Talk:Planet of the Humans

I removed the proposed deletion tag

This is a movie directed by a famous film director, it was reported on by Associated Press, and reviewed by Daily Kos. The idea that this article should be deleted is preposterous. Lunar Beard (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

False neutrality and POV pushing

Based on the premise alone, it is obvious that this is an anti-environmentalist propaganda piece financed by the oil lobby and promoted by Breitbart, yet the article doesn't go into the details of the false claims and misinformation presented in this film, nor does it cover the extensive debunking of said misinformation by credible sources. This sort of false balance is not up to Wikipedia's standards, and sounds much more like something written by a right wing sockpuppet account. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please add sources to back up the claim that this film was financed by the oil lobby and promoted by Breitbart? I didn't see those things mentioned in the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The oil lobby part i cannot back up, even though it's obvious. "Follow the money" is and always should be one's natural instinct when it comes to climate deniers masquerading as authority. I'm sure the proof is out there and will be presented eventually. As for promotion by Breitbart, that's easy. They must have an article about it, or a post on their twitter account. But there must be more criticism of this blatant propaganda piece. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that documentary producer Michael Moore argues, in Planet of the Humans, that new measures promoted to save the planet are actually endangering it?

5x expanded by various users. Nominated by RTG (talk) at 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

• The article is new enough (expanded) and not plagiarized, but I wonder if the hook (unsourced) is correct. This simple statement is not found in the article, and I worry that saying so in our wiki voice is unjustified WP:SYNTH. Also I am not seeing QPQ review from the nominator (seems required?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's the whole basis of the documentary... That some measures to replace traditional energy with "clean" energy is done in a dirty way. I see no it's already been greatly expanded since I started it. It says now that the central theme of the doc is the use of "biofuel" being a synonym for "burning trees", but in fact it also criticising building and materials... questions like... how do you building thousands and thousands of tonnes of wind farm without burning a lot of coal and oil, and how many plants are built in conjunction with gas plants... I'm lagging behind a bit.. I'll see if I can source that properly, update, and do my QPQ over the weekend and I'll ping you then Piotrus, cheers. ~ R.T.G 03:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• It does actually say, "The film also claims that wind power and solar energy don't fare much better than biomass once all their inputs from fossil fuels are taken into account, and in some cases, pollute more"? Seems to be just a different wording to the hook above? ~ R.T.G 03:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I just saw the film. It's misleading at best to say that Michael Moore argues anything in the film. He executive produced it, but didn't write, direct, or appear in it. It would be more accurate to say something like "... Planet of the Humans, executive produced by Michael Moore, argues that new measures ..." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Good point. I think Jeff Gibbs is the main narrator / POV here. Stll waiting for an acceptable hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Considering how controversial the film has been and how its science claims have been questioned, I would highly suggest that any hook that ends up being used or proposed takes this reception into account and that whatever hook is used adheres to guidelines like WP:FRINGE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• How about instead of saying "...Michael Moore argues..." to just say ALT1 ... that a documentary produced by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, argues that new measures promoted to save the planet are actually endangering it? ~ R.T.G 14:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I claimed to have started the article but I didn't. I started a different article about a documentary around the same time. Planet of the Humans has an article more than six months. It got expanded by various editors after Moore released it free to watch on Youtube a couple of weeks ago. ~ R.T.G 14:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Another comment: while I'm aware that a lot of coverage for the documentary mentions Moore's name due to his involvement, I'm thinking that theoretically him being mentioned in the hook is optional since it's fairly incidental and the subject is the film and its content, not Moore. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moore is a big name in documentaries. He has won higher awards and had more success than any other documentarian. As a boss of the show, it is the hookiest thing to put his name on it. It may be worth adding "Jeff Gibbs" but it would not be worth removing "Michael Moore" in terms of maximising hits. ~ R.T.G 05:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, the goal is not information, but promotion. So no. --Calton | Talk 08:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the rules are at DYK for FRINGE opinions, but the movie has been found so rife with mistakes that the hook above might give more credence than is due. I'm planning (RSI, might not happen) to bring some reputable fact-checks more to the front in the article, maybe we can use some of those instead for a hook? If we want a hook at all. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on past experiences, hooks on articles about fringe topics have been allowed on DYK, provided that the hook itself doesn't make the fringe claim. For example, a hook that goes "that wongo juice is claimed to cure cancer?" would not be allowed, but something like "that alternative medicine producer ACME Corporation has been criticized for claiming that wongo juice can cure cancer?" or "that according to several studies, the popular alternative medicine wongo juice has no effect on the treatment of cancer?" may be allowed. Usually though these hooks going through would depend on the neutrality of the article itself, and there have been cases in the past where nominations were rejected because the articles failed to meet NPOV or the WP:FRINGE guideline. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems currently no consensus about the neutrality of the article, with discussion still raging about how to describe the inaccuraries. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would suggest putting the nomination on hold for now or even failing it, since article instability is considered a point against an article. Of course, that will depend on how the neutrality concerns will play out or if they can be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Article promotion is the specific goal of DYK. Yes it should be neutral. Moore is a key point of the facts about the article. If the hook says, "Michael Moore, who is never wrong..." without quoting that statement as a significant detail from the article, then there would be an undue bias. Saying "...produced by Michael Moore..." is about as neutral as it is possible to get without covering part of the information up. Covering up would be the same as acting out a bias... As for stability... the movie was recently released for free on Youtube. It is going to receive a stream of edits for a while. As the nominator, I haven't done a QPQ yet. I went about halfway through the list a couple of times and sadly I didn't find a review open that wasn't a more significant review than this one. Nominations often sit for months. Please be patient with it both in terms of the stability and the QPQ. In the meantime, I will take a look for the argument on the talkpage and see if I can help with the neutrality. ~ R.T.G 19:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• There appear to be concerns at the article talk page over the neutrality of the article, as well as article structuring and how to present the claims stated in the documentary; as such, I would recommend that the nomination is not approved until those are addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• RTG, this was nominated over four weeks ago, and you have still not provided a QPQ. That's simply too long a delay. If you want us to be patient, then a QPQ is a must. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• @RTG: Considering the article issues and the lack of a QPQ, if these are not resolved soon, the nomination may be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Per this comment on their talk page by RTG, it seems clear that a QPQ is not forthcoming, and that they have significant issues with the article as currently written. Under the circumstances, I think we have no choice but to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the film's budget. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Article in The New Republic

