "The Skeptical Environmentalist", but again, I did this because I thought that the article was not OK and that it could not be improved by minor amendments. I still think that.

Is there a truth?
Is it possible to come close to finding out what is the truth? Or is the concept that there exists a truth just an illusion? Many Wikipedia articles have long sections with pro et con. We read about a series of persons stating this and this and this, and a series of opponents stating the opposite views. Usually, no conclusions are drawn, and the reader is left to decide for himself what to believe. Many readers have no background to do that, and are left confused. In recent years, it has become ever more clear that there are groupings in our societies that aim at creating doubt and confusion, because they can obtain political goals by doing that. They are using principles developed by Edward Bernays. The principle is that if there exists scientific consensus on an issue, you make an authoritative person go public with claims of an opposite view. Often this person is secretly paid for doing so. In a democratic society, media will feel obliged (and interested) to bring forward these opposing views, and to confront them with traditional views. They will typically create a "the doctors disagree" situation, where each point of view occupies 50 % of the media coverage, and the dispute remains unsolved. This will make people confused, some will start to believe the opponent, and as long as there is uncertainty, politicians will await the situation and take no action. The aim - that politicians take no action - is obtained as long as new opposing views keep popping up relentlessly. Then political action will be postponed forever. Al Gore uses quite some time in his film to deal with this subject. He is right to do so, because it is a major and fundamental problem that the use of this tactics is so widespread. It causes erosion of trust in authorities, and of trust in science. Society depends on such trusts being intact. If for instance trust in scientific results erodes away, we will back in medieval times where every kind of superstition is given equal value to objective information. This issue is also very relevant in relation to the editing of Wikipedia articles. Are we doing the right thing if we simply present a long list of statements endorsing one view, followed by a long list of statements endorsing the opposite view? I think not. We thereby import the deliberately created confusion into Wikipedia, and contribute to a lowering of the level of information (if we first have some reliable information, and we then add unjustified doubts about that information, then the level of information has been lowered). An article may contain a lot of pro-et-con text that could better be cut away, because presenting unjustified doubt and corrections to that doubt is redundant and useless information. We need only present information that is fairly certain (say, 95 % certain) plus issues in which there is a real, unsettled discussion of pro et con. But is it true that it is often possible to state what is simply the truth? Yes. Take this example: In the film, Al Gore says: "That´s why the citizens of these Pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand". This postulate can be checked and has been checked, and it is demonstrably wrong. Next example. Al Gore says: "In 2004, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons." Critics have disputed this, but it can be checked. If we talk about typhoons that made landfall, it is true. Gore said "Japan", not "the seas around Japan", so arguably, he is talking about typhoons that hit land. The critics are demonstrably wrong. My point is: if we care to do the "research" and check the sources, then we will in the majority of the cases be able to either discard or acknowledge the allegations. We need not stand with a long, long list of unsettled issues. (It IS a long list - I have recorded 130 allegations concerning Al Gore´s film). Somebody SHOULD do that job, because the weapon against the deliberate making people confused is to check and check and clarify and clarify. Society needs that this work be done. By whom? Who - me? Well, I have felt an ethical obligation to contribute to this. I do not do it to prove Gore right or wrong. I do not do it to advocate a political agenda. I do it because deliberately created confusion is unacceptable to me. Of course, I have no monopoly in deciding what allegations are to be acknowledged. This will continue to be open to discussion, especially when new evidence appears. But we can and should weed out the pollution of the "info-sphere".

The rule
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments and ideas. And any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." This is cast-iron policy, says Chris Cunningham. And Oren0 explains: "If we allowed this, anybody could place their own opinions on their own websites and then publish them on WP, greatly diminishing its accuracy." Yes, of course, that is the reason for that policy, but is that argument tenable here? I am NOT placing my own opinions here, and I am NOT diminishing the accuracy. On the contrary, I am greatly expanding the accuracy.

