Talk:Al Gore's Penguin Army video

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removed valid paragraph 2 Some comments on Tux penguins 3 Weasel Words 4 NPOV 5 Why Tux? 6 Accuracy 7 are they stupid 8 Bias 9 YouTube links

[edit] Removed valid paragraph

I wrote a paragraph and it was removed with a suggestion that changes "this large" should be talked about on the talk page... funny because no one said such a thing when equally large changes which removed for example the fact that DCI is run by six persons who describe themselves as Republican party officials... here is the paragraph that was removed, if anyone objects to it please point out the words that are objectionable and explain what is wrong with them... if no one offers any constructive criticism, well it has been discussed. //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The video is a series of straw man arguments building on an appeal to ridicule and an appeal to ignorance. It attempts to discredit Gore and the global warming awareness with which Gore is associated by presenting unflattering images of Gore and associating those images with absurd claims which those ignorant of the actual film might attribute to Gore. Because the ultimate end of the video is to discredit global warming by ridiculing the most visible harbinger of the threat, it is an ad hominem attack against global warming itself.

Complaints about the wording are irrelevant - we are an encyclopedia. The fact that you call it a straw man argument doesn't matter. Please find sources for these claims and then repost. As Jimbo said, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Please notice, I left the correctly sourced quote from the Wall Street Journal.--Gillespee 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, something like that can't really require a "source" can it? If you were to say "Joe Smith thinks that the AFC plays better football than the NFC; but this is wrong because here's a picture I drew of Joe Smith looking like a doofus in his underwear" it's pretty darn obvious that drawing a funny picture of Joe Smith in order to ridicule the guy has no bearing on the quality of any of his opinions, and that making Joe Smith look like a doofus has no bearing on whether the AFC actually plays better football than the NFC.... there can be no question that this kind of attack on the AFC/NFC issue is an ad hominem, and there can be no question that the use of the picture of Joe Smith in his underwear is an appeal to ridicule (and an appeal to ignorance for those who don't know Joe Smith and may believe the caricature).... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pacific PanDeist: if you're trying to say that obvious POV statements are allowed on wikipedia, regardless of sources, then you are wrong. One of the big three Wikipedia policies is "no original research." This includes writing a paragaph of "pretty darn obvious" analysis, without having a source to back it up. (And for that matter, if you think the analysis is "pretty darn obvious," why do you think readers will want to read a lengthy paragraph about it in the first place?) An example from Wikipedia's official policy:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.^[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.

What one person thinks is "obvious" is not necessarily obvious to others--Wikipedia policy wisely recognises this fact. If you feel so strongly about adding your analysis regarding 'ad hominem' attacks in the video, I might suggest writing a thoughtful article about the topic and getting it published in a reliable publication. Once your article has been published, you can add the information here, citing the publication. See also Wikipedia policy on citing sources for guidance.--Rsl12 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at that Wall Street Journal article, and it would appear to me that their is more that could be added than the single sentence of analysis left Pacific. Find more in there to add to the article Don't take this personally, I'm not even saying your wrong; I'm just saying you should find a source rather than doing original research.--Gillespee 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments on Tux penguins

This reads like the guy who wrote it heard about, but never saw, the clip.

The penguins in the video do not "resemble" Tux, they ARE Tux. The creator of Tux, Larry Ewing, only grants license for use of Tux to those who credit his authorship.

See http://www.isc.tamu.edu/%7Elewing/linux/

If Ewing would pursue legal action, we'd find out in short order who financed the clip (which, by the way, does not look as "amateurish" as some say).

Gore is in a Batman "Penguin" oufit.

And this is far from NPOV.

