Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Great Global Warming Swindle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Archive 1 (March 2007)

Contents

[edit] Opening paragraph

I added that the film makers regard the TGGWS as The definitive answer to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and it is removed twice because it is considered a "sales pitch".

If you were to view each wikipedia article relating to both films you will see that critisms of the latter are located where they belong - in the section dealing with critisism, can we reciprocate the same approach to this article? --Dean1970 10:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the green mafia don't want a certain other documentary wikilinked so soon into this article! --Dean1970 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have a problem with this if you can provide a source which gives that exact quote- we're already quoting from the film's publicity, after all. However it's KimDabelsteinPetersen you need to persuade. --Merlinme 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what Mr. Petersen is talking about. The quote comes from the official Web site. That's a reliable source. ~ UBeR 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've given the reason several times - its part of the advertising campaign - Ads are not in general WP:RS. Notice the placing of the quote (right side - second box) - its a sales pitch/advertising blurb for the DVD. Its not a "quote". Please refer to a serious article/text stating this - and i'll shut up about including it. Although it doesn't belong in the lead even if found (imho). --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd have nothing against it if its part of a description of how the film is advertised/promoted in a section on this subject - possibly with a description of where the movie has been shown (has anyone but Channel 4 shown it?) --Kim D. Petersen 09:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does Wikipedia say text from an official Web site is unreliable. I must have skimmed over that part. ~ UBeR 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
UBeR are you deliberately trying to be a devils advocate? The 2nd box is a clear advertising space - its attached to the page in that it advertises for the product that the page is about - but its still an Ad. Ads are usually made by advertising people - they are not in general known for their validity etc etc. I'd btw take the same stance if someone tried to add such a blurb to the lead for AIT. (ie. you owe your children to see this... *blerch*) --Kim D. Petersen 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is an ad, as you proclaim, there should be no problem with writing "it was advertised as the definitive answer to AIT." It fits well with the one of the intro sentences, "Publicity for the programme states that the mainstream theory of global warming is 'a lie' and 'the biggest scam of modern times.'" I don't see much of a difference from publicity statements vs. ads. ~ UBeR 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
UBeR if you had read the above - then you would notice that i don't oppose that it is mentioned - i simply oppose that it is important or reliable enough to be used in the lead. (read that again: the lead). A section on how the movie has been promoted, what channels it has been shown on, what reactions it spawned in media etc - is a natural given for an article of this kind. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been promoted as the definitive answer to AIT... ~ UBeR 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with quoting the film's publicity, as long as it's in made clear what source is and it's in quotemarks then people can make their own minds up. But changing the opening paragraph to say things like "asks how without solid supporting evidence the theory that mankind is largely to blame for climatic change is considered an undisputable fact"- that's outrageous. Who says this? Dean1970? We're supposed to stick to the facts and use 3rd party sources wherever possible, not make highly leading statements like "without solid supporting evidence". Many of us (including just about every climate scientist who's ever looked at it) would argue strongly that there is very solid supporting evidence, . --Merlinme 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check sources before making changes

I've had to revert two changes which were made by someone who clearly hadn't read the original articles, or they would have seen why "censure" not "censor" is the word used in the article, and the sections are entitled "We Say", i.e. Independent environment team editorialising, not Geoffrey Lean's opinion. The British Antarctic Survey site is down at the moment, but I think I'm also going to have to change the CO2s back to CO2s in their quote, as CO2 is what it says in the original source, and Wikipedia guidelines state you should always accurately reflect what it says in the original, regardless of normal style guidelines. Please check sources before assuming you know what they say and 'correcting' them. --Merlinme 13:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the CO2 is such a problem. ~ UBeR 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be aware of WP:SPS

I have just removed three of User:William_M._Connolley's blog entries from the article, as all failed to meet the Wikipedia standards of WP:SPS/WP:OR. Please be aware of the rules on self-published sources before using a blog entry as a reference. --Tjsynkral 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. See: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." --Stephan Schulz 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A blog is NOT a credible, third party publication... Blogs are specifically mentioned in WP:SPS as being unacceptable. Please be aware that User:Stephan_Schulz has reverted the article to a previous version that is in violation of WP:SPS. Quote from WP:SPS: "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking." --Tjsynkral 18:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Excercise caution, right. However, these are not unusual or suprising statements. And "blogs" are mentioned in the very sentence you cite! --Stephan Schulz 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the sentence? It says that blogs are not a reliable source. And these statements make large claims, such as one person who claims to be from the IPCC - which, being his personal website, could be total bunk. I could put on my personal website that I used to be the president of the Earth - would it be okay to say that I was former president of the Earth in a WP article and cite my personal website as the source? We need to take a hard line on WP:SPS to maintain WP:NPOV. --Tjsynkral 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:El_C is attempting to engage me in an edit war - I cannot revert again even though I am right on this one, due to WP:3RR. Therefore I am adding a WP:RFC for this situation. I believe that Wikipedia as a whole will not stand for self-published sources. --Tjsynkral 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, well-known professionals writing in their field are sometimes allowed to be used as sources if written in a weblog. Wether William the mathematician counts as this is a different question. And his unrelenting bias and POV pushing on this article should also be considered, perhaps as a conflict of interest. ~ UBeR 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Op-ed pieces by notable contributors published by a leading magazine are reliable sources. Seeds is a reputable publisher. The guideline to which you refer makes specific exceptions for sources like this. Guettarda 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to use common-sense here, people. It is hardly appropriate to cite blog posts in this article composed by someone who heavily edits this article, regardless of his qualifications. It can be seen as a proxy method to push one's views into an article without being subject to policies on NPOV and the like. I would have much less of a problem citing WMC's published work. (And I think you're talking about something different Guettarda, the material in dispute is stricly blog posts). - Merzbow 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I am talking about an op-ed publication by a major magazine...which happens to publish these through the tool of blogging. The mere fact that the person is a Wikipedia editor does not make then an unacceptable source - that assertion is ridiculous. Guettarda 19:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The mere fact the user continuously vandalized this article with POV-pushing comments makes it an unacceptable source for this article. ~ UBeR 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me whether WMC has been personally involved in this project or not - blog entries are NOT reliable sources, they are not peer-reviewed or fact checked, and they blatantly violate WP:RS. If the information presented in these non-reliable sources is factual, it can be found in, and therefore replaced by, a reliable source. --Tjsynkral 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What you contend here contradicts what WP:RS actually says. Quote, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking." Yes, we have to be careful using material from blogs. But your flat contention that "blog entries are NOT reliable sources" is wrong. Raymond Arritt 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Has this "been previously published by credible, third-party publications"? If not, then it explicitly disallows inclusion of blogs. If so, cite the credible, third-party publication. --Tjsynkral 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read more carefully: "so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." It's referring to the blogger's expertise in the field as corroborated by credible, third-party publications, not the specific material in question. As for WMC's "credible, third-party publications" there's Science, Journal of Climate, Journal of Physical Oceanography, and plenty more. Raymond Arritt 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Assuming your interpretation of the rule is correct - which doesn't really make sense, because all a person has to do is have had one thing published and then we could cite his blog entry saying the moon is made of cheese as easily as a scientific journal entry - that is not a firm entitlement, it is only a "may." I do not believe these off-the-cuff blog entries qualify for an exception, and I believe there are others who feel the same way as I do. Again: If it's factually correct, why not cite a Reliable Source on it? It would be to your side's benefit to produce better, more reliable sources. --Tjsynkral 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious that WP:RS supports using blogs in certain circumstances - RC is certainly used in many places. But the most sensible comment was We need to use common-sense here, people - we do. That Durkin faked the graphs is not in any doubt - he has admitted to this himself. Providing a link to the proof of this is useful and convenient. The people removing these links are not doing so for policy reasons but for censorship William M. Connolley 22:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