The necessary process
In principle, I could do approximately the same job not on my web site, but directly here on Wikipedia. I could list a lot of objections to Gore´s film, citing the sources, and then commenting what are the counter-arguments in each case. It would then be apparent that some of the objections are unjustified, and others are justified. Everybody would reach more clarity as to what are the real problems in the film, and what criticism can we ignore. Of course, there would be differing interpretations in certain issues, but then there would be the whole discussion part of Wikipedia that would gradually serve to get things right. All that would be OK. Now, the problem is that there are far too many points of objection. And every time one objection is shot down, two others pop up, because there are groups with strong interests in having a never-ending bombardment with objections, so that the doubt - not about specific issues, but about the whole film - can become chronic. Therefore, there is no space here for that process which in principle could have proceeded on Wikipedia. And I do not know where else that process could be placed. I have chosen the solution to put it on my own web site. Others could have done the same thing elsewhere, but as far as I know, that has not been done up to now (because it is a large work). To my knowledge, my web site is the ONLY place with a comprehensive treatment of all the criticism. Therefore, I have not been able to use any other references instead.

Is the rule really cast-iron?
It seems strange to me that the Wikipedia editors should really have been able to adhere strictly to the rule that is allegedly cast-iron. So I have "done some own original research"/"scrutinized some articles and compiled some evidence" (strike out the words which do not apply). I have consulted some related articles to see if the references all adhere to the rule.

The article Global warming: Ref 26: A Realclimate web site Ref 76: A blog Ref 77: Unpubl. orig. research Ref 88: A blog

The article Greenhouse effect: Ref 4: A Realclimate web site (Wood (1909)) is formally at least a link to a private blog).

The article The Skeptical Environmentalist: References to Arthur Rörsch and Stichting-HAN are to error lists which, formally, are of the same type as mine, likewise published only on a web site. Unfortunately, the links are now dead.

The article The Stern Review: Ref 6 : A blog Ref 7 : Unpubl. orig. research Ref 26: Unpubl. orig. research Ref 29: A blog Ref 37: Unpubl. orig. research Ref 38: Blog/orig. research Ref 40: A blog

The article The Great Global Warming Swindle: Ref 3 & 59 Ref 4 & 30 & 58 Ref 5 Ref 39: A blog Ref 49 Except for ref. 39, these are all private/unpublished evaluations of alleged errors, more or less comparable in principle to my web site

The article Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming: Refs 26 - 28 - 38 - 40 - 43 - 44 - 46 - 51 - 53 - 56 - (57?, did not work) - 58 - 59

Altogether I have managed to find in these six articles at least 31 references that formally violate the NOR rule. Is that bad? No. I think every one of these references is suitable and useful and serves the purpose to illuminate the issue dealt with. That includes also the (former) references to Rörsch/Stichting-HAN, who has launched hard and partially unjustified criticism of me and other critics of Lomborg. Even though this has been troubling to me, I think that it was right to have these links on Wikipedia, because, when read in combination with other links, they serve the purpose of clarification and neutrality (equal weighting of opposing views).

Why have Wikipedia editors compromised the cast-iron rule in so many cases? Because it was necessary. For instance, in principle, one should not refer to a Realclimate website, because claims made there have not gone through a peer-review process or something similar (as far as I know). But because that particular Realclimate page was the best available source for a clear explanation of what is up and down concerning the greenhouse effect of water vapour, it has been cited in two Wikipedia articles. If somebody finds another source of equal quality in the peer-reviewed media, then of course the source should be exchanged, because then the NOR rule is unequivocally obeyed. But until then, it is much better to have the link as it is. The same applies, in my view, more or less, to all the other references listed above.

