Talk:Planet of the Humans

Outdated claims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 has three citations, but the following line: "The film has been widely critized for its misleading and outdated claims."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.

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 Many of those who claim it is misleading and has outdated claims are biased people with vested interests in the environmental movement and green energy industry.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)

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)