#1, WP:AGF. #2, read the policy - as quoted above, it states that self-published material is acceptable "so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." What credible, third-party publication have those blog entries appeared in? If none, they violate the letter and spirit of WP:SPS. --Tjsynkral 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You're misreading the policy again. It's not the particular work (otherwise this exception would be useless), but the author that needs to be published. And in this case, he is, in Science (journal), the Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate, and a lot of other reputable publications. --Stephan Schulz 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
William, censorship is a pretty big word for you. The information was still there. No one deleted content, only the links to contentious material written by a heavily biased and radical individual were deleted. ~ UBeR 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Being civil as possible, given the circumstances. ~ UBeR 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Now we have WMC restoring cites and quotes from his own blog posts. This is a blatant conflict of interest. What's to stop him from placing any material he can't achieve consensus for adding to the article in a blog post, and then simply quoting from it under the rubric of the WP:RS exception - which I may add does not give blanket permission to cite blogs, but says they MAY be cited in certain limited circumstances. The word "may" is not the word "must", and so we are not forced to allow this if it would not be appropriate for other reasons, as is the case here. - Merzbow 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. There are no reasons, acceptable or otherwise, stated for refusing to cite RC.
2. I have added the cites and quotes (not from myself) and they have been removed. How am I affected by COI? --Skyemoor 17:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the "editors are to exercise caution when citing blogs" clause comes into effect there. WMC can "[place]any material he can't achieve consensus for adding to the article in a blog post, and then simply quoting from it under the rubric of the WP:RS exception", but if he can't gain any support for it from others who are showing suitable caution, then it can be struck down. We aren't giving a blanket license for any of WMCs blog posts here, we are saying that he is a published researcher in the field so, if the blog posts are reasonable, then they can be included. Obviously "reasonable" is a subjective point. I would note, however, that Stephan, Raymond, and myself (and I would guess others as well) all feel the particular cites under discussion are fine. As a minor note, however, it would probably be best, for the sake of appearance, if WMC left it to others to restore those particular cites in future. -- Leland McInnes 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
WMC has shown by his editing behavior here to have extremely strong views against this film. If he wants to write an article about it and get it published in a major publication, with editors, fact-checkers, peer-reviewers, and so on, then that's fine. But to quote him from a blog that he controls (or co-controls)? With no editorial oversight we're simply working on trust that what he's writing is accurate and objective - and we have every reason to believe he is not objective about the subject of this article. - Merzbow 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The point of the "exercise caution" clause is that we are supposed to exercise caution because we are the fact checkers and we are the editorial oversight. If we can find significant factual errors in the blog posts in question then that would be reason to remove them. All the policy says is that we should exercise some caution, not just take it on faith, and analyse the blog posts and do some basic fact checking. The particular cases in question seem to be fairly straightforward to check -- for example the graphs presented on the page are, indeed, the graphs from the 2 versions of the documentary (I know, I watched the documentary and checked the screen captures he has). -- Leland McInnes 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong. We are emphatically not fact-checkers - that is original research. If Science magazine says the sky is green, then we say the sky is green. The standard is verifiability, reliability, and all that good stuff, not the "truth" as we claim to see it. That is why the WP:RS and WP:V policies even exist. - Merzbow 07:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ - we are fact-checkers - we check whether or not Science magazine actually does write that the sky is green. More to the point of this section - the blog pages by WMC aren't WP:OR, they are merely providing/showing the data that has already been established by a WP:RS source to be incorrect [1]. So what is the reason for removing the links? --Kim D. Petersen 09:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is trivial to verify that a source actually says what it claims to say when cited in a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia would not be possible if we did not do so. But to say that a source is acceptable because it contains information from ANOTHER source that is allegedly accurate is original research, plain and simple. You're putting yourself in the role of peer-reviewer. - Merzbow 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this information as well. A Wikipedia Administrator should know better then to defend the use of his own blog (non news source) to assist in an arguement against a Wiki article. WP:COI WP:SPS--Zeeboid 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I Have removed, once again, the use of a blog as a source.[2]
According to Wikipedia[3]

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.