The New Republic has an article about this documentary here. The first paragraph has high-level observations that should be covered in the article body as well as the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we use this as a source?

I think it's a good and reliable link [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.60.143 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." Kire1975 (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Outdated claims

The line: "The film also claims that wind power and solar energy cannot produce enough energy to save the planet from the climate crisis, and still require fossil fuels due to intermittency." has three citations, but the following line: "The film has been widely critized for its misleading and outdated claims." has zero! This should have citations and be justified or otherwise be removed as unless it links to the movie being debunked it appears as nothing more than wishful thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.95.45 (talk)

I removed "widely" from that sentence because it is presumptuous per WP:NOTE and added a citation needed template because the user who posted the above comment is right. But my reversion was undone by @Calton: for the following reasons "Been there. Done that." Many of those who claim it is misleading and has outdated claims are biased people with vested interests in the environmental movement and green energy industry. In fact, @Femkemilene:, the wikipedian who made the statement, identifies herself as "a PhD candidate on climate variability", e.g. someone who intends on making money from the criticized industry after graduation. The least that can be asked for is adherence to basic manual of style rules and a citation or two supporting the claim that the criticisms are valid. Kire1975 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Statement has been removed again for the following reason: "wikipedian who contributed this statement works in the climate science industry. has also removed own comments defending the presence of this statement on the talk page. furthermore, widely is presumptuous pursuant to MOS:NOTE and it's only criticized as being misleading and outdated by people who work in the industry being criticized according to all sources" Kire1975 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

wikipedian who contributed this statement works in the climate science industry...

So?

...removed own comments

So?

...and it's only criticized as being misleading and outdated by people who work in the industry being criticized

"Industry"? Way to put your thumb on the scales. Try "subject-matter experts".

Did you have a non-bogus, non-FUD rationale? --Calton | Talk 08:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Calton you do not help yourself appear impartial and unbiased by being obnoxious. I would like the documentary to be debunked so we can switch to solar energy but if there are no credible impartial citations the line just makes the wikipedia article appear like it has a flagrant bias against the movie. It was correct for it to be removed for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.95.45 (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Impartial does not mean what you think it means (and no we do not have to be impartial, read wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's useful to distinguish three groups: industry, which has a profit motive, journalists who can be subject matter experts, but may also write for biased sources, and three: academics, which are often pretty neutral. These last two groups is what we should look for in RS primarily and specialized journalists are preferred over generalists if they both write for good-quality media. My uni doesn't earn a profit from investigating climate, so I don't think it's fair to say it's an industry.