This should merge with the film entry, but pretty much needs rewrite from scratch when that is done. Bustter 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why merge with the film, instead of YouTube or DCI Group? Better to keep it separate. Yes, I agree, others can apply better writing skills than mine... much more needs to be written. //// Pacific PanDeist * 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'license' (if you can call it that) for Tux is VERY lax. You can basically do whatever you want with the Tux image so long as you tell people who created it - and that he used the GIMP paint program to do it. You only have to do that if someone asks. So you can use Tux anywhere for anything in any way - just so long as if someone asks you "Say - where did you get that handsome penguin from?" - you say "Larry Ewing painted it using GIMP". So unless the authors are denying that this is Larry's Tux - they are on solid legal/IP grounds and nobody is going to be suing anyone over that. HOWEVER: The Batman penguin is a different matter - although the laws on fair use for the sake of parody would probably allow it (IANAL). SteveBaker 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with YouTube other than someone posted it there. Thousands of videos are posted there daily. There is no scandal here on YouTube's part. That is like saying it's bittorrent's fault that a movie was released online before it hit theaters. If YouTube wasn't around, someone most likely would have posted it to Google video. --Bschott 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 'traced to computer' be questioned? No one traced this to a single computer as DCI does not assign external IP addresses to each of their company computers. The newspaper traced it to an IP address that is owned/used by DCI. The problem with this research is no one, beyond DCI knows what happened. It may have been a user acting alone, it may have been a corporate 'scandal', it may have been someone spoofing the IP address to make it look like it came from DCI...the facts are unknown at this time and leaves this this article as pure speculation. Beyond that, is it even notable? --Bschott 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been renamed as per statements above, and edited to remove any unproven and unsourced finger-pointing to YouTube. They are providing a service with a staff of 35, and over 10,000 videos are submitted daily. They can not view them all, nor do they investigate the motives behind the posting of videos to their site. --Bschott 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, wow, relax, take a breath, you are totally misreading this... I had YouTube in there cause that was the type of video, not saying they were part of the scandal, just where it originated-- could've just as easily been a MySpace video or whatever... and is this notable? Front page of the Wall Street Journal does it for me!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the title is just confusing, anyway - should the hyphen's be quotations? //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps rename it at "DCI Group's video scandal", but from a Neutral POV if you look at the article before, it was suggestive that YouTube was some how in on this scandal. Like saying the Watergate Hotel was in on the Republican break-in of the DNC's offices (but this isn't YouTube-gate yet :P ). In any case, now that the video is hosted all over the internet and the YT staff have unofficially stated they have no ties to this video, we can remove any suggestion to that fact. --Bschott 03:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that's the best analogy for what you're trying to say, since I've never heard the Watergate break-in called anything but "Watergate" (even though we all agree the hotel did nothing wrong)... how about we just call this Al Gore's Penguin Army? //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if that is what you want, I have no objections, as long as my previous concerns are kept in mind. I just was concerned people would take a wrong idea that YouTube was some how 'in on it'. --Bschott 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I could care less what the name of the article is as long as the info is preserved for posterity... I was just making a suggestion, I don't want to start moving things around again... but the current title is a gramatically incorrect use of the mighty hyphen... //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Make the change or don't, just stop talking about it. Be BOLD and just change the title. If you do not like it and want Al Gore's Penguin Army as a title.....then change it. As for saving the info for posterity, that isn't up to me, but a suggestion is to find 3-4 more articles (not blogs...they do not count as major media sources) from major media sources that also talk about this...otherwise you may have a verifibility problem or a notability issue later. --Bschott 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

• The video has been described as "Propaganda 101" --- By Whom?
• ...but presents a highly negative image... --- Not worded in a Neutral POV, also where is the source to back up this claim?
• DCI Group cryptically responded --- What was the questions they were asked? Companies do not have to give any information out and we have no idea what questions were asked to have the company respond in this way. Where is the citation? Who is the source? What reputable independent third-party publication or source asked these questions and where is the link?
• shows a grotesquely rotund(sic) -- Pure weasel wording
• The video was purported to -- Weasel wording. Cite the source. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about any of the rest - just passing by - but "presents a highly negative image" sounds NPOV to me and should require no additional proof, considering that the video is an obvious slam of Gore. --Kizor 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is 'Highly' because that is concidered a weasel word in this context and it is POV...because it depends on a persons personal political veiw. A US Dem. may concider this highly offensive while a Rep. might not. Also, the video can be viewed as a spoof/satire that holds no sway over a person's opinion of the ex-Vice President. If Gore appeared on southpark generally it would be concidered a spoof/satire. Highly negative image or just Negative image in this case is completely POV. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, friend!! I have reconnoitered and repaired your concerns!! The description of the video was right straight out of the Wall Street Journal, quoting a professor of communications... so was the statement that it presented a "highly negative" image... you kind of shifted arguments midstream, I see, arguing over whether 'Highly' was weasely if used with "offensive", but no one said it was a highly "offensive" image, they said it was a highly "negative" image. Do you see the difference? The question to which DCI Group responded was also in the Wall Street Journal, which is how did the video end up coming from their computers-- did they say they had no idea? or that this was a mistake, or just some lone nut employee on a lark? No, they said they don't discuss work they do for clients!! As for "grotesquely rotund", well yeah that is a judgment call, but they drew him to look like a basketball, you know kinda saying "haha ha, global warming is not real because look how fat Al Gore is"!! Anyway I changed that to a quote from a newspaper too, which instead says they made him "grossly overweight". I am just happy to help!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