If not using blogs is true for a living person...--Zeeboid 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat uneasy about having a (non peer reviewed) WMC blog quoted in an article he has been so heavily involved in editing. However, the fact remains that he is an acknowledged (and published) expert in the field, and the RealClimate blog is a respected source on climate matters. He's not the only person who writes that blog, so you could argue it's separated from conflicts of interest to that extent. We can discuss whether there is a better way to do this- WMC himself has said he'd be happy to have the Real Climate quotes replaced by other quotes, if they can be found. Which is part of the point- we're looking for up to date comments on what is essentially current affairs, so our main sources are things like blogs, press releases, and newspaper articles. In those circumstances, I think use of a WMC RealClimate blog is reasonable. I have to say, I don't really understand why Zeeboid and Tjsynkral keep quoting Wikipedia guidelines which don't actually say what they keep claiming. For example, looking at SPS: a) WMC is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise"; b) he has "been previously published by reliable, third-party publications"; c) we are "exercising caution", i.e. we're discussing it here. We may reach the conclusion that there are better sources out there, but please do not use SPS as an excuse for deleting these sections without discussing here first. The guidelines do not say what you claim they say. --Merlinme 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Something smells fishy. A Wikipedian's blog is not reliable source for criticism. And is only here to create new controversy. Shame! The machine512 07:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody ever actually read the guidelines? Or the discussion? A Wikipedian's blog can be a reliable source for criticism, provided they have respected professional qualifications in that area, there is no other better source, and we use the source with caution. --Merlinme 09:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody ever actually read the discussion? We already have a reliable source for the information. ~ UBeR 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RealClimate link

RealClimate is exactly the kind of blog our exception was written for. It is written by a group of professional, recognized, published researchers in the field. It has been positively mentioned by Science (journal) and Nature (journal) and has been recognized as an excellent resource by other third parties. --Stephan Schulz 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And the author of that blog, WMC, having very strong opinions against the subject of this article, and having been a heavy and controversial editor of this article, is the very situation that WP:COI was written for. - Merzbow 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
William is not the author of RealClimate, he is an author -- in fact, one of 11 regular contributors[4] (all notable, published, respected climate scientists). And he is not the author of the article in question, but an author, together with Gavin A. Smith. And he did not introduce that material in the first place (though, as has been pointed out, he has reverted its deletion).--Stephan Schulz 07:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If he was adding his own comments, perhaps. But he isn't the one adding his own comments. If there is a COI here it is on the part of editors removing sources on the basis of their personal dislike for the author of the source. Don't remove sources based on your personal opinion of the author of the source. Guettarda 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
He DID add his own comments, check out yesterday's change history, and he marked the edit as minor to boot. If he chooses not to edit this article for a long period of time, then the COI disappears. Until then, it's inappropriate to include comments from the unmoderated blog of a heavy contributor to the article with a strong negative POV against the article's subject. Is this a precedent we really want to set? - Merzbow 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What's interesting is that the objections are all about William. It can't be denied that the program did use old data, that it did fudge the graphs, and that it did use older studies without mentioning more recent ones that would have refuted them. Raymond Arritt 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What's interesting is that William had continuously editing disruptively on this page with replacing documentary with propaganda on many occasions, as well as other POV-pushing edits that were disrutive. That said and exercising caution, his opinion ought not be valid here. What is more important is that there is a more reliable and less contentious source pointing out the same things you pointed out above, and it is used in the article. ~ UBeR 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And it looks like the policy is correct, per the Independent: "If the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it." ~ UBeR 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't completely agree- I trust scientists more than journalists, and I trust two sources more than one. I would prefer to leave the RealClimate quote in, although I would agree it would be better if we could find other scientific sources to use. --Merlinme 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it might be a conflict if William had been the one who added the reference - but, the truth is that a large number of editors agree with the addition of the of references. The real COI is the fact that a group of editors are removing references from the article because of their personal dislike for the source. That is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 01:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you expect us to think about this particular source's ability to write objectively about this subject without peer review when he continues to make edits like this? We're being taken for a ride here. - Merzbow 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, your personal dislike of a person is not a valid reason to delete accurate information from the article. If you want to change Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines to say that articles should only be based on peer-reviewed literature, feel free. But you can't just make up rules to exclude people you dislike. Guettarda 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the blog exception gives you absolute right to insert such sources without consideration of any other factors that may impact the reliability of the source - namely conflict-of-interest. - Merzbow 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually WP:NOR makes it clear that WMC is in violation of policy by re-inserting this material himself. I quote: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." A blog post to a blog one controls is hardly "publication". - Merzbow 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
RealClimate and Scienceblogs are reliable sources. Your quote says that you should not include material which was not published in a realiable publication. These are reliable publications...this is precisely the type of source that the blog exception describes. This is exactly the type of thing that the line you quoted from NOR permits. The only conflict on interest I see here is that of people who choose to use their dislike for the author of a source as a reason for excluding the source. Yes, there is a conflict on interest here - yours. Guettarda 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The best joke is that no one has suggested that the source is inaccurate...just that they don't like the person who write it. Guettarda 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The real problem is that editors are seeking any excuse to delete any reference to the scientific literature that would show that, on almost every point, the claims made in the film are nonsense. Their ideal would be to restrict reference to peer-reviewed publications that refer specifically to TGGWS. Of course, given the time lags, no such publications exist, and by the time any arise, some new piece of propaganda will have been produced, and we can all play the same game of whack-a-mole with that. JQ 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It permits in the narrowest sense of the word, emphasizing that "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons" - the language is quite clear on that, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to show otherwise. But if you feel you have to twist the letter and spirit of policy for the greater good of defeating "propaganda", don't let us stand in your way. But rest assured that any neutral reader who happens to cross-reference the article change history with article cites, or stumble upon this talk page, will not be fooled. Remember who you're trying to convince here - not me, not Uber, but the readers. - Merzbow 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with JQ entirely. The facts should be stated. Mostlyharmless 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro to the documentary

I tried to tidy up the intro and it is constantly deleted and replaced with critisim that actually has it own section. I even tried to replace the wording that Raymond deemed a little contentious but still this is not good enough. If you look at other TV programmes on wikipedia the intro starts with a brief synopsis explaining what the programme is about, etc.

