Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 4

Various attempts at critism
I just reverted a two paragraph bit of the criticism section. My foremost objection to this is that it appears to be original research; although names are mentioned, they are only discussed in the context of what they discovered, not what they concluded. Moreover the sections appear to give undue weight to the critics (who may or may not be the scientists named) of global warming, which is problematic per WP:NPOV. Finally, a critque of global warming in general does not belong in an article about a movie, on criticism of the movie. --TeaDrinker 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On an orthogonal issue, you shouldn't reject Science News as a source without reviewing the article. It is as valid as any newspaper for quoting of people or reporting the results published in journals or presented at conferences.  Where a journal source is referenced in the article, as is often the case, the journal article itself is the preferred citation, of course.  But quite often Science News corresponds with the authors themselves for further isight into the details or implications of their research.--Africangenesis 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that, I think you may be replying to my edit summary rather than my post above (which is fine, but to clarify for everyone else). You are absolutely correct that secondary sources are fine reliable sources.  This particular science news article closes with "The team's findings don't point to an external influence, such as an increase in solar radiation, that some climate-change skeptics have suggested may be behind Earth's recent warming, Geissler says."  Nearly the opposite of the conclusion of the two paragraphs.  In fact there is nothing in the article to suggest there is anything inconsistent with anthropogenic global warming.  I think it is a clear cut case of original research.  But your point is well taken, I did not mean in my edit summary to suggest that non-peer-reviewed sources are a priori unreliable. --TeaDrinker 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only criticisms of the movie specifically, NOT global warming in general, belong on this page. If it doesn't say "An Inconvenient Truth" on your reference, it doesn't belong here.  Put it at Global Warming controversy instead.  I'm going to put a link to that in the section and leave it at that. Oren0 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Better pictures
If you're looking for better pictures, go to the deutsch version of this page

added Criticism
Exposed: The Climate of Fear has been added.


 * Zeeboid - while your zeal is admirable. This critique is not notable. Its not a question of not having critique, but a question of mentioning the most important and notable critique. --Kim D. Petersen 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is notable. See WP:EPISODE and note the soruces.--Zeeboid 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeeboid - is it notable in the context of AIT? Just because a subject might be notable, doesn't mean that all the things that are in any way connected (directly or indirectly) has to have a link/text about it. Is the critique in the Beck show significantly different or significantly notable compared to the other critiques here? You are giving WP:Undue_weight.
 * Note: WP:EPISODE is about the article on the show - not a free ticket to include it in a myriad of other articles. It is also a guideline not a policy. --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * its notable critism. wether or not you agree with it is becides the point.--Zeeboid 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Zeeboid - i'm not deleting it because i agree or disagree with it. Try reacting to the actual reasons why i'm contesting it - ok? --Kim D. Petersen 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As an hour-long special on a national (international?) cable TV network that is specifically a criticism of this movie. That's notable enough to be here. So long as it has an article (it seems right now that the AfD will not reach consensus), it is notable enough to be here. It's not as if it's just a random piece of GW skepticism, it's meant as a specific criticism of An Inconvenient Truth and therefore belongs here. I'm readding it. Oren0 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree. A national program - that is (yes i've seen it) mostly trying to discredit the Kyoto accord. And one thats even specifically lauding that its presenting a one-sided view - with no critical analysis at all (yes it specifically states so) is WP:Undue_weight. If its meant as a specific criticism of AIT - why is it using most of its time doing a critique of Kyoto? Sorry its a political propaganda piece. If you include this - then i suggest that you include some equally politically motivated propaganda piece from Greenpeace, The Sierra Club etc. lauding AIT and Kyoto in equal measures. --Kim D. Petersen 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I have reverted the deletion of the term "controversial". By any token, the film is controversial, and includes many assertions not justified by the IPCC. Two examples are the grossly exagerrated rse in sea level predicted by Gore, and the Polar bear myth. Peterlewis 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversial is POV and it doesn't belong in the article. --GreenJoe 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

we need to be consistent with TGGWS
Note TGGWS is The Great Global Warming Swindle - a British TV show. (for those who aren't familiar). And i'm talking about this edit.


 * Ok - thats just about the most ridiculous reason i've seen yet. Btw. i have no beef with the word "controversial" - but this argument is simply not warrented. There is no reason at all that these articles have to be identical or even compatible. Should we also be consistent with insert some remotely comparable movie/thing here?


