Talk:Martin Durkin (director)

Untitled

I have found a website where Durkin refutes the critics claims here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml

---

204.75.178.4 17:17, 9 April 2007

I have added the POV tag, as this article clearly has neutrality issues and a neutrality controversy. It represents only one side of the perspective on Durkin, uses biased pro-environmentalist publications for most of its references, and quotes the most extreme statements from those sources. Remember, Wikipedia is fundamentally about presenting a neutral point of view on every topic. It should neutrally incorporate the published response from Durkin (above), his more substantial response after initially saying 'go f...yourself', and a variety of the the published, authoritative references he cites... none of which are cited at this point. He has some very substantial support on his side, including the NAS report written by the head of the statistics section of the US National Academy of Sciences. The controversy over AGW and AGW modeling is most certainly a statistical controversy. The shoddy scientific work represented by AGW modelers is one of the "elephant in the room" issues that alarmists want to ignore. This (Durkin) article truly is a terrible hatchet job right now. Please please clean it up.Mr Pete 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand his response, if you want. As regards the rest of your claims, maybe you should consult the relevant articles. You seem to confuse the NAS report, which supported Mann et al, with the Wegman piece commissioned by Joe Barton. This is all in Hockey stick controversy.JQ 10:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

No one of a reasonable frame of mind could read this and not find it unbalanced. Hence, I have restored the point of view box Jane Bowen (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a very neutral presentation of the subject. As an example dismissing the Revolutionary Communist Party as "far right" is simplistic in the extreme (as well as wrong). JASpencer 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In it's present form, the article does not use the phrase "far right". Rather, it describes the Revolutionary Communist Party as having "held views that were very strongly pro-industry". This is true, as the wikipeda entry for the RCP rightly states; "it opposed any and all restrictions on science, technology and business, taking pro-corporate stances on issues like genetic modification of food, banning of tobacco advertisements and global warming." I disagree with JASpencer; the article does not violate neutrality. Andrewclifton 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the far right references: here. JASpencer 10:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the bias, the problem that I've seen (apart from saying that the RCP are far right) is that this is a collection of negative reviews. He is a controversial documentary maker, and this should be shown, but not all the reaction to his work has been negative. JASpencer 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I completely agree with the person above. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he's wrong OR evil. We all have a duty to see that this person's page (and everyone else's) are balanced and fair, which Martin Durkin's clearly isn't at the moment.

I have reinstated the reference to the Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978), since this is an important part of Durkin's background. Durkin's involvement in the RCP is confirmed by Dominic Lawson in The Independent (see External links]. For greater accuracy, the description of the RCP and Living Marxism as "right-wing" has been replaced by a description of it as "a political network which, despite its name, is known to hold strongly pro-industry views usually associated with right-leaning libertarianism rather than with communism." This is supported by the five references provided, as well as by the Wikipedia entry on the Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978) and Living Marxism.

Why is this "depite the name" here? It's totally silly. Every Communist Party, movement or notable thinker was pro-industry. (except the Cambodians, the odd men out). In Communist thought, progress and industry are king, replace god almost, and are a very frequent, nay, the most frequent subject of artwork and literature. Have the people who think that Communism is anti-industry never heard of, ir been to , the Soviet Union? China? Eastern Europe? Or read Marx, Lenin or Mao? What the hell? Azate

I have to disagree with the above criticisms that this entry is biased. Everything in this entry is a substantiated report of facts known to be true (for example, Durkin's association with the RCP) and events known to have happened (for example, the ITC ruling). At no point in this entry is it implied that Durkin is "wrong or evil." All it does is provide basic facts about Durkin's career, his background, his films and the criticisms that they received.E1ijah 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"All it does is provide basic facts" -- but only some of the basic facts, specifically an extremely one-sided representation of those facts. What's missing: reference to his supporters, his substantial authoritative references that support his perspective, and his substantial responses.Mr Pete 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be true that the entry seems to be focused primarily on criticisms of Durkin. Durkin's own views are represented at one point, however, when it's noted that he responded to the ITC ruling as "complete tosh". Will try to remedy this by adding more of Durkin's responses to the criticisms levelled against him. E1ijah 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be focused? It is focused. As of today, it incorporates not a single quote or reference in support of his work, even though they are easily available. The article should completely eliminate such one-liners from him, replacing them with his substantial responses. The one-liners could easily be relegated to a section on his penchant for swearing, if you really think it newsworthy. Mr Pete 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What is telling is that the "Man is Causing Global Warming" crowd never argue the science but rather engage in character assasination and guilt by association.

This statement above is an obvious rethorical cliché that is not true, but common. Whenever a person makes a polemic documentary (we could also remember Michael Moore), criticisms spawn with a wide variety, from total garbage ad hominems to rigorous fact checking criticisms. These people victimize themselves referring and protesting only to the formers while completely dismissing and ignoring the latters (or, like in this case, send them to f*ck themselves). Durkin's movies are polemical because of what appears to me as an outright abuse of distorted facts, data and opinions so that the end result is a propaganda, and NOT because of their claims. Of course, this criticism is maliciously distorted as an "ad hominem", and if we go to the claim that we live in a "free world", free to say all the nonsenses we would like to, I would point out that if one has the power of making a documentary, such power should endorse more responsability and respect. If not for anything else, at least to an unbiased scientific approach. Failure to ensure this will result in the obvious flame wars we are witnessing.

These culture wars are spreading throughout all the science themes, and this is a shame. Evolution is completely questioned and put at same level as "intelligent design"; oil will "last forever" because it spawns from the rocks endlessly, McDonald's is, in fact, a tremendous food diet and smoke doesn't kill at all.

When will mankind RElearn that science is not a matter of opinion but of SCIENTIFICAL METHOD?!? Thanks. 195.23.224.139 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

-----

This is certainly not fair or "neutral": "Al Gore and his eco-corporation have given him money to say that." Lazenbee 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Lazenbee

Ahh, the classic neutrality debate on Wikipedia. Who will win? The most vocal and those supporting the most Neutral err.. Mainstream Point of View (MPOV).--209.251.130.178 23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "AL Gore and his eco-corporation..." is not cited with any information to back it up. This has nothing to do with any "MPOV". It may or may not be correct. But the only thing we can say with any certainty about the claim is that it is not backed up with any evidence. That's pretty straight-forward. Lazenbee 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Lazenbee

Even though it does lean toward the negative, the information seems to be factual; the references are backed up. Perhaps someone could write a nice little ditty about how kind he is to studio executives.68.111.166.51 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what neutrality is compromised. What is written seems fairly factual, just because someone is controversial does not give them a free pass. I would argue that if it is felt he is indeed misrepresented whomever feel so should add additional factual content. There is nothing factually wrong with the article as it stands currently and the warning blurb should be removed.

Edgeways 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the facts, believe it or not. It is about neutrality, verifiability, etc. Right now, it completely misrepresents both the facts and the overall perspective. Yes, Durkin said what he said; he's obviously a passionate guy. But he provided more than sound-bite swearing: he wrote substantial responses to the complaints, none of which are quoted. And his perspective is supported by substantial references, again none of which are quoted. Mr Pete 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have checked all the links (1-5) that are supposed to expose Durkins involvement with the communist party. Not one link offers conclusive proof that Durkin is a former (or current) communist, not a single one. If there are sources, fine, I wouldn't take issue over their inclusion, but the only thing on offer is wild conspiracy theories by professional axe-grinders.

Also, pay close attention to Durkins latest film The Great Global Warming Swindle, one [rather long] scene depicts an environmental protest in Trafalgar Square, note the speaker on the podium addressing his congregation calling for Shell corporation executives to be "sent to re-education camps" so they can rejoin the human race. Note that in close proximity to the stage there is a rather large flag of the USSR. Why would a producer/director with communist sympathies include that in the documentary? And more importantly, why, if 'reds under the bed' tar brushing is being used here to slander Durkin do the same editors not make mention that Durkin produces film exposing communist sympathisers at large Eco-Rallies? Come on, if his feelings towards communism is vital to this article, then that would be important here too? --Dean1970 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including this information. It confirms the fact that Durkin, along with the rest of the Spiked/LM/ex-RCP crew is no longer sympathetic to communism, though, as your examples shows, he continues to use propaganda techniques characteristic of Stalinism.JQ 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the free press/media covering an environmental rally in London to help 'build up' a documentary an act of Stalinism. That is stretching it bit.

Links 1-5 prove nothing. His alledged communist past belongs in a miscellany sub-title at best. --Dean1970 21:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course this entry is biased. To the writer: just ask yourself why you wrote it. Do you have a genuine biographical interest in the subject, Durkin? Of course not! You are simply 'not happy' with what the man has revealed about AGW, so you've done a woolly-gloved hatchet job, and a pretty poor one at that. This piece is utterly unbalanced and about as non-academic as it could conceivably be, without being a tabloid-style character assassination. It is not well-researched (all so-called information and references can be found with a few simple web searches) and it is not, above all, honest in its true intentions (it does not inform, it denigrates). You should reveal your true motives or remove it immediately. Preferably both. Idiot.--88.107.82.234 21:05, 26 April 2007

For whatever reason this article was lacking the POV tag despite this debate not being resolved in my estimation. Therefore I have re-added this tag; this article should be rewritten to be biographical rather than basically being a "Reviewer highlight reel" of his documentaries. Also I dispute the bias of which reviews are cited; and note that large portions of the article are unsourced or sourced poorly such that they cannot be readily validated. {Brianrusso (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}

The above dispute was resolved sometime in 2007. If you have legitimate gripes about things in the article, then create a new topic, at the end of talk. And list them there. Be specific - a statement that the article is POV without expressing what specifically that you believe is POV, is very likely to be ignored. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Severinghaus quote

This material belongs in The Great Global Warming Swindle, not in a biographical article. Also, it's too long for a response to a single point in the film. Unfortunately, TGGWS is locked at present, but I'll move a summary of this material when it reopens.JQ 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS

I deleted a direct link on this article yesterday and noticed this line: 'several of the scientists interviewed for this film claim that their views were misrepresented and that they were lied to about the nature of the project' The Great Global Warming Swindle lists 19 participants (not all scientists,) and out of all the names I clicked on Carl Wunsch is the only person who makes anything close to this claim. (It would be easier to cite the programme in the bio of every participant to help with these matters, but i've been there, done that, and it was wikilawyered to death so it isn't) Are there sources for the 'several scientists'? --Dean1970 01:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Afaik - Wusch is the only one that has claimed this - so your cut of the line is correct. Of course its possible that more have stated this since - but that would require documentation/references. --Kim D. Petersen 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, my mistake, I think the line is directed at Against Nature --Dean1970 01:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure though --Dean1970 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, The wording definitely implies that several scientists of tggws were lied to about the programme. No numbers or names, no sources. --Dean1970 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused though about which Wikipedia policy that you refer to for deleting the link to the Wunsch letter. It follows WP:RS and is verifiable as per WP:ATT. We can argue about the relevance of including the letter (which imho is adequately summarized currently - and sourced on the TGGWS page) - so i'm not arguing against your revert - just questioning the reasons given for it. --Kim D. Petersen 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, wouldn't every article on wikipedia look a little messy if that were the norm? I did add an inlink to Professor Wunschs' article and as you point out the issue is covered on The Great Global Warming Swindle. I added that Mr Wunsch repudiated the film and compared it to propaganda. By all means revert it because its within the rules, but don't be exclusive in your nit-picking if every article you come across from now on is covered in external links. --Dean1970 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood.... I'm not against your deletion - but was wondering what the "Deleted link as per wiki policy" was....? --Kim D. Petersen 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, about the 'several scientists', I'm going to delete. --Dean1970 03:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Honorable Hu12 deleted a mention to one of the very few interviews Durkin ever give to a magazine (Bedeutung). One that, in fact, illuminates his entire theory behind his skepticism. I have proceeded to put the deleted sentence backand in the interest of clarity and information about Durkin, may i recommend it stays there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.221.203 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ofcom

I searched Ofcom.com for the "around 300" complaints made against TGGWS. Their website cites one complaint - [1]. (scroll down near the bottom). --Dean1970 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Credentials?

Personally i would like more info to be displayed about this Martin Durkins credentials.

i have the following website detailing his academic history here

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/martin_durkin.html

however it would be up to you to judge whether it is appropriate enough for the article.

POV Edit

I have reverted a POV edit: we should try to keep this article neutral, rather than espousing just one viewpoint. Peterlewis 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Private email leaked"

It is both POV and inaccurate to refer to "leaking a private email". The recipient of an email (particularly an abusive email) is under no obligation to keep it private. But if you can cite a source criticising the recipients for publicising the email, feel free. Just don't add your personal thoughts on the subject.