Critisisms and quotes from other media sources belong in their own section.

I'm going to add it back. And ask that editors bear in mind the points I make before reverting it back to critisism. --Dean1970 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments under "Opening paragraph". I'm afraid I find your version a very long way from NPOV, and as far as I can tell, it's completely unsourced. I've reverted. --Merlinme 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a section that is common with TV programmes on wikipedia. The synopsis is sourced from the film and their own website. --Dean1970 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Where, exactly? None of it is in quote marks, and it's so full of NPOV words I don't know where to start: "without solid supporting evidence", "used as fact to an unsuspecting public", "questions the reluctance of scientists to acknowledge the role of the Sun", this is ridiculous, all climate scientists accept the role of the Sun, the question is how much effect the Sun has. You then finish on "claims the biggest obstacle to rational debate on climate change is the use of the IPCC consensus argument" when I don't remember the programme mentioning the "IPCC consensus argument" once. Dean1970, please don't use this article to push your own point of view. --Merlinme 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The "synopsis" seems to be the same stuff Mm removed before - so I've removed it again, on the same grounds William M. Connolley 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make the film. I'm merely editing a synopsis of what the film makers claim (and they do make the claims).

I'm going to pursue this matter with wikipedia admin because the blatant point-of-view pushing here is out of order.

Nothing at all wrong with including a brief synopsis, wikipedia has no problems with them being used. They encourage people to make edits. You better get used to the fact that wikipedia allows sections to evolve and encourages editors as long as they're not being abusive. And trying to get people booted off wikipedia by warning them of 3rrs when in fact it is other people pushing their agenda is chicken@@@@! --Dean1970 22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean, you're right, there's nothing wrong with writing a synopsis of a film. However it has to be an accurate synopsis, and I didn't recognise the language you used as coming from the film, a lot of it sounded like your own opinions. The synopsis also has to be encyclopedic, which is to say, writing should either be uncontentious and factual, or attributed. I'm afraid your synopsis was neither. There may be a case for a synopsis for TGGWS (although the main arguments are summarised quite soon afterwards). But if you write it in such a blatantly biased way, you can expect it to be reverted. --Merlinme 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme - You'd have to take up the claims you accuse of being biased with the film makers, they make them. I only added their claims in the synopsis, that doesn't mean they're endorsed by me, you and whoever, the claims are made, look at their website, they make the claims, not me. If they make the claims then they should be included in the synopsis. --Dean1970 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean, none of the words in your section had quotemarks around them, so it was impossible for a reader to tell what was your opinion and what the film makers had said. To be an appropriate section, you should have put quote marks around the actual quotes and given references so people could check that was what was said. It's not helped by the fact that I know for a fact you've made edits in the past which put words in people's mouths, e.g. the Kenyan clinic doctor never said: "while western enviromentalists enjoy the benefits of modern energy being supplied to its hospitals via fossil fuel burning power plants". [5] If you look at the transcript, he didn't say that, or anything even close to that, so you'll forgive me if I'm dubious when you make edits which aren't referenced. Even with quotemarks and references, the synopsis would still have to add something to the article- the article is long, and the programme's claims are already summarised. But quotemarks and references would be a start. --Merlinme 07:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All of a sudden theres a big interest about the Kenyan medical office?! Nothing about Africa being held back by environmentalists until I started editing on the page. Thats to your shame, not mine, thats to the holier-than-thou green mafias shame who were editing this page long before I showed up and happened to mention that there was more to this docu than graphs and data (like a gaggle of college snots,) but now all of a sudden Africa gets a mention to try and rub my nose in it, I have no shame about mixing the words there, it was wrong, yes, I'm sorry, yes, it was a heated edit yes, get over it and don't try and throw it in my face now to hide the fact that you have no logical reason to dispute the reasons I believe a synopsis should be included, quoting from the film makers! --Dean1970 07:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There were a brief couple of sentences on Africa before, but it's true that we now have a section which more reflects the weight the programme gave to Africa, thank you for that. I personally thought the African section was one of the weaker parts of the programme- no mention was made of the fact that the Kyoto protocol specifically excludes developing countries, for example, and you can get solar power in places which don't have a National Grid- but it was quite a large part of the programme, so we should reflect that. But that wasn't what I was saying: I was saying I don't trust you to accurately report other sources. In that edit you didn't mix the words so much as completely make them up. The doctor never said a word about western environmentalists, and he never said a word about First World hospitals powered by fossil fuels. An encylopedia shouldn't make things up, and it should have references which can be checked. --Merlinme 08:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme, I deliberately added that on, it was dishonest, I already admitted so above, I apologise. I also mentioned something about gourmet coffee and laptops....you want to go back and check that too? Seriously, I will strive to add a source when editing on a page (I usually always do). I will strive to keep a tin lid on my temper when I'm being pi@@ed off with other editors piping their oar into my reasonable edits. This is a serious issue, there has to be balance, when I changed the intro I kept "controversial documentary" in so as not to instigate a dispute with certain other wikipedians. btw, does 3rr warning I mean I can't edit on the page for a certain time period? --Dean1970 08:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you'll make constructive and sourced edits. 3rr does not mean you cannot make edits, but it does mean that you cannot make edits which are very nearly the same as something you've already reverted several times. If you are going to add in a synopsis, listen to other people's comments, and write it again taking into account the following things: put actual quotes in quote marks, and add references; when you're not using direct quotes, avoid contentious or biased language; and try and make sure the synopsis adds something to the article, bearing in mind that we already have a summary of the main arguments of the film, and a list of all the other claims immediately after. A brief description of the film in chronological order would add something, for example. One of my problems with your synopsis was that you seemed to be repeating material we had elsewhere, only with more inflammatory language. --Merlinme 08:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The sad irony about the current intro (not for me,) is that it has more potential to tweak the interest of anyone reading it into buying the DVD or at the least viewing what they'll believe is their propaganda ridden, controversial, lop-sided, and polemic website. They're [particulary William, Raymond and Kim] doing wikipedia a diservice being so biased getting the first word in and the last word out anyway, but deleting reasonable edits to support their views and using weak arguments like "its advertising" or "3rr warnings" to ward off anyone who doesn't toe-their-line is pathetic!