 * There is a multitude of reasons that these 2 aren't compareable, and i'm not even going to go into content:
 * One of these are a movie (AIT) - the other is TV (TGGWS).
 * One of these have a multinational audience (AIT), the other has been shown on 1 british tv channel and leaked to the internet. (TGGWS)
 * One of these has won multiple awards (AIT) - the other hasn't. (TGGWS)
 * One of these is getting sued for misrepresentation (TGGWS) - the other isn't. (AIT)
 * etc. etc. etc.


 * Get a grip please. Edit each article within its own context. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a worthy read. --Kim D. Petersen 23:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course we need to be consistent between articles. This is basic common sense. Both films are clearly controversial. The only question is whether we should state this in the opening sentence, given the negative connotations this has. Iceage77 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You made a really good point here, Kim. I agree 100% --GreenJoe 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be a good point if we were discussing article deletions, but we're not. But surely, mimicking another article just because it does one thing is not a good argument. But a good argument is that is in fact controversial. Controversial means it has created controversy. Do you deny AIT has created any controversy? ~ 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion about controversial is above (i believe). I'd just note here that by that interpretation most everything in life is controversial then. For TGGWS i'd say that controversial is correct. Its been sued by one of the contributors (Wunsch) - Some of the contributers are claiming their graphs have been faked (Friis-Christensen). Another of the graphs is definitively faked (Durkin admits it). It was launched as a polemic etc etc. For AIT - whatever controversy there is, is political in nature. But then all politics is by your definition controversial. --Kim D. Petersen 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" removed
This has all been done before, but for some reason "controversial" is gone again. Per Lead Section:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

To argue that there are no "notable controversies" in regards to this movie is ludicrous. There's a large section of the article devoted to criticism and the claim of a controversy is noted in many reliable sources. Does anyone have any remotely good reason why it shouldn't be there? The Great Global Warming Swindle says "controversial right at the top, as this article should. Oren0 20:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --GreenJoe 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but you have addressed precisely zero of the points I have made, all of which stand on their own without reference to TGGWS. I'm just pointing to that as an example, in reference to the section above about being consistent with that page.  Oren0 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that criticism &ne; controversy, at least not necessarily. Practically every work of literature or film gets critized; this doesn't make it controversial. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about all the controversy about using it in schools? Including legal action being taken. Iceage77 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats indirectly related to the movie. The movie wasn't made with the premise that it should be shown in schools. So its a related controversy - but doesn't make the movie controversial. (ie. its the political decision to show it in schools that is - but not the movie itself). --Kim D. Petersen 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're disputing that it's controversial? 365,000 Google results disagree with you.  Including several reliable sources 'An Inconvenient Truth': a Controversial Film 'Inconvenient Truth' called too controversial "An Inconvenient Truth, arouses so much controversy and condemnation"  "“An Inconvenient Truth”—the highly acclaimed and controversial documentary featuring Al Gore probing the issue of global warming and climate change" .  I could go on and on... Oren0 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a great example of why you shouldn't use Google as an argument (as per WP:GOOGLEHITS) - first of all your search parameters are wrong (use + in front to ensure that the word is actually included). Second: if you do this - you will notice from a quick look at the first page, that it turns up quite alot of "false positives" - ie. persons saying that it isn't controversial.