The article on the Skeptical Environmentalist
I said in the beginning that this article is hopelessly biased, not just in certain paragraphs, but pervasively. However, if I should state more clearly what offends me, then I will focus on the way that the criticism of Lomborg´s book is treated. I have counted how many lines deal with the criticism. That is about 150 lines, nearly half of the article, so formally that seems quite balanced. However, few of these lines deal with qualified, professional criticism that is directed at the factual errors and distortions in Lomborg´s book. Many more lines deal with criticism that appears badly founded, politically motivated, or nearly ridiculous. Quite a lot of lines deal with criticism of the criticism. Altogether, it is certainly not denied that there has been a lot of criticism, but much has been done to present this criticism as unjustified. It is as if the editors accept all criticism, as long as it does not hit. The reader may nearly believe that no criticism has precisely pointed out concrete errors - although more than 300 such errors or flaws have been found in the book. This is what is offending to me: I, and the other serious critics, are more or less denounced. Personally, I have used months to make serious and accurate documentation of the errors, months that were taken out of my work schedule so that I could have used them earn money instead of working idealistically. Luckily, I was in a position where I was free to make such a choice. But on Wikipedia, it is subtly suggested that all that work, by me and many others, was not serious, politically motivated, and more or less ridiculous. Last year, I could not accept that, and now, I still cannot accept that. Somebody has told me that the "Skeptical Environmentalist" article has been conquered some years ago - long before I entered the scene - by a group of pro-Lomborg people who have managed to keep editors that are sceptical of Lomborg more or less away. I do not know if that is true, but it might be. In any case, to solve the problem, I suggest the following: The fairly neutral introduction, and the paragraph on the formal charge of scientific dishonesty, are kept as they are. The rest of the space is divided into two parts: One where people who are mostly pro-Lomborg are allowed to write their laudatory description of the book and their criticism of the criticism, whereas the other part is for people who are mostly sceptical to Lomborg, and who could use the space to give a more precise indication of what was criticised and why. To be fair, I suggest that the pro-Lomborg part, which includes the description of the book and its publication, should occupy c. 70 % of the space, whereas the critical part should occupy c. 30 % of the space. Such a solution would in my view be fair. It would not produce an optimal article, but it would ensure a decent amount of neutrality, which is not the case now. --Kåre Fog (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Please be aware that the "wall of text" approach usually isn't effective on Wikipedia. It would be helpful to your argument if you could state your points more concisely. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, I am aware of that, but I could not do it otherwise. I actually tried to formulate it as briefly as possible.
 * I had not anticipated that this would be so difficult, and it takes time for me to find out what is the crucial point. At least I have come to understand now that this case has to be considered as something different from the ordinary day-to-day tiffs.
 * My point is - the general public has a demand for error checking. Peter Jones sees the movie and wants to know: is this really true? He tries to look up in Wikipedia, finds a paragraph headed Criticism, but that paragraph turns out to be of practically no use to him. So where else can he find the information he seeks? - nowhere! The solution: recognize that there is a demand for error-checking, and redefine categories of information so that it opens up for the covering of this demand. As I wrote in another comment above, maybe in the end the right solution turns out to be a new invention, which I here call "Wikicheck", and which could be established as a new branch in the wider assemblage of Wiki "products". If this makes sense to somebody, I could try to formulate more precisely what I imagine.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kare Fog, I like you, very much appreciate the effort taken to look at the sources you've cited in your own blog or comment page. Btw just to illustrate my own conflict-of-interest I have my own wiki at countyhistorian.com, I'm a professional genealogist and biographer. There have been times, when I've really wanted to cite my own work in an article on-Wiki, I will freely admit that. But, since we are working here as a collective, we must reach consensus on what is, and what is-not appropriate to cite. Imagine someone, unscrupulously comes along with their own point-of-view, selecting choosing items they know will push that point, posting in their own blog, and then posts themselves with that weblink as the source. Other editors may not have sufficient competence to really delve deeply into the issue to see what's occurred until quite sometime later. This is *more* true perhaps on articles less frequently seen, but it has occurred, and often, and we need to ensure that it does not occur by specifying the rule that halts it.

So after long and furious and in-depth debate over many years, we agreed on this form of self-published sources to address this very issue. It's not perfect, but it has worked, and so there you go. You are quite free to cite directly your underlying sources provided they pass the tests. We just can't allow to cite to you as an expert directly. You are free as well, to discuss this in more depth on the Talk page at verifiability to see if you can change the policy. Thanks, have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Source criticism
Yes Kore your point is well-taken. Take a glance here where you'll find I link to two essays on sources which might be helpful. Your thoughts and comments on the associated talk pages of those essays will most likely improve the project. Wjhonson (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have established a page called list of errors where I give other examples of error lists. I still hope that somebody begins to understand that they may be a good thing and would make useful references in many cases.