THis is one of the worst articles I have read on Wikipedia. First, the titles should be renamed from "scandal" to "controversy". Second, the article is littered with "weasel words" and conjecture. I was surprised not to see the statement "It is unclear whether the makers of the video beat still beat their wives." Many unsourced, POV accusations. I am tagging this with a POV tag for cleanup.--Tbeatty 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I started reading the article and it immediately launches into a tirade against the video. This article is completely POV from start to finish. It's propoganda 101 from the left. JettaMann 18:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well for one thing, you errantly wrote that the Yahoo account has ties to DCI Group... read the article instead of making things like that up from scratch, the article said the ROUTING INFORMATION showed that "the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group"!! This had NOTHING to do with Yahoo... here, pay close attention while explain... you see when you log onto a computer, you are assigned a thing called an Internet protocol, or IP address... some companies OWN all the IP addresses in a certain bandwidth and when an email is sent it contains "routing information" which tells you where exactly it came from... doesn't matter if it's Yahoo or AOL or a Juno account, the routing information will be the same-- in this case the routing information was from a DCI computer, i.e. a computer physically owned by DCI, on DCI property (which is probable why DCI is not trying to lie and say they didn't do it, because they understand what it is the WSJ uncovered). I'll let you know if I find any other mistakes, as I only just got through the first line... in the meantime, make a list of the "weasel words" and "conjecture" the article is "littered with", and I'll fix them by replacing them with exact quotes from the WSJ, ABC News, or whatever other reliable source suits you!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, I blew off a bit of steam just now, but please understand, I am directly following the path of the God of which we are all part when I seek to head off the global warming disaster that I see arising before my eyes, and cheap political tactics to belittle that problem will only move is each towards an eternity of suffering in the next world... //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My goal is to have an accurate encylcopeida article. Your description about routing information is correct. I only sought to connect them without going into a lot of detail. FYI, the IP address can be spoofed as it depends on the remailer. For example, my ISP requires me to go through there port 25 mailer even for Yahoo mail. The trail of IP routing information is totally up to the mailer. Google mail is completely anonymous. The routing information tied the Email to a DCI computer but without a complete admission by DCI it is not accurate to say that it absolutely orginated from DCI. For example, I could easily create a SMTP server that made it look like all my mail came from the DNC. I find it noteworthy that they didn't deny it.

The rename should be to the video itself with the controversy as a sub-part of that. Mentioning the controversy in the opener is justifiable as it seems that this is a noteworthy event. I have rewritten a lot of the article and may drop my tags shortly. Also, the other titles redirect here so they are not lost in a search or something.

Calling DCI Republican or Exxon is not accurate and POV. They are clients and that can be noted. --Tbeatty 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "DCI Leadership" page lists six people as the leadership of DCI. Every single one of those people is described in their materials as some kind of officer or coordinator for Republican party... DCI's Chairman, Tom Synhorst worked for Republican senators for sixteen years and "held key roles in the political floor operations of the 1996 and 2000 Republican conventions", as well as being "an advisor to Bush/Cheney 2000"...

DCI's CEO, Doug Goodyear managed a Republican Senate campaign and was "Political Director of the Colorado Republican Party from 1985 to 1987"... DCI's President, Jim Murphy "worked on Capitol Hill for four years for former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH), held senior positions in Bob Dole’s 1988 and 1996 presidential campaigns, managed floor operations at the last three National Republican Conventions, [and] served two years on the staff of the National Republican Senatorial Committee"...

The other three partners have equally Republican-tied resumes... one is current "chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition"... another was "Coalitions Director for the Dole/Kemp Presidential Campaign in 1996" and "Deputy Director and Field Representative of the National Republican Senatorial Committee", and spent nine years doing PR for big tobacco... the last one was "staff of the 2000 Republican National Convention and serving as Deputy Political Director of the 1996 Republican National Convention. He has served on the political staff of Republican Presidential candidate and US Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, and in the re-election campaign of George H. W. Bush." Meanwhile no one in DCI's "leadership" has any ties to Democrats, Libertarians, or Independants of any kind...

So it's kinda silly to try and hide DCI's connection to the Republican Party, when they're so up front about it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 11:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Tux?

Why did they use Tux? This should really be mentioned in the article. I don't see any relation between Al Gore's global warming stuff and Linux, so why did they go with Tux? Is it possible that they just did a generic GIS for penguin and ended up using the Linux mascot without even realizing it? --Cyde Weys 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Since no one has come forward to point out anything innaccurate, down comes the innaccuracy tag!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] are they stupid

if anyone (exxon or otherwise) really paid money for this, they are idiots. i have never seen a youtube-video that was soooooo boring. it amazes me that this could stir ANY controversy at all. why do people watch this? don't they have anything better to do, like reading wikipedia ??-- ExpImp^talkcon 02:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a reflection of how smart they are as it is a reflection of how smart they think WE are!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

In an attempt to discredit a video for pushing an agenda, this article pushes an agenda itself. Only the video never claims to be neutral. There's very little information here of relevance - it should be stripped down and possibly just tacked onto the Inconvieniant Truth article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.99.144.224 (talk • contribs) on 20:09, November 2, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this article is about a video originally posted on YouTube. Maybe you should have actually checked the content of the article before saying this, as a link to the original video on YouTube is entirely appropriate. Titanium Dragon 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know wikipedia policy, but a link to the video in question seems to make sense, I was surprised when there wasn't one. The original link, surely wouldn't violate someones copyright? This is it so X many other people don't have to google, as far as I can tell. It has 0.5mil views anyway: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI