Talk:FrackNation

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Propaganda

The section on "Funding" tries to paint the sources of funding for this film as entirely grass-roots ("In order to maintain full transparency and keep the film free from special interests, McAleer and McElhinney returned all donations from companies or senior executives in the gas industry"). But this is true---the movie was produced promoted by conservative groups. Furthermore there is evidence that the "grassroots" funding was actually "astroturf"---most of the small donations were made by employees of companies involved in fracking and at the direction of corporate executives. There has to be something in the article to explain that the claims of entirely grass roots funding are not without controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.105.60 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. Unfortunately, you need to find some reliable source (ie not some Blog with its own obvious bias) for this kind of allegation. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My previous edit was sourced to DeSmogBlog, which is a reliable source, although Arzel is correct that it is biased against the fracking industry. I will respond to his concern, and provide a different source. There is no question that the funding for this film is controversial, and plenty of people are skeptical of the filmmakers' claims that industry played no part in its funding. The article must have some indication of this controversy, and not merely present the claims of the filmmakers without comment. I have included a reliable, current, and unbiased source from a respected paper with a solid background in reporting on the fracking issue. My current edit is a direct quote from the article sourced, and the quote explains an undisputed fact regarding the film's funding. There should be no justification for deleting this recent edit.

This article is pure propaganda for the proposed film, is in no way balanced or encyclopaedic. I propose it for deletion unless it can be improved and balanced. Gordoncph (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Bermy88 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately you could attempt to fix it. SignoreMachia (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only think it is propaganda because you disagree with the facts the movie brings to light — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJekell (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics about this complaint are conspicuously absent, as apparently was any attempt by the complaintant to correct what he viewed as "problems." Additionally, if a problem with insufficient sources for verification ever existed (March 2012), that appears to be corrected now. I'm going to give this notice and the complaintant a couple days to provide specifics before I remove it. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who think fracking is evil, have nothing better to do but complain about something. Watch gasland and suddenly are an activist they know nothing about. -Environmental P.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.44.119 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 138.162.8.57. With the possible exception of the "Synopsis" section, the issues appear to be fixed. As it has been more than a week since the comment by 138.162.8.57 without clarification or other corrections, I will follow up and remove the tags. Ipsherman (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the "documentary" I must agree that it is in mainly a cheap and distorting propaganda hack and actually much more so than Gasland. In fact it deploys exactly the same film making techniques which are being used in the more questionable or disputed bits of Gasland. However personal analysis/research (even though being correct) cannot be the basis for WP article, instead we need to rely on external reviews and summarize them accordingly. There it is a pain to see that many reviews are somewhat superficial and sloppy or simply the usual suspects promoting the film. Unfortunately there is no way around than summarizing this stuff no matter how off it is. The only thing that can be done here is putting a slightly greater emphasis on the more careful and better researched reviews (within the range of acceptable editorial discretion) and attributing questionable reviews particularly careful (so readers can see where it originates from). Hopefully down the road some journalists will take a more in depth look at the documentary rather than just writing a quick and shallow review for the arts section (taking much of the distorted or even plain wrong information at face value).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

I recommend that people interested in this article also pay attention to Gasland#Reception in order to ensure that the reference to FrackNation there is not continually deleted.--Froglich (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"International Monetary Fund" Section

The section on the IMF is extraordinarily badly written. It tells us, inter alia, that the IMF refused to screen a clip, and McAleer withdrew from the event. What event? Where? When? These most basic questions are unanswered. The section is, at best, a headless chicken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.106.206 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on FrackNation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article needs serious work to get it up to WP:NPOV standard. It lends very undue weight to pro-fracking voices without enough coverage of the (largely negative, despite what the article claims) reaction to the film and its funding. The fundraising section can probably be merged into inspiration too; it gives (again, undue) weight to the idea of it being grassroots. Couruu (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]