Talk:The Age of Stupid/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Discussion for inclusion editors or contributors, see [2] User_talk:99.54.138.81#The_Age_of_Stupid_notes_... These are just topics notes with little if any sentences formed yet, from a U.S.A. Premiere attendee. 99.35.9.40 (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, see See Dietrich Dörner's The Logic of Failure. 99.37.87.235 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting advice on editing this Wikipedia page. Specifically, I wish to add a link to my review of the film [3]which, while as respectful in tone as I could make it, points to a critically important perspective on solving the global warming crisis which the film leaves out (not by intent but by accident). My review is based on my 30 years of research in the social systemic sciences (related to but not identical to the field of sociology). It is also based on my work in the fields of corporate social responsibility (through the UN Global Compact) and international developmental theory (under the guidance of Dr. Russell Ackoff [4], one of the pioneers in the field of Systems Thinking). I added a link to this review early on the morning (EDT) of Sept 25, 2009 and noticed it was removed a short time later. This is the first time I have added something to a Wikipedia page and then had it removed. I recognize that my review is not 100 percent positive towards the film, but I believe I am adding critically important information to the overall quest for a solution to global warming with what I wrote. As proof of the validity of my contribution (which, basically, involves using a systemic rather than mechanical view of the challenge to develop a solution), I can report that the head of The Tallberg Foundation [5] (which champions systems thinking at an annual global conference that has the support of people such as Kofi Annan) sent me a very complimentary email after reading my review. I look forward to hearing the advice of people regarding how to add a link to my review and have that link remain part of this page. Thanks! - SteveBrant (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an update to my 25 September 2009 request regarding linking my review of this film to this page. I regret to see that - rather than giving me any feedback or even acknowledging my request - all that has happened is that my link has been removed. And this after I had demonstrated my overall support for the people responsible for the film by also adding links to the review of the film by The New York Times [6] and to the Rotten Tomatoes movie review aggregate site listing for the film [7]. I could say I am mystified by this behavior, but I am not. It demonstrates the same lack of tolerance for different opinions (in this case an opinion which aims to be helpful by adding to the knowledge the film makers presented... not saying that anything they presented was false. My review essentially says that the film is incomplete. It offers an incomplete portrait of the stupidity that exists right now at the beginning of the 21st century. And a significant component of all that is missing is "compassion and listening". Compassion towards those who don't agree with 100 percent of what you're doing. And listening to those who want to help you expand your knowledge. This "emotional intelligence" element is critically important... but, based on the evidence of the continued deletion of my "tough love" oriented review, lacking in the person of whoever is deleting it. I hope whoever that is realizes what a great example they are offering up here. This is a microcosm of the larger world in which we live. We may not always agree with what others say, but we should support them in being free to express their thoughts within the community where those thoughts are intended to be heard. Emotional intelligence [8] is the final frontier for solving society's problems, not better science. As Buckminster Fuller said, "There is no energy crisis, food crisis or environmental crisis. There is only a crisis of ignorance." Thinking you can just keep pushing away those who want to help you work smarter, not harder, is a way to guarantee that the road you take to solving your problem will be the longest, hardest road possible... with a small probability of success... because what you push against - trying to force to change - only gets stronger. I urge whoever keeps deleting my review to have a dialogue with me instead. I look forward to hearing from you! - SteveBrant (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the Huffington Post "review"; even if it were subject to editorial review (which isn't clear), it's an essay on tactics in the form of a film review. Perhaps it would be relevant in an article on some of the organizations in question, but it really has little to say about the film. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Arthur. Thanks for commenting on what I wrote. I find it curious that you say my review is not a review, based on your definition of what a review is... rather than just saying what you think of my request to get my link added to this Wikipedia page and leaving it at that. But since you raise the point, I will tell you that my review has a LOT to do with a film that claims to portray all the major things humanity was too "stupid" to do (and was made extinct as a result of) and leaves out the whole subject of humanity learning how to live cooperatively with itself (which is the only way we will ever effectively IMPLEMENT the changes we need to make). I happen to know something, professionally, about how effective change (ie transformation) occurs. So, I am critiquing this film as someone who knows what they film wants to portray... who supports the aim of the film to portray that... yet sees this WHOLE BODY OF INFORMATION that was left out. I don't say it was left out intentionally. I say it was left out accidentally, because the film makers either didn't see the connection between peace and global warming or are so specialized in their thinking that peace-related activities like the corporate social responsibility movement ( see The UN Global Compact [9] for example). This isn't about tactics not portrayed. It's about not telling the whole, complete story of what a sustainable future will require us all to learn and start doing (and unlearn and stop doing). SteveBrant (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's your review (which I didn't check), you definitely shouldn't add it to articles, per