--Kåre Fog (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the existing references
I have taken a look at the last half of the existing references to the Inconvenient Truth article.

First, the strange policy as to what is high-quality and what is low-quality means not only that two humoristic videos are included, but also that the mainpart of these references are newspaper articles (since when did newspaper articles become an authoritative source?). A problem with newspaper articles may be their ephemeral character - refs 57, 59, 66 and 84 do not function anymore. Ref. 67 is an email correspondence - what is the rule telling that this is acceptable as a source?

Then there is the last reference,ref. 88. It is not about An Inconvenient Truth, and it is a blog of not particularly high value or authority; never mind what it is meant to illustrate - as I understand that is not important, the important thing is whether the source is authoritative. IN my view, that is not the case here.

A remark by rewinn, posted above, was: "The big issue is not the content ("error lists") but the sourcing. OK, there are a few references which have the character og error-correcting by authoritative persons; we accept them. But then there are also references 76 and 80 that have the character of error lists. It seems that these error lists are not authored by persons of any particular authority or other quality. If these error lists are acceptable as references, then please tell me what is the difference between them and my own error list? In answering, please remember rewinn´s words: the big issue is not the content, but the sourcing. --Kåre Fog (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of moving this into its own section, so it doesn't get lost. To answer: we shouldn't be using newspapers for the science; please point out any that are. We do use newspapers as evidence of what the newspapers have been writing, though. By 88, I guess you mean The phrase "an inconvenient truth", or variations thereof, has become a common descriptive expression in the English vernacular since the film's title was announced, appearing in journalism[87], blogs[88], and elsewhere.. In this case, 88 is sort-of allowed to be a blog, because we're not in anyway trusting the content of the blog to be reliable, we're only using it as an example of a blog using a.i.t. as a phrase. Being strict, this is dubious, because it should be supporting the statement has become a common descriptive... which ideally would feature an RS saying so. However... life is too short William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But then there are also references 76 and 80 that have the character of error lists. It seems that these error lists are not authored by persons of any particular authority or other quality. Errr... 80 is by Houghton. 76 is a letter by Spencer, supporting a sentence that says so. If we were to write "KF wrote an analysis of errors and not-errors in AIT", then your page would of course be a perfect ref for that. The problem is that you can't insert it yourself, and its questionable whether you are notable anough to get your list included on the basis of your notability William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First: Yes, I admit I was too brash to insert links myself. I was aware that it was not good form, but I was not aware that it was considered so wrong. On the other hand, if I had known that, I could have had somebody else insert it for me (that would have been possible), and the result would have been the same. So in a way I did it in a more honest way. But OK, you are right.
 * Second: As to Houghton, you are right. I did not look that closely at the link. Sorry. As to Roy Spencer, I am not so sure. He is known, but is he a reliable authority? Can a person be notable but not very reliable, and if so, does that qualify him to be the author of a source?
 * Third, of course I mean that the links that I mention should be included, as they are.
 * Fourth, a formulation similar to "XX wrote an analysis ...", which then would require a reference, is a bit tricky. I think that such formulations do occur in a number of places, and by using them, you can get an excuse to have a link entered which otherwise would not have been accptable as a source.
 * Fifth, more could be said about newspapers and what kind of information they refer to, but I had better stop here for now.
 * --Kåre Fog (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with being brash; see WP:BOLD. Just don't be repeatedly brash. Spencer is a well-known expert in the field of climatology, at least as seen from the outside (in fact he has a quite narrow specialisation and is obviously wedded to his own product, but thats only obvious from the inside). Whatever: within climate, he clearly has expertise and is widely reported by the media William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

An analogous situation: "Icons of evolution"
I have found an example that may illustrate what I want. It concerns the article on the book Icons of evolution which defends intelligent design. When I enter this article, I very soon find some references to error lists published on the internet. These error lists are thorough point-by-point rebuttals of the chapters in Icons of evolution. They are both produced by biologists (Nick Matzke and Alan D. Gishlick) who both have a university position, but who are otherwise not especially known or `notable´, except maybe that they are known for having written about 'Icons of evolution'. Further down in the article there are additional references to error lists that are produced by scientist of a probably somewhat higher position.

A point is: As a reader of Wikipedia, I do not care very much about whether the persons who have taken the time to produce these error lists (or rebuttals)are especially notable. It may even be an advantage that they do not have a particularly high position, because `notable´ professors may often be so widely engaged and so busy that they simply do not have the time needed to write detailed rebuttals of this kind. But of course the authors must be objective, neutral, reliable and trustwothy. If they are so, then I am simply happy that Wikipedia gives me an easy access to these error lists.

The place in the article where reference is made to these error lists is of the type "XX wrote an analysis . . .". So if that type of sentence is what legitimates reference to such sources, then I recommend to use them. But it would be a more direct solution to say that if a group of Wikipedia editors agree that an error list has sufficient quality and value for the readers, then it is allowed to help the readers by referring to it, also without absolutely writing "XX wrote an analysis . . .". The test of what is a reliable source should be that Wikipeida editors who inspect the source agree that it is OK. That should be enough to guarantee reliability and avoid misuse. --Kåre Fog (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

General remark
I have now tried to contribute to Wikipedia. I have tried to contribute with information that comes as close as possible to being neutral, relevant, informative and true. That has been a very negative experience. I feel I have been mobbed and persecuted because of my attitude, and persecuted so that even if I establish a neutral and informative user page, this is deleted with no reason and no warning. Obviously this is a place where people try to subdue each other. I guess that those who have had something that was important to them deleted, react by taking revenge on a third party and enjoy destroying what others make. With few exceptions the atmosphere here is stamped by people who are cold, heartless and actually mean. I realize that it is stupid to use hours trying to be with such unpleasant people. I can find better company elsewhere. My main persecutor has been Oren0 who is a declared global warming skeptic. Of course, when I present evidence which makes it hard to maintain such scepticism, he tries to prevent people from getting into contact with such information. The various reasons given for that are in my view just bad excuses and misuse of terms. The end result is bias. I have talked with other people about my experiences here. They are very astonished and simply do not understand it. They thought that Wikipedia was a place where as much reliable information as possible is supplied to the general public. They did not imagine that Wikipedia is a forum where people fight and try to subdue each other. So, altogether, this has been a very negative experience. I hate you. --Kåre Fog (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kåre, you seem very willing to negotiate and discuss, which is an asset here. Surely you have considered the possibility that our articles have a certain required style, that might take a bit of trouble to master? See WP:5P for a general intro to how articles are structured. An amazing variety of contributions can be accepted here, but when you start right off (as you just did) in a highly controversial area, it would be naive to assume that you can freely add material without others commenting and perhaps opposing your ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of last sentence of lead (again)
After reading the discussion above, "Citations and misrepresentation of cited source", I deleted the last sentence of the lead (An Inconvenient Truth was generally well received by scientists and film critics;[5] some global warming skeptics, however, have criticized the film.) Yes, many of these the reasons were already put forth, but not adequately addressed/corrected (in my opinion). The first statement isn't supported by the cited reference, which only points to a list of film awards; no mention of scientists. The sentence contains the qualifiers "generally" and "some" WP:AWT. Using the term "global warming skeptics" is inconsistent and not NPOV when contrasted with the first part of the sentence: if they agree with AIT call them scientists, but if they criticize, call them skeptics. Also note, that in the body of the article (criticism section), these same people (same reference) are referred to as "scientists". I suspect that the honest effort to achieve compromise/consensus in writing the lead robbed this sentence of most of its value.Mirboj (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting the sentence doesn't seem to detract from the article at all, since it basically said "some people liked it and others didn't, see below". rewinn (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

