Talk:Our Planet

Should we add this into the page
Hi. I'm here just to ask if this should be added to the page. If so, where should I put it at? Opening a new section about the impacts of the documentary? Let me know what you think, thanks.
 * Well, there is already an external link on this very subject, so adding another one might be redundant. However, I'm thinking that the video clip itself might be a worthy addition to the article as part of a new sub-section on the scene and the public's reaction to it, given that both are widely discussed throughout mainstream media coverage of this documentary. But before any additions are made, I'm curious what other editors think about this idea.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Another news just emerged. It is about a baby flamingo scene from episode 1, it caused similar reaction when compare to the one with Walrus, should we add it in advance?(https://m.9gag.com/gag/a6Ojjve)
 * Yeah, I think this would also be a worthy addition as it is getting some coverge, albeit not as much as the walrus scene.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * From the coverage I've seen, the walrus scene is by far the scene from the series that got the most attention. It deserves mention in the article (whereas the flamingo scene I'd say does not), but the current "controversies" section does a poor job covering it, giving way too much weight to coverage criticizing the scene (most of which was based off of a blog post by a conservative climate skeptic, Susan J. Crockford). - Sdkb (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree there is undo weight given to the fringe views of the climate skeptics Susan J. Crockford and Patrick Moore. At the very least their biases should be mentioned if the article is to give their views such weight.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, so I'll remove the templates. XavierItzm (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of paragraph under false pretenses
deleted a paragraph referring to the claim «poorly sourced», among other questionable claims, for deletion. The sources for the deleted paragraph are: Now, it becomes difficult to assume good faith when someone calls The Atlantic, etc., a "poor source."
 * ''The Atlantic
 * ''The Times
 * ''The Spectator
 * The Australian
 * TMZ
 * Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
 * News24 (website)
 * News Corp Australia
 * Common Dreams

The deleted paragraphs are: Netflix spliced footage from separate 2017 events and made it look as if it were the same scene. Producer Sophie Lanfear clarified that "the sequence includes footage from two separate beaches." The producers consider the spliced walrus segment "the most powerful story they found during four years of filming." Andrew Montford, writing in The Spectator, said "it raises the possibility that Netflix and the WWF are, innocently or otherwise, party to a deception of the public."

Zoologist Susan Crockford and early Greenpeace member Patrick Moore claim the series is "eco-tragedy porn," and say that the walrus scene is "misleading" and "out of context." Crockford also leveled accusations that walruses may have been spooked by drones or other filming equipment. Shaye Wolf, Climate Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Oakland, insists that the "walrus deaths shown in “Our Planet” are becoming increasingly common as the sea ice they depend on melts away faster than we predicted." Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC) XavierItzm (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This section was deleted years ago by User:Drevolt. The reason given in the edit summary: "Removed section that is written polemically, poorly sourced, and violates NPOV egregiously. Tried to rewrite to salvage content, but this just seems impossible to fix." Looking over the restored material, this hasn't changed. It's a who's who of climate change denialists. I guess it's just a coincidence that this is being restored as the second season is literally days away from being released.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware The Atlantic, The Times of London, etc., are climate change denialists. The fact remains that "poorly sourced" was egregiously used as a false pretense for deletion.XavierItzm (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The "experts" who are most prominently featured in this screed most certainly are, per their own Wikipedia pages (Andrew Montford, Susan Crockford, and Patrick Moore). The material was contentious then when Drevolt rightly removed it, and it is still contentious now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I'll stand by my edit from 2019. That section was an instance of WP:SYNTH, but more importantly, it was also treating various statements made by the aforementioned fringe scientists/climate change denialists with credulity.
 * To XavietItzm's second comment, the contentious remarks weren't sourced from The Atlantic or The Times. I hope we can all agree that tabloids like TMZ aren't reliable scientific sources (especially when they use a vague phrase like "some zoologists and prominent environmentalists" as a smokescreen to conceal the fact that discredited fringe figures like Moore and Crockford are the "experts" they're talking about). Drevolt (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, so Andrew Montford, Susan Crockford, and Patrick Moore)'s comments are to be banned from Wikipedia, regardless of any WP:RS that happen to quote them, as per . Obviously this is wrong, but I'll deep-hole anything they have ever said from the article Our Planet, as per C.J. Griffin's blacklist.  Likewise,  objects to TMZ.  I actually agree with Drevolt that TMZ is not ideal sourcing, so I'll remove it.XavierItzm (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

--