WP:COI. That being said, the review still doesn't seem to be both notable and relevant to the film. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

06:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Arthur. Thanks for pointing me to

WP:COI. I was not familiar with that guideline. Now that I understand this aspect of Wikipedia's culture, I will refrain from further attempts to link my work to this page. I see how that's considered a conflict of interest here. Thanks for the help. Having said that, I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree" on my review's relevance. Thanks again for helping me learn more about the Wikipedia philosophy and culture. SteveBrant (talk

) 19:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read a reference on this movie on a web-site that questions the wisdom of different responses to climate change. That web-site was critical of the emotional effect the movie had on those who watched it--fear mongering. I don't see any report of that effect on this site. Either the first site fabricated, or this site lacks an element of criticism, rendering the entry non-neutral. I'll try to find a news article about the film, and won't be coming back here. 96.231.170.201 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC) I don't know anything about this movie, but reading the summary, it looks as though there is some trolling/deliberate misinformation going on. 24.64.96.95 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV COI has been an issue, see related

Until you actually explain why you think the article isn't neutral there shouldn't be a tag. Vaguely referring to other articles isn't going to do much good. Fences&Windows 23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it as such because it said that it was a "propaganda" piece and that "global warming is not due to human causes". I guess those statements have been removed, but it seems that there are some people who have an agenda to vandalize this article. 24.64.96.95 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, great. You can edit articles that seem imbalanced yourself, or if you are adding a tag like NPOV then it is good to explain exactly why. Fences&Windows 22:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has drawn-in

Actually, I agree with this last, although it's not directly related to the article.

Voldemort took power, and that's exactly what the supporters of random links to 350.org are doing here. Not only are they anon accounts, but they often "sign" a different IP than they come from. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition suggestion: mostly Documentary film and Category:Documentaries Oblivious to oblivion. "- but reality has caught up with the apocalyptic images." The Sun 99.155.158.32 (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not obviously a

reliable source — Arthur Rubin (talk)

20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You Arthur Rubin are not a Reliable Source. 99.37.84.183 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be. I just haven't seen a reliable source that this film actually exists, yet. There may be one. There is clearly no source that the film is notable. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, of course the film exists. As for notability and reliable sources, why not try looking at some of the several hundred hits in the past month in Google News?[10] Try this search too:[11] Fences&Windows 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not obviously obviously, and hopefully not; but it certainly is partially, if not mostly, since is is actual televised news clips packaged with a punch, or is that a "Hug, then a Kick"? The Doors 99.54.141.89 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Or was that a "Hug, then a Kiss (band)", ... does anyone have the movie transcripts? INXS 99.54.141.140 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Of interest to Contributers, found notes page on User_talk:99.54.138.81 discussion items? 99.52.151.77 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some serious work to balance it out. Right now, it reads far too much like a glorified advertisement for the film. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious by the perfect reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.247.133 (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The film presents the New Earth Deal. ^[1]

The New Earth Deal is the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s campaign to push for a global deal on climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. Headed by the Council of Europe’s Rapporteur on climate change, Kyoto negotiator and former UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott MP, New Earth Deal is campaigning for an agreement that is definitive, equitable and effective. New Earth Deal has also partnered with the environmental film The Age of Stupid to do a New Earth Deal tour of schools in England in September, explaining the climate change negotiation process and the need for a deal in Copenhagen. 99.37.84.188 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a new non-notable comment related to the deleted article Seal the Deal!? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Compare and contrast with The Day After Tomorrow (lends to Climate change denial)? 99.155.156.1 (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The poster image used in the article is pretty poor at low resolutions, the timeline device cannot be distinguished. The article used to include a picture of Pete Postlwiath but it was deleted, so if this article is to have only one copyright image then it would be far better to have on that showed Pete and gave a better idea of the film even at small resolution and I think the other poster does that much better. -- Horkana (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Compare / contrast with No Impact Man also in Climate change in popular culture? 99.184.230.235 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Add Category:Doomsday films ? 99.52.148.160 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Questionable additions include:

{{For|current global climate change|Global warming}}

and tangentially (if at all) relevant additions to the "See also" section:

• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
• Catastrophic failure
• Politics of global warming
• Media coverage of climate change
• A Swarm of Angels