 * Then lets take your sources. What Fred Barney (from some school board) thinks - is irrelevant. So lets just remove every article with school in it - ok? - that gets us down to 71,000 - not a lot when you consider that AIT alone gives 1.3 million hits. So i'd say its a minority view - if Google searches actually had relevance. --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you beat me to it, but I was going to say that you should knock out that Seattle P-I article you cited, because it wasn't the newspaper saying the movie was controversial, but the Federal Way school board. Just goes to show that just throwing out a lot of things you find Google hits on doesn't necessarily make a compelling argument. Content and context counts. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note btw. that i haven't at any time said that controversial couldn't describe this movie, as a matter of fact i really don't care. Just that your arguments are faulty. --Kim D. Petersen 22:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes; I just think it doesn't belong in the introduction. As I've pointed out in edit summaries, any controversy is pretty well covered in the body of the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oren0 - look in the section above. Comparison with TGGWS is invalid - so please stop using that argument. Try arguing on merits instead. --Kim D. Petersen 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(moving back left) The fact that the controversies are a major part of the article is exactly why it should be in the intro. Look at the quote from Lead Section again: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies." Given that guideline, I don't see how you can argue against including it in the lead section. Oren0 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So what are the notable controversies in the movie? --Kim D. Petersen 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the several mistakes he's made, some gross, and refuses to acknowledge them. Probably others though. ~ UBeR 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are they notable? Which ones are they? Is there significant controversy about them? Or is it just the usual Op-Ed stuff? --Kim D. Petersen 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And wouldn't this be critique - rather than controversy? --Kim D. Petersen 07:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing factual information here is again, POV Pushing. the film is controversial, it is sourced as OrenO states, multiple places in the article.  as the Glenn Beck special Exposed: The Climate of Fear is sticking around (and will be refrenced here also after the 5 days passes), this is indeed a "controversial" film.--Zeeboid 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim, first off, your question is flawed. It's not just controversies "in" the film, but rather controversies "of" the film.  So in addition to contentious statements he makes (sea level rising 20 ft, etc.) as sourced to Exposed and TGGWS, among other reliable sources, the school controversies in the US and the UK are also relevant.  Also, anyone who makes claims to the effect that there is no scientific debate on global warming is contentious; if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a global warming controversy page.  Contrary to what you say above, those controversies do make the film controversial.  The dictionary definition of "controversial" is "Of, producing, or marked by controversy."  This film clearly produced and was marked by controversy, and is well sourced as such. Oren0 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oren0 - first of all Exposed and TGGWS are not reliable sources, and i doubt that AIT would be a reliable source either.
 * The claim that there isn't a scientific debate is only controversial if you are giving WP:Undue weight to specific sources. (as you apparently do). (see: Scientific opinion on climate change).
 * As for the 20 feet rise. Is this controversial? or this? another? Is the IPCC report a controversial report? (it says the same). So what is it that makes it controversial?
 * As noted before - the school thing does not make AIT controversial - it makes the political decision to show it there controversial.
 * Critique doesn't make things controversial. It just makes for critique - on the other hand if that critique had been seriously weighted towards your items - well then it just may have made it controversial. --Kim D. Petersen 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kim, first of all Exposed and TGGWS are reliable sources, though we all know those here in wikipedia who are who don't believe "there is another opinion" will cry foul at every chance, as we are seeing here. The existance of those two films (one a documentry, one a CNN Special) that were created in responce to Al Gore's movie assist in showing how controversial of a topic this is.  undue weight huh, well WP:IAR back at ya.  it is a controversial topic, wether or not the GW supporters believe so.  this is why wikipedia gets crap about being bias.--Zeeboid 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you believe that they are reliable sources? Editorial oversight? TGGWS has been caught with its pants down in direct fraud. As i said AIT is not a reliable source either.
 * Let me get this straight? You are stating that you will ignore all rules because you think that there is a bias or so you can provide undue weight?  --Kim D. Petersen 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am saying that adding the word "controversial" on a "controversial" topic helps to improve wikipedia.--Zeeboid 20:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That a topic is controversial doesn't make a documentary/book/... about it controversial. Thats faulty logic. --Kim D. Petersen 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Political Response" section
Let's talk about this intro:

The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally, prompting calls for more government action in regards to the climate. Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film in science curricula, though at least one US school district has put restrictions on its use in the classroom.[34]

"The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many parts of the world" attribution/source? who says that this is the case? Oren0 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"is credited for raising further awareness of global warming internationally, prompting calls for more government action in regards to the climate" Weasel words? Who has "credited" this film with these accomplishments? Who says that it has prompted government action? Oren0 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film in science curricula" is this true? I see one listed in the article. Are there really several? (I really don't know the answer here, but it should be sourced). Oren0 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC on "Controversial"
We keep going back and forth between two versions of the opening of this article. See previous discussions here and, more recently, here. The discussion seems to not really be going anywhere and we need outside opinions. As such, I've listed this on the RfCs for Politics and Art, architecture, literature and media. The two versions are:

"An Inconvenient Truth is an Academy Award-winning documentary film about climate change,..." and "An Inconvenient Truth is a controversial[2] Academy Award-winning documentary film about climate change,..." (the reference here is )

Those of us in favor of inclusion note WP:LS, which states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." We note that there are clearly notable controversies present in the article, and reliable sources (as cited) that call the film controversial.