Here is what I added - The documentary questions the evidence surrounding the current scientific consensus on global warming, and asks how without solid supporting evidence the theory that mankind is largely to blame for climatic change is considered an undisputable fact[This is supported on their website and on their documentary].

The documentary explores the relationship between the media and science and concludes that hours of uncritical coverage (sometimes apocalyptic) is devoted to the theory of manmade global warming and how this is being used as fact to an unsuspecting public [The website and the documentary (using graphic reel from a BBC global warming programme depicting the Thames Barrier being overwhelmed by tidal waves) also supports the jist of this edit, I'm trying not to copy word for word, mind].

The documentary questions the reluctance of scientists to acknowledge the role of the Sun on the Earths climate variation, claiming that variations in solar activity has a proven recorded history in effecting the Earths temperature. [Ok, I made a mistake not adding "some" before scientists, but generally, its covered in their website and their documentary].

The film claims that the scientific conclusions on ice-core data samples used in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which claims that Co2 drives climate, is actually the other way around. [This is supported on their website and on the documentary].

The Great Global Warming Swindle claims the biggest obstacle to rational debate on climate change is the use of the IPCC consensus argument, the claim that the 'worlds top scientists all agree' on a consensus, that is used to brow beat politicians, stifle critisism in the media and ridicule any scientist that disagrees. [Again, their website states this, and their documentary].

I added this as an intro and suggested that critisism be kept for its section. Again, just to make clear, the film makers are making these claims, not me. And also, some of it isn't already included in the current version. The current intro does not read like the intro to a documentary. And it should, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their claims. --Dean1970 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the word "argues" in the lead. See the definitions at dictionary.com [6] - in all of them where this context is used the definition is "present reasons and arguments" or similar. "Fights" and "rails" both carry definitions and connotations which include comment on the nature of the argument. They are not neutral. QmunkE 10:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And I've gone one step further with "disagrees with", which per dictionary.com is "to differ in opinion; dissent". --Skyemoor 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagrees is OK. Argues is non-neutral for precisely the defn Q gives: it implies reasnning, which the film didn't William M. Connolley 11:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop trolling. Argue is perfectly neutral. It implies nothing, it doesn't imply rationality or irrationality. I'm rationally arguing right now with an irrational 'person' (you).--Rotten 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment added back after Willaim removed it for being disagreeable. I added it back and edited in the word 'person' to tone it down.--Zeeboid 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous - how can a documentary "disagree" with anything? It isn't a person - Durkin might disagree with the mainstream view, the documentary is his argument. Read the definitions - just because you don't believe the reasons given in the documentary (true or false, that isn't what's important here) doesn't mean it isn't an argument. QmunkE 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Using your own logic, how can a documentary "argue" with anything? It isn't a person. "Disagrees" is more neutral and the definition fits. --Skyemoor 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is also POV to describe the film as "controversial" in the opening sentence. We don't do this with AIT. Iceage77 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
From the scientific standpoint, TGGWS is controversial. You allusion to AIT refers to political and special interest machinations. Important difference. --Skyemoor 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This *is* ridiculuous - how can a doc "argue" with anything - it isn't a person. And re controv - please read the long long edit war stuff before starting off the war again William M. Connolley 14:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you, William applying all your same rules and opinion to the other global warming documentary out there?--Zeeboid 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. That represents the holy word of the Goracle and is beyond criticism. Iceage77 14:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Your POV slip is showing. If you want to be taken seriously, apply the 5 pillars of WP. --Skyemoor 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I don't want to edit war over this so I'm not changing the article. However, I find the childish behaviour of some users on this page is beginning to get very wearing - on both sides of the argument. From Wikipedia's own article, Argument:

An argument is a statement (premise) or group of statements (premises) offered in support of another statement (conclusion).

In no way is describing this documentary as something which argues something which is not neutral. It is accurate. This documentary is being used as an argument opposing the mainstream view of anthropogenic global warming. QmunkE 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the introduction so the language used is similar to that in An Inconvenient Truth. Seems neutral enough to me, no "argue", no "rails", no "fights". Better? QmunkE 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Your version side-steps the issue and this seems like a good way to do it (I reject the comparison with AIT, but thats another matter) William M. Connolley 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another call for civility

Could people please remain civil? As for the particular issue of "argues" in the introduction, I don't really understand why we're in an edit war about it. WMC, even bad arguments are arguments; even arguments which are proved to be false are arguments; I can argue that night is day, if I want to. To disagree with the use of the word anywhere in relation to TGGWS seems over the top to me. Durkin uses a series of arguments, whether one agrees with them or not is irrelevant. --Merlinme 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junk Science Quotes

The quotes from Steve Milloy add little to the article and tend to veer off onto Junk Science material. This is clearly more appropriate for a POV blog than an encyclopedia, so it has been trimmed accordingly. --Skyemoor 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship issues