And as regards the content of the email Wikipedia is not censored. Reference to "expletives" is fine in Richard Nixon, it has no place here.JQ (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I accept the point about "leaked email" - from my reading of the story it was a private email exchange; however, it is true that a recipient of an email can do whatever they choose with it. I'll strike this out.

But I think adding an abridged version of Durkin's response to the emails (i.e. just the swearing) and removing the context skews the story. His response is better understood in context which is why I refer the reader to the Great Global Warming Swindle entry which reproduces the whole exchange. User:Maughamish (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2007

"Leroi email exchange"

I've added the full exchange. Just including Durkin's 'daft cock' and 'go fuck yourself' lines misreprents the story and Durkin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maughamish (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Against Nature and ITC"

JC undid my revisions without really considering the content. You can criticise or make amendments but undoing everything is just plain lazy. Also, labelling my rewrites as 'POV editorialising' is pretty ridiculous. All I've done is added facts. Please feel free to adapt, amend, change language etc... but just undoing is clumsy and disappointing particularly since I see from your other entries that you're quite capable of making well-considered changes.

My thoughts: I think a reference and link to the actual ITC report rather than a partisan George Monbiot article is more relevant (although I left the Monbiot link in). Also, you may not realise it being all the way in Oz but the ITC doesn't exist any more hence my reference to the 'then broadcasting regulator'.

152 complaints against a programme is enormous so it's worth including the stats to illustrate the back-lash; and their ruling, both the dismissal of 147 complaints and the actual statement is fact rather than interpretation. The Against Nature story is important to convey Durkin's background, but let's include all the info. (81.145.240.56 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Tendentious

Just how POV is it to describe his documentaries as tendentious? The documentaries themselves are POV, of course; they clearly set out to promote a particular point of view - rather than to offer a balanced argument. It's not POV to say something is tendentious, surely ... Except to the extent that every statement about everything expresses a POV about it. But, with that sort of reasoning, we'd all end up swallowining the hemlock. Contrary opinions welcome. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If they were less tendentious maybe they wouldn't sell. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a vote in favour, then.--OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged affiliation with Marxist groups

I've been through all five of the sources given to support this assertion. Durkin is not mentioned in the first three; the fourth one is a highly dubious looking Wikipedia lookalike called Sourcewatch (which I removed), and in the fifth one, a piece by Dominic Lawson, the following rather garbled sentence appears.

The then environment editor of the Guardian immediately accused the programme makers of being in league with the far right, describing them, bafflingly, as "overtly racist". If there had been any extreme political input, it was from quite another direction. Durkin and a number of others involved in the film had in fact been closely connected to the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Not exactly convincing, and in view of Durkin's stating that the Marxism accusation is a smear, perhaps this section should be removed altogether. Jprw (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the three the Guardian one does seem to be irrelevant, but the What Next article directly mentions Durkin and the New Statesman article links Against Nature to the RCP. JASpencer (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It does mention him, but hardly in support of his alleged Marxist affiliations. In fact, the only reference to Durkin in the article is "Not known as an RCP member or supporter, it's not clear how he was privy to such information".

The Monbiot blog post from 1997 can hardly be viewed as RS so I've removed it.

I still think this whole section is problematic. All we've got is Dominic Lawson's ref which seems to be just reporting hearsay. Jprw (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have now removed the section. Jprw (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Brexit the movie summary

Hello, Would you please explain why a summary of the film ch. 1-x was removed? I do not know Mr. Durkin, did not participate in making the film but thought it would be interesting to have a written summary in the run-up to the referendum. There are also summaries of films on Wikipedia, so why not for this documentary as well? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.157 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"Climate: The Movie" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Climate: The Movie has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 29 § Climate: The Movie until a consensus is reached. Leyo 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Birth details

According to scripts.com Durkin was born on 23 January 1962 in South Shields. Is this regarded as WP:RS? Just for info, it matches the record given at FreeBMD here and gov.uk here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like scripts.com falls under the category of WP:SPS, being entirely user-created content. Then again, his full date of birth is also mentioned on IMDB, but WP:IMDB. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and the advice was not to use it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)