criticism - An inconvenient truth vs. The Great Global Warming Swindle
I am curious as to why the Criticism section on The Great Global Warming Swindle page is so long, while the criticism here is so short? I have seen numerous interviews where scientists have criticized Al Gore's viewpoint, yet these are not listed. I would like to see this balanced out so that the reader of each page can view all arguments against each film rather than cherry picked instances on this page. --SublimeSamAZ (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The reception of the two movies are not remotely comparable. TGGWS is indeed that, a swindle. Even some of the scientists who have been interviewed for the movie have denounced it. I'm not aware of a single scientist that has come up in support of the movie (although I'd not be surprised to find Timothy F. Ball doing so). Several experts and even some scientific organizations have issued statements heavily criticizing the movie. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is generally accepted as a fair representation of the science of global warming, with mainstream criticism being being restricted to minor points (to be honest, I found it incredibly dull). I don't doubt that you have seen numerous interviews, but with how many scientists? If you have notable criticism, by all means bring in the sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me add that many criticisms of AIT are merely proxy criticisms of Global Warming, and therefore better discussed there. rewinn (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope something will be included in the article regarding the opening credits scene of the Hollywood movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and the same scene included in Al Gore's movie showing the polar ice sheets. This is making national news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.51.5 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephan, here is a "single scientist that has come up in support of the movie":


 * S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.


 * He says, quote: "The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me."


 * Try to get your facts straight. Supertheman (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, no personal attacks. As for Singer, his own peers widely dismiss his work.  --Art Smart (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, point taken. So there is one, and that one Singer, who went from "No Warming! I Swear! No Warming" to "I was right! Unstoppable global warming! Natural causes! I swear!" within two short years, and hence has not quite the scientific credibility of Britney Spears. Colour me impressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

controversial
I know you are all growning about me now, but how many sources do you want me to provide before I can add controversial. I doubt you'd allow it even if I cited 100 sources. Saksjn (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to actually do what the reverters have proposed: Try to read the various discussions that have been on this talk page. We can all play the Google game. I for one can find more than 100 sources for the statement "the moon-landings where a hoax".
 * If you have anything new to add to the many discussions, then feel free to add them. Or add something old - but please try to take another angle, it gets tiring to repeat the same arguments again and again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you see these arguments over and over again should tell you something. If so many people say it's controversial then why don't we add the word. It's just one word. Saksjn (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And since i can see you edit the Expelled page - i know that you are familiar with WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a significant amount of people that consider this film controversial. Saksjn (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur! at least half of America considers it controversial. I guess in Kim D. Petersen's worldview the 'blue states' half of the US population don't count and only think its controversial because they are to stupid to believe in manmade Global warming. J. D. Hunt (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a nice claim ("at least half"). Can you document that? And btw. WP is not limited to the US.
 * Now please some arguments that we haven't heard before? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who put you in charge of "protecting" the film from such viscous claims like "controversial". Listen, if a tag at the top of the talk page says the content is controversial, shouldn't the article itself? Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a new argument, either, although I've yet to see an adequate response to it. But to address Kim, the "google game" analogy does not apply in this case, because the sources which are being provided are reliable sources (EG: the court findings). I personally do not think it's worth so much effort to change one word in the lead (the infamous "Few" wars on Global Warming come to mind), but if there is a significant minority (not a fringe minority) in support of applying the label (and reliable sources are provided which support the stance), I would say that it deserves to be in the lead, though perhaps not in the first sentence. ~ S0CO ( talk 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the google game is quite appropriate here, and has been covered significantly in the archives (with numbers etc). Yep - its reliable sources - but the trouble is that there are numerous reliable sources who says otherwise also. We need to establish due weight, not that sources exist..
 * As for the articles quoted, they are mostly about controversy in an education aspect, and that is covered in the article. (at least last i looked).