It seems possible that some of those (but not more than one of "Scientific opinion", "Politics", or "Media coverage") might be appropriate, but I can't think of a single one that is definately appropriate. Specific arguments on the other ones:

• Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth and Catastrophic failure
  • Probably should just be listed in a new category Cateogry:Catastrophic pseudo-documentaries; the number of films in that category seems to be reasonably large.
• A Swarm of Angels
  • It seems that film used a different model of
    crowd funding
    ; perhaps ASoA should be listed in that article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(In case you doubt that I have a sense of humor, I originally wrote

ARe

phony than phuny, see Talk:Climate change denial instead User:"funny feeling". 99.155.150.254 (talk

) 22:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No reason why his attending the opening is notable; politicians attend many openings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, please take a few breaths. I am NOT interested in

USA now. I was shocked to see he attended the premier in the United States since this is a little known film as far as I know in the U.S. Seems a big deal, arguably the most influencial person who attended. Not just some "politician" equal to a small town-whatever-elected-official, but a high-level National leader; i.e. Notable. This is akin to Mitch McConnell &/or John Boehner I would guess, if not too apples and oranges. 209.255.78.138 (talk

) 18:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The

Shadow Cabinet to be led by Ed Miliband. 99.37.84.196 (talk

) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed Miliband at the Premiere of Age of Stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.155.206 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Add two DVD set released in the

August 24, 2010 release date. Two DVD set include

Arabic, Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese (simple and traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Farsi/Persian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Swahili, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian/Moldovan language, Russian, Serbo, Croat, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Urdu/Hindi, and Vietnamese languages.^[1] And per http://www.daaveedee.com/product_info.php?products_id=111861&language=en also in Slovenian. Not Stupid includes Launch of the 10:10 Campaign, Eric in the Arctic, and Maldives Message from President Mohamed Nasheed. 99.27.175.173 (talk

) 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Per the DVD I am watching, there is also Bengali, Hausa, Indonesian, Malayalam, and Swahili. 99.54.138.69 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Add

It's the wrong concept. If we had a real article on

low-carbon transport, that would be an appropriate Wikilink. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

10:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please detail what real means, or is that an

wp:or issue. Wikipedia isn't about perfection, but being close enough. 209.255.78.138 (talk

) 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Choices of link include:

1. Low-carbon transport. Sensible, except it redirects to electric vehicle
   , which is wrong, in context.
2. Low-carbon emmissions. Just wrong; wrong part of speech, Easter egg, etc.
3. Low-carbon. Possibly the best, redirecting to Low-carbon economy
   . Not completely misleading.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Low-carbon emission. 99.181.128.253 (talk

) 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article "

Low-carbon emission" refers only to automobile emissions, with a half-sentence on commercial transport. It's still not relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

05:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So

Low-carbon emission transport. 99.190.87.1 (talk

) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted back to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 for ice recede massively in his lifetime. on intuition basis. 108.73.113.64 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your intuition is not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the Pipelinks wp article. 99.35.12.122 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Piped link? 99.190.80.166 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. No easter eggs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Piped links are appropriate according to have intuitively obvious there are, per the wp article. 99.181.148.116 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. It's an easter egg, and hence, inapproriate, by the same section you just quoted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/99.181.148.116 states Piped Link, so ... what is your point? 99.109.124.16 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You said "piped link", but an easter egg is also a piped link (twice, actually). Your point? Are you claiming it's not an easter egg? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin this is a waste of wp resource. From Easter egg (media): A virtual Easter egg is an intentional hidden message, in-joke or feature in a work such as a computer program, web page, video game, movie, book or crossword., not related to this discussion. 99.109.124.16 (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The two articles mentioned in this section differ as to the amount gathered through crowdfunding - £450,000 or £857,000. The second source is later in time so might include full data. This needs to be clarified, though. 193.0.101.161 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am writing to notify that I own the copyright in the press pack of the age of stupid and I permit it's use on The Age of Stupid Wikipedia page.217.36.214.69 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The link's broken. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in the edit history there is a bit of a disagreement on whether the words "as many of the guests flew there" should be in the article. The reference in question (ref) does talk about the reporter calling the file The Age of Hypocrisy but I do not think there is any justification for saying that the reason was because many of the guests flew there. I assume the idea came from the "But when the intrepid reporter started to ask the director how she'd travelled to the event he was ejected by security guards." line and I'm not sure it really follows. I could understand something along the lines of "Documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer commented that the film should have been called the "Age of Hypocrisy" and was ejected from the event when he tried to ask the director who she traveled to the premiere" but am not sure the current line fits the reference.