Please be aware that certain editors are patrolling the bio's of the contributers to this documentary and deleting any reference to their participation in the documentary. As Patrick Moore quite rightly summises these people are injecting their neo-marxism into their beliefs. Wikipedia (left to these guys) will turn into a bad night in East Berlin unless their stasi tactics are exposed. --Dean1970 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean please be civil --Kim D. Petersen 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please name the articles in question so they can be corrected as necessary? If someone participated in TGGWS, that seems worth noting. Raymond Arritt 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Dean1970 added a link from the Zoe Williams article to this one, simply because Williams happened to review the documentary for the Guardian TV section, when it was broadcast. I think there's some tenuous over-linking going on here, and I wouldn't be surprised if other random editors were deleting it as inappropriate detail. --McGeddon 10:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I am a civil person thanks. Raymond, I have edited on the pages of the contributers to this film that they appeared on this film. I kept the entries short and sweet. They are constantly deleted for this and that reason. Then I'm accused of not being neutral, lol, you have to see who is talking to believe it. --Dean1970 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the first couple that I looked at -- Lindzen and Michaels -- did mention TGGWS. The mention in the Lindzen article was not very well written so I tweaked it a little. (There were some punctuation problems and the like.) Raymond Arritt 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ohh you tweaked it alright. --Dean1970 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're presumably upset that I took out the bit of puffery about the folks in TGGWS being "prominent" scientists. Some are (e.g., Lindzen), but the scientific accomplishments of some others are meager at best (e.g., Ball), while others are somewhere in the middle. Raymond Arritt 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
One pretty clear example. Was the first and only one I looked at so far. I'm sure this is far ranging. ~ UBeR 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Second, of the third I looked at. Third of fourth. Etcetera. ~ UBeR 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, Thank you! --Dean1970 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that if anyone participated significantly in TGGWS then it deserves mention. Raymond Arritt 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And I agree completely. Why Mr. Petersen feels otherwise is beyond me. Perhaps he has forgotten that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, that it publishes from verifiable and reliable sources, and the spirit of Wikipedia is negotiating through talk pages. Shame. ~ UBeR 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Then what about every other TV program/"documentary" that addresses GW? That could be in the many dozens; for example News' "The Debate Continues", and so forth. Do we include each of these? Is it encyclopedic to do so? --Skyemoor 11:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
While anyone who participated significantly should be mentioned, it's less clear that anyone mentioned in passing or whose name rolls by on the credits should be. I just don't see the point in that -- it adds clutter to the bios, and it's not like their stances on the issue aren't clear anyway. Raymond Arritt 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
My stance on this is pretty reasonably provided on Talk:John Christy#Appearances section - Skyemore in the above hits one of my critiques of this pretty close to the mark. Can anyone explain to me why this particular movie is especially interesting on the bio-pages? Is it the intention that we should have every prominent appearence by anyone in some kind of production added to the biopages of the participants? Please think about this for a bit. Please reflect over WP:NOT and the intentions implied here in. Are these people famous because of their appearance in this movie? Please also reflect over noteworthy-ness in the broader aspects of an encyclopedia. (ie. try to focus away from this movie, and focus on the biography - is this particular movie noteworthy compared to the biography - does an the entry put undue weight compared to the subjects other information etc.) --Kim D. Petersen 15:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To simplify what i'm saying in the above: When you are editing an article you have to think in the context of the article... In the context of TGGWS the appearaces of the scientists are important - but please change your context of thinking when you are on the biography pages and ask yourself: is it important in the context of the biography? --Kim D. Petersen 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That's sort of what I meant by "participated significantly." We treat it like any other film -- a bio mention could be OK for the star of the show (or a few leading characters), but not for every walkon or person whose name appears in the credits. Raymond Arritt 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess Lindzen didn't play a big role in the film... ~ UBeR 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the film UBeR? How many minutes do you think Lindzen is in? How do you think he compares to the other scientists in length of appearance? But more importantly: Ask yourself how important is this movie in Lindzen life? Should it be a notable part of Lindzen biography - how does it scale compared to his other accomplishments? Even when limiting things to his sceptical public appearances? --Kim D. Petersen 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (and even more important what quote of Lindzen's is "sceptical of IPCC methods"? --Kim D. Petersen 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC))