Those opposed have made a few claims. Either the film is not controversial, the controversies are not notable, or the controversies are covered sufficiently in the article and do not necessitate mention in the lead section. They have also claimed (in edit summaries) that the addition of "controversial" is an attempt to inject POV into the article. Oren0 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The film is easially "Controversial":So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?,Parent Challenges Showing Of 'Inconvenient Truth',Inconvenient Truth raises questions in B.C. school district,

Even BBC had AL Gore on to discuss the controversy of his film --Zeeboid 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an exclusive interview tonight with Al Gore - he'll be discussing the controversy around his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' and we'll be asking him about his own carbon footprint.


 * The controversy, if discussed in the article, should be discussed in the introduction by way of "brief description" (perhaps a sentence or two; the introduction to this article actually needs to be expanded a bit on the whole). The descriptor "controversial", used in the first sentence of the intro, however, is problematic.  It provides no context in favor of making the absolute (if referenced) determination that the film is, in fact, controversial.  Whether the film is controversial is a matter of opinion; whether it has been described as controversial by specific sources is not.  Merely stating that the film is controversial without context implies that the descriptor is, well, uncontroversial, even if it has a reference attached.  I would make the same argument against including the descriptor "controversial" (without context) in the intro to the Mel Gibson article.  So, in sum, the intro should be expanded, and in the expansion a "brief description" of controversy regarding AIT should be written up. ·  jersyko   talk  20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Kim D. Petersen 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, but fair is fair. I believe that The Great Global Warming Swindle should follow the same convention (describe the controversy, rather than simply calling it "controversial") and I will suggest over there that that article's lead section is also written this way.
 * Stop mixing different articles please. Argue in context. --Kim D. Petersen 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that what happens over there has any bearing on what happens here or vice versa. Consistency is important, though.  I'm just letting the editors here know that the same logic applies over there, as I mentioned on that talk page. Oren0 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In a funny way, there is a controversy over whether the film is controversial. Gore has said that the idea of an absolute consensus on global warming is essential for the implementation of his desired policy. It appears that there is not an absolute consensus. Anyway, I am in favor of the intro saying that the film is controversial. --Marvin Diode 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose POV-pushing "controversial" descriptor. The film is only as "controversial" as climate change itself. Italiavivi 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If climate change isn't controversial, please explain the existence of the global warming controversy page, which is a major article whose attempted deletion resulted in a speedy keep. Not to mention all of the previously discussed sources (including the BBC among others) who call the film controversial. There's little question that controversies regarding this film exist, the question is where and how prominently they should be discussed in the article.  Oren0 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Faulty logic. There is an article about Flat Earth and the Flat Earth Society does that mean that a movie about astronomy is controversial? In effect your argumentation is flawed - and doesn't even take into account the contents of the article that you are referring to. --Kim D. Petersen 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - i'm not comparing the two issues. I'm saying that the argument: "There exists an article X - so therefore there must be Y" - is faulty logic. --Kim D. Petersen 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying "there exists an article on the global warming controversy, therefore there must be a global warming controversy." Where's the flawed logic? Oren0 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the same way that this is flawed: "There exists an article of Flat Earth, therefore there must be a Flat Earth", it is the context and content that defines things - not the existance. --Kim D. Petersen 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a false analogy. Flat Earth clearly states that the Earth is not flat, right there in the second sentence of the page.  I don't see anything in global warming controversy to indicate that anyone is denying the existence of a controversy. Oren0 22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And Global warming controversy clearly states: "Among climate scientists there is consensus that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation" - So whats the difference once more? --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(moving left) Are you seriously contending that the existence of a consensus among climate scientists and the existence of a controversy are mutually exclusive? Oren0 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Context please. Look up in this thread of debate - and see what we are talking about - ok? Specifically the last dedent. --Kim D. Petersen 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of "controversial", and at least a couple of sentences in the intro. The film is more controversial than global warming itself, because it goes to James Hansen extremes, and it distorts the evidence.