If two sources can be provided on expelled for its controversial tag, why don't my reliable sources apply here? Saksjn (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is a section on the controversy later in the article, why not a single word in the lead. What are you guys so against this for? Saksjn (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the movie is uncontroversial in most of the world and most of the scientific community. An absolute statement like the one you try to insert is no warranted. Also see several exabytes of previous discussion... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer my question on why my reliable sources suddenly don't matter? Saksjn (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might consider how many things are described as controversial somewhere... from George Bush via the Pope to Amnesty International. While we mention these controversies, we don't put them into the first sentence, which should be a concise description of the very major aspects of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Fox News not a reliable source? Saksjn (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly don't consider it one for anything that goes beyond simple press agency reports... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I hope you would say the same goes for CNN and CBS. Saksjn (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? I don't know CBS much. CNN is, in my experience, reasonably reliable. Moreover, after checking your Fox News source, it does not even describe the movie as controversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this explains what Saksjn is doing here. Saksjn - I would advise that you read WP:POINT. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what's that supposed to mean. I simply asked another user for help and sarcastically remarked that if they don't agree with me I probably shouldn't have let them know. And whoever is behind that IP address, please log in so we know who you are. Saksjn (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting, I'm seeking balance. If you noticed, I have never once argued that expelled isn't controversial, in fact I've argued the opposite. I know that both films are controversial and I won't try to argue that the are not. Saksjn (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I just read WP:CANVASS a policy I didn't know existed. So, am I allowed to notify some of my buddies, without breaking this? Saksjn (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CANVAS is not the problem. WP:POINT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are. Whatever happens at "Expelled" has no bearing on what happens here. The two movies are different and have received very different press coverage. If you want to argue for a particular change, do it on the merits, not by skewed comparison with another article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie says at the very top "___ is a controversial 2008 film". Why does this movie not, they are nearly the same, just have different sides. That is prejudice, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. And about the discussion about, "How can you not put it in, ABC news reported it. It is a fact, we must give ALL information that is notable. Using a scene from another movie is a notable fact. Not something to be kept from the public, wikipedia is trusted to give information, not hide it on the talk pages. Thanks, American  Eagle  00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think because this movie is not controversial on the news and such. If you notice, this page has all the criticisms segregated to the bottom of the page. Looking back at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed there is no chance that is going to happen.  Don't bother with the ...is not allowed on Wikipedia bit.  Doesn't really matter, and sorry ABC (from my perspective) isn't RS.  Also, good luck finding WP:RS material that will go against GW.  It's out there, but would require a lot of effort to bring together.   InfoNation101  |  talk  | 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Examine the controversy in context: global warming isn't controversial scientifically, whereas intelligent design is. An Inconvenient Truth is pushing what is currently a well-accepted scientific theory, while Expelled is pushing what many scientists and educators have rejected.-Wafulz (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with this last comment above. IN addition, I find this "criticisms" section misleading without any follow up on responses to the criticism (by anyone--doesn't have to be Gore). Are all these criticisms accepted, and do they undermine the general argument of the film? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.84.31.9 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the movie use CGI footage from a fictional movie, and claim it was real footage?
This isn't necessarily a legitimate source, so I'm putting it on the talk page instead of the article. Does anyone know anything about this? Here are two paragraphs from it.

Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’

By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2008 - 09:53 ET

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow."

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since its in the credits, its a rather moot debate, and far from revealing. Do you think that the real images would have been different? Or do you think it was a money question? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know it was in the credits. The narrator should have mentioned it. They shouldn't try to pass off CGI footage as being real. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They didn't try to "pass [it] off" as real footage, but its a nice spin ;) There was also a CGI sequence of some Polar Bears, as well as a long animated sequence from Futurama. They are also in the credits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If my memory of the film is correct, all of this CGI footage was narrated my Mr. Gore during the film. I definitely believe that this should be included in the article. Unlike the aforementioned Futurama sequence (which any one could tell was animated), the CGI sequences were, in fact, passed off as real footage due to the fact that there was no disclaimer. As a documentarian myself, I know that one is obligated to make some mention if something is staged (I.e. "Dramatization"). --Non-dropframe (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you memory doesn't serve. Gore tells nothing in the narration over this particular sequence with could in any way or form be construed as misleading. (its factual information about the height of the glaciers and that its sea-ice) Sorry. And btw. i recognized that sequence from TDAT the very first time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in that scene which suggests that it is an actual collapse. Indeed, from the look of it I doubt many people seeing it would have thought it was an actual collapse. Mountain in a molehill. If this gets picked up by actually reliable sources it might be worth thinking about adding into the article but not beyond that. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)