Talk:An Inconsistent Truth

NPOV

Please refrain from introducing content which is in clear violation of WP:NPOV. You are free to say something along the lines of "Valentine claims that global warming proponents are motivated by..." (assuming you have sources to back this up.) You are not, however, permitted to include language such as "different people are motivated for different reasons. Some truly believe man is destroying the planet thus he must be stopped. Many of them border on religious zealots who will stop at nothing to further their agenda nor will never entertain the notion that the facts just don't add up. Others are motivated by greed. They see lots of money in being green and they aim to capitalize on it." I am removing this content for the second time. If you undo my changes again, I will be forced to report this to admin. If you disagree with my assessment, please discuss it here so we can work to improve the article.JoelWhy (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Authenticator's response: The fact that there is motivation on the part of anyone to do anything is without question. To say "different people are motivated for different reasons" is a statement of fact, not opinion. I shall add "In the movie" before the next sentence which should make it clear that the movie is exploring motivation, not that the synopsis is opinion. That should be obvious since it's all under the heading of the synopsis of the movie and that IS what the movie is about.

Faelsun (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Not enough people watched this movie in the immediate area of Nashville to even know what it is, it probably will not even go to video. The only purpose it serves is to subvert google searches for an inconvenient truth, a movie people actually saw. I don't care what it was about or how many conservatives in small rural areas around Middle Tn liked it. More people saw Little Mermaid 3 then saw this movie. More people saw Human Centipede Two then people who saw this movie. More people saw Dynamite Warrior then people saw this. To prevent this "movie" from interfering with searches for the Al Gore movie of a very very similar name, it should be given a name tag under B movies but lack its own page, it exits in name only.

More people saw this movie than GasLand or Fuel or Cool It, all of which are listed on Wikipedia but the debate about its inclusion is over. The discussion is now about neutrality and I see nothing in the article that would indicate anything other than facts. --The Authenticator (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Gore's movie's synopsis states that it focuses on "Al Gore and on his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis." That is purely opinion. It states climate crisis as fact, which it isn't and refers to "the severity" of climate crisis which compounds the opinionated nature of the statement. I trust that was just an oversight on your part when you were reviewing that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Authenticator (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is borderline fringe theory, and must be treated as such. Any attempts at turning this into a page to advocate climate change denialism will be removed.JoelWhy (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Borderline fringe theory? Are you serious? Neither you nor Gore nor anyone else can prove one ounce of your theory that man is causing any kind of global warming. THAT, my friend, is fringe theory. In science it is incumbent upon the one proposing the theory to prove it. No one advocating manmade global warming has been able to do that. An Inconsistent Truth deals only in fact. Al Gore's movie deals primarily in opinion and scare tactics. Gore does not interview ONE scientist for his movie. Not one. In fact, the High Court of England found at least nine major disputes of fact in the movie and those flaws must be presented to school children before the movie can be shown in British schools.

Any attempts by you to deny the other side of this argument on Wikipedia will be met with stiff opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Authenticator (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about Gore's movie, and I certainly don't view it as an objective presentation of the science of climate change. But, there is about as much "controversy" regarding the existence of AGW in the scientific community as there is regarding the "science" of intelligent design or whether vaccines cause autism. This page can summarize the film, but any attempts at making factual claims must be in alignment with the actual science.JoelWhy (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Authenticator, I'm really not interested in debating this issue with you or getting into an editing war. Go to the Global warming page to discuss global warming issues.JoelWhy (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough about the global warming debate. Just please stop editing things that specifically have to do with this movie. Gore's film lists great detail of his argument on his side. It's only fair that this article allows this film to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Authenticator (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE. Plus, you're using the film to promote a cause, and you've even included links to articles that don't even mention this movie. Take it to the global warming page.JoelWhy (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to the film

Please stick to content directly about the film from sources that directly mention the film. There are far better articles on Wikipedia already that discuss the pros and cons of man-made global warming, and this article is not a coatrack to hang further discussion of either persuasion. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The article needs serious copy-editing, and that should be the focus, not coat-racking global warming issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if you removed the coatracking and pared the article down to reliably-sourced content, it would be at most two sentences long: "An Inconsistent Truth is a self-produced film in which a conservative talk-radio host questions the scientific understanding of climate change. It played in a couple of theaters in Tennessee and was reviewed favorably on partisan blogs as an excellent means 'to torture a liberal'." ([1]) MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faelsun (talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC) 

POV tag

Any objections to removing the tag? Clearly we need to keep an eye on this page, but I believe the NPOV issues have been resolved.JoelWhy (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)