Disclaimer: This is followup from an OTRS ticket regarding the question. The person who emailed pointed me to (his) video on the premiere (here and the travel arrangements around the 8 minute mark and disputes the fact that the guests flew there (though admits that the director and some of the crew did). That said I do not think the given reference fits the statement about guests. James (T C) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

bighollywood.breitbart.com/pmcaleer/2009/09/24/enviros-use-acorn-tactics-and-attack-the-journalist-literally/ Source: Breitbart This should be cited in the criticism section of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. It's a bit fatuous, like the people who criticise socialists for spending money or environmentalists for eating meat. But if it's a sufficiently prominent criticism we might include it. Somewhere. --TS 23:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the movie claims that the worst thing you can do for the environment is to fly, this is highly notable, and there is no reason not to include it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film so I can't confirm that it's the main point. Obviously airliners burn a lot of fossil fuel, but is there something special about those particular journeys rather than, say, a journey made by somebody who has a different opinion? More to the point, is Breitbart's comment echoed by mainstream sources? --TS 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "Many guests arrived by low-carbon transport, including sailing boat, rowing boat, electric car, bicycle, bicycle rickshaw and rollerblades." and Monty Python silly-walked to the movie.98.165.15.98 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There were many modes of transportation people used to get the Premiere, which I saw a few days ago. They estimated the entire carbon cost of making the movie to premiere. It seems quite slanted to just point to someone flying, considered how very low-carbon ("green") the movie was compared to launches of this scale. This films processes definitely are a step in the right direction for sustainability. The live event broadcast by satellite (Dish Network) decreasing carbon emissions, had both "making-of" pre-presentation setup, and then post discussion with world leaders, along with other presentations. It was announced it will be in the Guiness Book of World records. 99.54.140.161 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but you've got to admit the video on Brietbart was pretty funny: the director was dodging the issue and extremely uncomfortable (until the muscle showed up and ejected the video crew). 123.218.200.241 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't "have to admit" anything, but I might. Disturbed 99.54.141.140 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TS, Breitbart is a reliable source in and of itself. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

99.54.140.161, the article is supposed to be about facts. It is a fact that those people flew to the premiere. That is notable, because they made the movie to say that flying is the worst thing you can do for the environment. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The article needed a section to cover Reception, so I restored the criticism which had been blanked and it seems disingenuous to mention only positive feedback even if that is the majority opinion. The section was pretty well sourced which goes to notability. The comments here suggest there are a few editors who think the information is worth noting. From the revision history an anonymous editor commented:

69.181.124.241 (→Reception: The opinion of an unknown, adversarial filmmaker is irrelevant.)

The director also commented on the revision history:

(Deleted "Controversy" section from Phelim McAleer, which was trying to use Age of Stupid's success to promote his own film, Not Evil Just Wrong (I am Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid)) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

I might agree if the information didn't have adequate sources. The opinion can be relevant without the guy who made it being an important person. We could rephrase the section to not even mention his name but I thought it was enough to rephrase to avoid mentioning his film. He did get an answer and the filmmakers (and this article) did already mention their carbon footprint. His own video shows he was being belligerent so I rephrased to note he asked the question repeatedly. I think this is worth mentioning but if I could rephrase it more tersely I would. Wikipedia guidelines discourage people from editing their own pages, I would ask Franny Armstrong not to delete sections from the article. The review in the Huffington post makes much more interesting and less flippant criticism of the the film, and perhaps if that criticism was included in the reception section then perhaps the commnents by Phelim McAleer would then not be unnecessary. -- Horkana (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Including a copy of the text here. Another editor shortened my version removing some of the references. While I appreciate the brevity the wording is not ideal, Phelim McAleer was formerly a journalist of Irish News and the BBC report ("what's in the papers") was just reiterating their content so it was better to include them as a source only their website requires a login. Also the video on youtube is a direct source even though presented/edited by McAleer himself puts the criticism in context, it shows he was being belligerent and it was not entirely surprising the film makers threw him out. Also without the context and references of the other sources it becomes difficult for the reader to know why he is being mentioned rather than some other critic. -- Horkana (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Journalist, filmmaker, Phelim McAleer, attended the New York City premiere of The Age of Stupid and criticized the film saying it should have been called the "Age of Hypocrisy".^[1][2] He asked several of the attendees how they traveled to the premiere with many answering by plane.

The director Franny Armstrong noted flights were factored into the carbon footprint of the film.^[3] After repeatedly asking the question McAleer was escorted from the press area.^[4][5]