--Africangenesis 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. Weak sources (VOA, etc) do not suggest any notable or actual controversy other than one described in title of report and manufactured/represented by contrarians.  Controversy is no stranger to film, and I would recommend to those arguing for inclusion, look for good, reliable sources like the kind listed at Film journals and magazines. If you are going to call a film controversial, you should have no problem finding a reliable film critic who holds that view. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this was decided above, but I guess not. The BBC is a weak source? Oren0 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read it again. The link to the BBC is a sensationalized promotional advertisement for an "exclusive interview" with Al Gore that refers to the "controversy around his film". It does not suggest that the film was controversial, nor would the term be used correctly if it was.  See controversy for definitions. Please also consider that when evaluating sources, we look not only for reliability, but for accuracy and currency. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Suppport Inclusion. - To Quote Kim: "If its a polemic - then its designed to be controversial." Does anyone have any examples of films created by ex-vice-presidents that have not been polemic?  Was this film not created to "stur 'conventional' thinking?  Is a film created to "make (force) you think" not controversial?  yes it is.  just like TGGWS--Zeeboid 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well - first of all that its a polemic is your own personal POV. And your arguments for it are rather far-fetched. Which other films were created by ex-vice-presidents for instance? And no a movie made to "make you think" is not a polemic (read the definition please). --Kim D. Petersen 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are people voting here? There has been no proposal - no alternatives. And a vote hasn't even been called. --Kim D. Petersen 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its been added. Kim's justification for the removal of "controversial" from AIT and yet keeping of "controversial" from TGGWS in the same breath is bias.  Remove "controversial" from both or keep it on both.  if one film that's topic is global warming is "controversial" after all...--Zeeboid 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * as I have said before: With a movie being associated with "Nazi Propaganda" is it not acceptable to note its "Controversial" nature?--Zeeboid 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are really tallying up the fallacies aren't you? First using TGGWS here is invalid - argue on merit. Second i fail to see how invoking Nazi analogies (See: Godwins law) are helping your argument. --Kim D. Petersen 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Viriditas. GreenJoe 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted GreenJoe's bias edits.--Zeeboid 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever - and, while I'm at it, may I point out that this is the most sanitized opening paragraph to an encyclopedia article I've ever seen. Trying to please everybody is pleasing nobody. The Evil Spartan 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose inclusion. POV and Undue weight; this arbitrary and subjective wording just fuels more edit warring. Isn't the criticism section sufficient? A vocal minority doesn't deserve lede status.--The lorax 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How can anyone say a film claimed to be like "nazi propaganda" is "not controversial"?--Zeeboid 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it says a lot more about Glenn Beck's tactlessness in invoking Godwin's Law than it does about the film. I don't think criticisms without any kind of merit i.e. Beck's "it's like Hitler" should be given any kind of mention.--The lorax 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats funny, because its not just Glenn Beck. bottom line, this is a controversial issue, a controversial movie, and the same standard for TGGWS should be applied here, or TGGWS should be toned down a little bit to match here.  I know Wikipedia is pretty bias, and there are alot of activiest editors, but all is being done is reducing the reliability of wikipedia.--Zeeboid 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The film is only controversial to those with predisposed political agendas regarding global warming JPotter 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean like the BBC and the New York Times, among others? Oren0 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I Love it! Jpotter, thats like saying "Its only controversial to those who don't agree with a controversial issue." --Zeeboid 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why people are still voting here. The current revision seems to be agreeable to pretty much everyone. Oren0 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree completely with JPotter; the inclusion of the word is itself a POV push. DMorpheus 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Exposed: The Climate of Fear
this section was removed by Greenjoe. as it has been discussed, Exposed: The Climate of Fear is notable and is sticking, so why censor the critism?--Zeeboid 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The usual question is: Why is it relevant? Is it a notable critique? (note this is not about whether or not Exp. is notable - but is it notable in this context). Why that specific critique amongst other critiques? etc. --Kim D. Petersen 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its creation to counter AIT and the mention of al gore and his film throughout?--Zeeboid 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the other items listed there seam to be relivent: TGGWS for example, allong the same lines as ECOF.--Zeeboid 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean "created to counter AIT" - then that is your own personal point of view and original research- otherwise please cite some sources for this. (and, No, its not in the transcript - which is why this WP:OR has been removed from the Exp. page).