Raymond, I added 'prominent' because it seemed appropriate. I came to that point of view reading some articles that deemed them such. But obviously you're the man, you're the guy dishing out the nobel prize in science and the like so I'll leave it at your discretion! --Dean1970 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean, again we must remind you to maintain civility. --Skyemoor 11:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What skyemoor means is that on Wikipedia it is a custom for members to find a more subtle way of dissing people. :) The machine512 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dean, what is the status of this dispute? Have your concerns been resolved? --Tjsynkral 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral, Hi, apparently its against the rules to make an edit on the pages of the participants of this film that will mention their involvement! I should edit this page and delete any reference of Martin Durkin being involved... come to think of it, did Channel Four actually air it? --Dean1970 07:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why theres such a big deal about making edits like that, but I'm not getting into a 3rr tug-of-war over it. --Dean1970 07:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Due to a number of unresolved self-published source issues in this article and accusations from both sides of censorship, POV flag is up. Let's please clear up the issues, in particular the William M. Connolly (any possibility of administrator privilege?) self-published source violation regarding his blog entry being used as a source for a contentious statement. I feel this statement could be made without relying on a WP admin's personal blog as a source. Can we possibly source any primary sources directly on this? --Tjsynkral 00:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is with a single unsourced statement, why tag the entire article instead of that one statement, or the section it appears in? Raymond Arritt 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cite and between three POV-pushing users it was agressively reverted back in. And as I said, the issue I have with the article is not the only issue presently being discussed. Also: I will thank you in advance not to uphold your personal trend of removing good-faith tags until a consensus has been reached, as doing so is considered vandalism. --Tjsynkral 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the flag as I am not a contributor to RC and have put the material up. Any further insistence on this ploy constitutes further disruptive editting. --Skyemoor 10:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Your arbitrary decision is not binding. Consensus has not been reached, so it is inappropriate to remove the POV flag. You have been warned for vandalism. --Tjsynkral 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Given your impressive knowledge of Wikipedia policy and your strict adherence to it, how did you miss this part of WP:VANDAL: "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism." Raymond Arritt 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, for your information, your edit summary stated this:
"(I have inserted material on RC, so this is not an issue with WMC. WP:SPS does not affect me)"
This is incorrect. WP:SPS disallows insertion of a self-published source even if you are not the one who wrote it. The same holds for me - I could not cite Rush Limbaugh's personal blog for his views on Global Warming and get away with it just because I'm not Rush. --Tjsynkral 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC
Tjsynkral - please read the exceptions for self-published sources at WP:SPS#Exceptions. You seem to have a misconception of the rule. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I did - and I think that the article fails both reasons not to allow a "professional researcher exception" - first, a reliable source could be substituted for the SPS, and second, the article does not have any evidence of being independently fact-checked, and to the contrary appears to be something that WMC could have posted on a whim. In fact, the authors' names do not even appear on the article - it is only signed "By William and Gavin" - atrocious. --Tjsynkral 00:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your dismay, given that RealClimate has such a large number of editors named "William" and "Gavin." Very confusing indeed. Raymond Arritt 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Tjsynkral, we've been over this subject before and put it to rest. Your continued rehashing of old complaints is disruptive. --Skyemoor 01:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It's only disruptive to people who claim ownership of the page and do not want its content to reflect consensus. Re-adding the tag. Per WP:VANDAL:
Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the page. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
I won't hesitate to open an incident on vandalism if this POV pushing and premature tag removal continues. Also: The dispute over POV includes at least two issues: The RealClimate blog SPS problem, and the removal of information about the contributors to the film addressed above. Neither issue has reached consensus yet. --Tjsynkral 02:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify what is meant by "removal of information about the contributors to the film addressed above"? There has been some discussion about removing mentions of TGGWS in some contributor bios, but those are different articles from this one. It doesn't seem helpful to tag the present article because of disagreements over other articles. If you meant something else, please point it out as specifically as possible, so it can be addressed. As for vandalism, you can try WP:AIV or maybe WP:ANI. Raymond Arritt 02:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV section break 1

I would be willing to offer this compromise: This paragraph

Climate scientists William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt write in the RealClimate blog that the programme selectively used data that was sometimes decades old in making its arguments, altered graphs to make it appear that older observations had been made more recently, and used older scientific studies when more recent research would have disagreed with the film's conclusions. (Ref RC blog)

is unacceptable for WP:SPS reasons. However if the problems with accuracy of the data should be mentioned in the article, the Independent link (currently ref 6) says basically the same thing. Why don't we remove mention of WMC and Gavin Schmidt and RealClimate, and instead use the Independent article as the foundation for this statement? I hope if nothing else, that this compromise makes it clear that my goal for the article is factual accuracy and reliable sources - not to "cover up" anything. --Tjsynkral 03:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject of WP:SPS was addressed above in "Be aware of WP:SPS". Your reopening of that subject, like many other points you attempt to reopen and argue all over again, is disruptive. There is no need to remove references to two climate scientists and replace it with a link to a newspaper article, though there is no reason the newspaper article reference can be added. You've shown no compelling rationale to support the claim that your suggestion is in any way improving the article's "factual accuracy and reliable sources". --Skyemoor 10:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
For the moment I'll leave it to others to comment on the proposed compromise, but I'd still appreciate clarification of "removal of information about the contributors to the film addressed above" since that appears to be the other major point of contention. That will need to be addressed as well. Raymond Arritt 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That's actually User:Dean1970's dispute, not mine. I'm awaiting his comment. --Tjsynkral 03:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV section break 2

Also, the citation of John Houghton is a personal website article [7]. I do not accept the inclusion of a personal website article under the same WP:SPS reason. This posting is not fact-checked, and I'm certain we can do better at finding a WP:RS on this. So this objection remains, and even if the above compromise is accepted there is still an issue with the John Houghton link. --Tjsynkral 03:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Houghton's statement is a clear example of what WP:RS specifically allows: Houghton's statement is useful as a source for what Houghton thinks; "what Houghton thinks" is of interest in and of itself because of his relation to the IPCC. Note the material is couched specifically in those terms. Had the material been used in a general way, without the specific context of summarizing Houghton's views, you might have a point. Raymond Arritt 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Can it be made certain that this is the same guy who is writing this, and not a poser? The domain of personal web pages makes falsified identity a possibility. Also, I believe the section on Houghton ought to be smaller and further down the page, so as not to give undue weight to the opinion of someone who no longer represents the IPCC as expressed on his personal web page. --Tjsynkral 04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"Can it be made certain that this is the same guy who is writing this, and not a poser?" You're really stretching here; careful you don't pull a muscle. Houghton is sufficiently prominent, and his statement so widely reported, that the likelihood of the statement being spurious and going undetected is less than zero. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to trust you on that - although we're still left with the undue weight problem. This person is entitled to his opinion, but he hasn't got the same relevance or trustworthiness as someone who is still a member of the IPCC today. --Tjsynkral 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report hadn't been released at the time the film was made. The report of standing -- and thus the report relevant to TGGWS -- was the Third Assessment Report. (Surely you'll grant that they weren't discussing a report that didn't yet exist.) Since Houghton was first author for Working Group I of that report, his views arguably are more important than those of the AR4 authors. Raymond Arritt 06:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have concerns about the BAS page. It has no author. Is it possible the unsigned article is actually authored by User:William_M._Connolley? I certainly am not claiming SPS on it, but I would like to know. --Tjsynkral 04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a "BAS statement" and is attributed as such. I don't know who actually wrote it, and it doesn't matter. As an official statement of the organization it is irrelevant who actually wrote it, be that WMC, the director of BAS, or the night watchman. If you have any suspicion that the statement may be forged you can get in touch with the BAS. The contact points for their press office are given here. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I also believe the WMC blog material should be replaced with a more reliable source; an exception is just that, for exceptional circumstances, and given issues of COI and that there is a wide swath of other reliable sources for criticism of this film, I don't believe we should be applying the exception here. - Merzbow 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
On what basis do you presume the material to be unreliable? As it agrees with a source you prefer, why not both, since they reinforce each other? --Skyemoor 13:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It cannot be COI since several editors (not WMC) want it on the page. Otherwise you are saying that RC cannot be used on climate related pages - since WMC is around. Raise your COI concerns here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm seems that one is about to closed - but i still urge you to read it, and User:Durovas conclusion. --Kim D. Petersen 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV section break 3