As far as I'm aware, there is near unanimity in those two groups of policy experts that the film used outdated to very outdated video fragments (a 1990s music festival, ~2010 numbers for Germany's energy mix, ~2010 numbers about solar panel efficiency) that don't reflect the current technology. We discuss this, with sources, in the reception section. Per WP:LEAD we don't need to repeat those sources in the lede. As I've got RSI, I'm not keen to do too much, but as it's controversial, it would be good if we go the extra mile and find a summarizing source for the sentence I added. The lede probably needs more sentences that are not linked to the producers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you for mentioning the lead. It's a disease all across Wikipedia, where people are adding the most important (read: controversial) claims into lead, then other people absolutely need to counter them for NPOV in exactly the same place. Eventually half of the article is magically rewritten into lead and whatever information you search you hit it in two different versions, one in lead, and the other in the article body. And whatever is added, obviously just needs to be added in these two places. Same story here, let's just have a simple "film is controversial period" or something like that in the lead without any specifics and expand it in the article. Cloud200 (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that would amount to a false balance. I'm okay with phrasing my sentence less strongly, but controversial and contains falsehoods/misleads are two very separate things. Something in the line of: many energy experts/renewables experts/fact checkers have indicated that the film contains outdated or misleading information to avoid the vague passive voice I put in there. A source summarizing the sources in the reception should then be easier to find. (i'm avoiding things I cannot do without speech recogniztion such as finding sources, sorry for that.) Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the phrase I used was an intentional oversimplification for demonstration purposes. I meant anything that indicates the existence of debate without going into specifics of he said/she said, as it immediately triggers the "lead creep". Cloud200 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception Section

I propose sub-headings in this section to divide the reactions to the film by "Film Critics", "Academics", "Climate Policy Experts", "Activists" and "People Named in the Film", etc. As it is, it's a wall of text and distinctly unclear how "widely" the claims of misleadingness and outdatedness the current last sentence in the second paragraph in the lede is. Ideas for other categories are encouraged. Furthermore, there is no guideline for "Reception" section in WP:MOSFILM. "Critical response" and "Audience response" are the only examples to go by. Perhaps an "Industry Reaction" or "Academic Reaction" or "Activist Reaction", etc. need their own headings. Kire1975 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agreed that the section is a wall of text. I'm not entirely sure whether we can divide the section into the categories you propose, as we might need sources for being able to put people who in these different categories. I think most people are journalists, and you forgot that category. I think we might first have to deal with the controversy section. A good article should not have one of those as it just collects name calling. Instead we should make a new section called factual accuracy, which might also needs some sentences from the reception section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The reception section is mainly just criticism, as is the section on factual accuracy, so I combined the two sections.Jdkag (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Now we're back to the wall of text again. And the film critics have been separated too far from the Rotten Tomatoes score, and it's inappropriate to put the RT score in the release section since it has nothing to do with the way it was released. Per WP:MOSFILM, a "Critical response" subheading is the typical place for film critic reviews. To create a "Critical Response" top-heading and overfill it with critical pages from non-film related opinion pages, editorials, political media, climate specialists and climate activists without separating them from actual film critic reviews gives the appearance that this page is burying anything that isn't in line with the dominant theme that the film is bad, context doesn't matter and everyone should agree or else. Whatever the heading is ultimately to be called, subheadings are needed here. Kire1975 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally discouraged so I renamed it to reception after a second look. At least the text is properly split with paragraphs. Subheadings might be appropriate perhaps. The section about the productor's response initially seemed undue (WP:ABOUTSELF, etc) but considering the amount of criticism it's probably acceptable... —PaleoNeonate – 04:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have created some subheadings and rearranged all the articles into the appropriate subcategories: Film critics, Editorials, Academics, Environmental Journalists, Green Industry, Activists. Kire1975 (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's essential to separate facts (the film's inaccuracies about life cycle assessment f.i., which now suffers from portraying facts as opinions) and opinions about the movie (f.i. it would be neomalthusian). The WP:MOSFILM gives a good solution to this by suggesting a factual accuracy section (their example is historical accuracy). To me, it's unacceptable to just mix the two and creating a he said/she said situation for the bits of the movie we can simply state the fact.

These subsections like film critics, editorials, are arbitrary and we would do better focus on separating facts (no in text attribution needed or desirable, just multiple highly reliable sources if controversial) and opinions (in text attributing necessary), which avoids clutter.

Also remember section titles are normal case, not title case; Environmental journalists instead of Environmental Journalists. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The sentence about life-cycle assessment is now placed under journalism, but is mostly sourced to professors. The fact that both specialist journalists and academics state the same facts, makes clear these subsections are unworkable. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clue about MOSFILM, I agree that "factual accuracy" would be a great name for a related section. This would be similar to "historicity" in myth related articles and is always better than "criticism". —PaleoNeonate – 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

And yes, recent edits also increased WP:FALSEBALANCE, relevant with already mentioned WP:YESPOV... —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing

I did some mostly minor cleanup of the article, but I realize that this is a polarizing, controversial topic, so I just wanted to open up a discussion in case anyone had specific objections. People have killed and died over the Oxford comma, and also over environmental issues. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! I may have accidentily changed something back because of an edit conflict. Hope I managed to make a good mix of our two versions. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any errors, but it's really hard to follow the diffs. It might make more sense to just read the final result and make sure it works. Thanks for your contributions. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I took another pass, making a few small changes, but I don't see any problems. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)