 * We do not just add critique, because its critique. First of all it has to be notable in the context of AIT, this amongst other things means that it has to provide something that the other critiques do not. I fail to see that it does so. Second - there has to be a balance, that means that we include critique, but only to the extent that its notable (see 1) or in proportion to the general critique (WP:NPOV and WP:Undue_weight). And currently the criticism section is already too big. (which can be fixed though, by compacting it a bit). --Kim D. Petersen 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added becasue its valid. the opening line of the special even critizes AIT.--Zeeboid 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, "because its valid" is no argument Zeeboid. And i notice that you haven't answered any questions here yet. At least not with any arguments that had a remote chance to stick (examples: "because its valid":WP:OR, "created to counter":WP:OR, "mentions gore":correct, "his film throughout": incorrect. "TGGWS for example"WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc. --Kim D. Petersen 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-added this. Gore and AIT is mentioned straight away, in the first 15 seconds of E:COF, and several points later.--Zeeboid 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also added quite a bit to it, as an entire section of E:COF is about An Inconvenient Truth. I didn't want to add all of Glenn Beck's points against AIT, less it be called "undue weight" or whatever, unless you think all of the critisms are worth adding.--Zeeboid 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though the E:COF addation refrences exactly why it should be there (an entire section of the show dedicated to refuting An Inconvenient Truth) WMC does not understand its Relevance. before you get us into a edit war, William, lets discuss it here.  Should there be more examples of what Glenn Beck and the scientists he has on, disagree with AIT about?  would that help you to understand why it belongs here?--Zeeboid 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, another 1-sided edit war. Except there are now 3 people who don't want this in, and 1 (you) who do. COF has survived wikis notability process but that doesn't mean it gets a free pass to be mentioned everywhere William M. Connolley 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No william, edits have been made to satasfy complaints, which if you were actiavly discussing changes, would see. Please read the edits made, and discuss this with us.  If this entry does not fit, explain to us how.  remember, Wikipedia is not run on Majority.--Zeeboid 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioned everywhere? no.  Where it is relivent, including in an article that it spends 1/4th of its time refuting... Yes.--Zeeboid 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the above; you haven't justified inclusion. But having reverted thrice today I'm going to leave it to see what others think William M. Connolley 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove per William M. Connolley; adds nothing new, it only bloats the criticism section to a POV extreme.--The lorax 21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look. This is the way I see it.  It is a much larger and much more widley boradcast critism then many of the other critisms in AIT.  That is not saying the others don't have a place here.  And as this is a controversial topic, there is much critism about it.  But you can't in the same breath defend every single critism on TGGWS and E:COF as you express your concern for too much critism on AIT.  E:COF was created by the third most listened talk radio show on the plannet, and dedicates at least 1/4 of its bordcast time on CNN to add critism about AIT.  Now, I know how this stuff works, you would be daft not to... Its An Al Gore Movie.  Anyone who agrees with him on this topic will adamintly express their distaste for any added critism.  Anyone who disagrees with him will say otherwise... thats what controversial topics are all about.  However, Love it or hate it, if all your telling me is that you don't believe critism ona controversial topic is justified... Its nice to have an opinion, but that doesn't mean its a correct one.  based on my lessions on Wikipedia policy and my observations from the admins/editors on other Global Warming controversial topics, apparently critism is well accepted--Zeeboid 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And Cut. There is no new points being added to this article by including a summary of this. It unbalances the article completely by giving WP:Undue_weight to the criticism section. There are quite a few questions to be asked here: Does it add anything relevant that isn't here already? Is it particularly noteworthy in the context of AIT? etc. etc. Most of these have been asked before - higher up - but no relevant or substantial argumentation has been given.
 * AIT's article is not a list or repository of various pro- or contra- global warming articles.
 * Add content that is notable in the context of this article which is about AIT - not global warming. --Kim D. Petersen 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure there are ne wpoints being added, much like all the critism that some have argued for/against on TGGWS. It improves the article, and does not add undue weight.  And if you believe it has undue weight, then WP:IAR because 1/4 of a CNN Headline news special is devoted spicifically to talking about how wrong the film is should be noted.  The section of E:COF is spicifically about AIT.--Zeeboid 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)