All this talk of SPS ignores "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.". RealClimate satisfies WP:RS. -- THF 13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the section you omitted, you... omitter.
Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.
Once again, RealClimate is dangerous because it is not subject to independent fact-checking. If the information is worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it. --Tjsynkral 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a point there. Blogs/diaries can be subject to heavy POV. The machine512 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The only thing RC has been cited for is that fact that RC said something. What fact-checking is needed for that? I don't think there's any dispute that an RC post accurately reflects the views of its authors. -- THF 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
But hundreds of blogs have commented on TGGWS. Why are we quoting this one? Iceage77 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI The machine512 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point - there are surely many blogs out there that say TGGWS is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Aren't we obligated to include those also? And I'm speaking of blogs by published scholars, so it meets THEIR interpretation of the WKPR exception. --Tjsynkral 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
RC satisfies the WP:RS criterion of "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise." If you can find pro-TGGWS blogs that also satisfy this criterion, please give links so we can consider them for inclusion. Raymond Arritt 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I will ask your group to once again stop omitting parts of the rule - also acceptable, and apparently as you feel without any scrutiny whatsoever as is the standard you want us to apply to RC, is "a well-known professional journalist." So any such journalist's blog is fair game, if we're keeping to the same standard. Of course, if in the case of RealClimate and William M. Connolley you wish to apply a double standard, feel free to admit it. --Tjsynkral 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
TJ, read the rule again. "If A or B" does not require both A and B to be satisfied. RC meets WP:RS because it is written by a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise." There's no separate additional requirement of being a professional journalist. -- THF 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that at all. What I'm saying is that if ANYTHING by a WKPR is okay, then ANYTHING by a WKPJ must also be okay. Which means that Rush Limbaugh etc. could make blog postings about TGGWS and they would be allowed - nay, obligated - to appear in the article by your standards. --Tjsynkral 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If Rush Limbaugh makes a notable blog posting about TGGWS that adds new information not readily available through other reliable sources, then, yes, it could be included, perhaps in a "Reactions from American media" section. Readers can choose for themselves how much to weigh Limbaugh's words on his blog versus those of climatologists on their blog. I don't see Rush Limbaugh's blog posts as substantially different than George Monbiot's columns, and the latter is certainly well represented in the article. -- THF 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
How about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition? Iceage77 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not a blog. That's a list of links. To the extent the underlying links meet WP:RS, like this one does, place them in if they're not already there and aren't cumulative. -- THF 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV section break 4

Are we supposed to take seriously the comments of a "scientist" who makes edits like these?

Diff 1 20:23, 8 April 2007

Diff 2 20:43, 8 April 2007

I don't believe classifying the film as "propaganda" classifies as WP:NPOV. As long as this kind of behavior continues the POV dispute tag is present for good reason. --Tjsynkral 21:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He's made this edit several times before. Totally inappropriate especially for an admin. Iceage77 21:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I found those edits very inappropriate and complained about them a couple of weeks ago. It is especially poor conduct from an admin, and I was disappointed that other admins care so little about that sort of behavior. Nevertheless the fact that an editor makes poor edits from time to time does not damn all of his other edits, it does not make an article POV if the POV edits have been undone, and does it not mean that the blog he writes for does not meet WP:RS. -- THF 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If WMC keeps up this nonsense, along with continually marking controversial edits as minor, he's headed straight for an RFC and/or another ArbCom case. - Merzbow 00:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfectly logical response to an editor disruptively going against the consensus. TF was a part of this consensus, and simply came back later with this disruptive edit. I would expect the editors above to complain about TF's disruptiveness first; the complete silence on this and the dramatic attention paid to WMC's response demonstrates the lack of POV shown by said group of editors. I will reinstate the consensus language. ––Skyemoor 02:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change the "controversial documentary" language. Please don't make false accusations. There was a falsely sourced statement in the lead paragraph, and once it was correctly sourced, it was barely notable; it arguably doesn't belong in the article at all, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead section. See WP:Lead section. And no one objected to it or even tried to revert it -- I certainly would not have reverted if someone reverted me; I made a good-faith attempt to improve the article. -- THF 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You went way beyond what was needed to correct the source of the quote and countermanded a painstakingly arrived at consensus which culminated in a straw poll All those in favour of "controversial documentary film", with the "polemic" quote somewhere in the lead, say Aye. Those opposed say Nay[8] The proposed language was adopted -- you even voted for it. Then you came back and moved the quote so that it was no longer "somewhere in the lead", which was a specific part of the consensus. Why do we even bother, when people do things like this? Raymond Arritt 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You were a party to the consensus discussion, so don't act like you don't know how disruptive you were. Simply read the consensus discussion to see your name prominently listed. Your 'good faith attempt' to improve the article purposefully clashed with consensus. --Skyemoor 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:BB WP:CCC WP:AGF and WP:CIV. --Tjsynkral 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the confusion, it was an honest mistake. I hadn't realized that someone else had removed "polemic" from the first sentence. Can't you find a better source, though? Who cares what a "source at Channel 4" says? -- THF 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
So which was WMC committing, a WP:NPOV violation or a WP:POINT violation? I think the WP:POINT violation is even worse. --Tjsynkral 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have an idea. WC can call it a propaganda film on his blog and then "legally" cite it there right up on top. Brilliant idea, eh? The machine512 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_9f8a.html"