This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The background section of this article seems problematic to me for several reasons. Firstly it is sourced almost entirely from the film's website, and secondly it seems to give excessively undue weight to what is widely known to be a fringe belief. As stated on the Inedia page, the consensus among scientists and medical professionals is that this practice is a "lethal pseudoscience", yet it is presented in the background section with no mention of this, and a Nature article from 1973 is being presented as if it represented the wider views of current scientists. If it is to remain, it should be re-written in a way that gives accurate representation to the accepted views of the scientific community. However, as a background section seems to be unnecessary within the context of the page, barring any serious objections I will boldly remove this section shortly. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 09:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about a documentary. So first of all statements from the film´s director are of course an important input for this article. That you don´t want to include them in the article about Inedia is no problem but the readers who visit this article come because of the film. Furthermore this section is full of other valuable information including the highest ranking scientific journals in the world like Nature and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. To connect this with "lethal pseudoscience" is rude and disrespectful. If you have recent information that contradicts these publications you are free to submit them. Until then they have to stay of course in the article as well as the statements from the director concerning the film´s topic. I might remind you again - this is an article about "In the beginning there was light". So also official statements from the Film´s Website are important if they adress certain topics of the film.
This of course refers as well to the second blanking. Of course the reader has the right to know what the state attorney and the film director have to say in this case. On Wikipedia we need a neutral point of view. This means the journalist of the Tagesanzeiger has to be cited but of course but we also have to hear the other side as well and especially if there is a statement from jurisdiction. If you want you can write that the facsimile of the statement is published on the Official Film Website. But of course this information has to be included in the article. If you want this information out of "your way" this would be a strong sign that you want to push a one sided agenda.
If you have more information you are welcome to submit but stop blanking and stay neutral. Robin Lakritz ( talk) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact this study is featured in the film but it has nothing to do with the research that is featured in NATURE and the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION. Did you even watch the film ?
I also would like to reach a constructive goal. I don´t think surpressing information is a constructive. I remember: "When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so." There is no consensus at all. You just want to push you agenda. Why don´t you add the information you think is important instead blanking information that could valuable for others. Wikipedia is a neutrality not making opinion. So add the information you think is important and cited the sources. Robin Lakritz ( talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you are just not very well informed about scientific consensus. The Background section is no way opposing scientific consensus. It´s presenting information on the topic. And the study of Michael Werner you posted is featured in the film already. But it offers nothing that opposes anything that is said in the background section. Robin Lakritz ( talk) 00:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)e::As I stated, and as you have admitted, the belief in the validity of Breatharianism is a fringe view, so when discussing it we must give proportional representation to the mainstream view. To do this would require GREATLY expanding the section to include the vast amount of research and science that contradicts the claims, and that would make the page both unwieldy and unhelpful for a person looking for a BRIEF summary of what this film is about. This page is NOT for presenting evidence for the argument the film puts forth, it is simply for BRIEFLY explaining what the film is about. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this is not the place for attempting to prove or offer supporting evidence for the thesis of the film. The background section is entirely unnecessary, the plot and introduction sections cover it just fine. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Robin Lakritz ( talk) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: I conclude that the given section is WP:UNDUE. Given the size of this section (almost bigger than the plot and impact sections) and sourced multiple times to non-reliable and self-pulbished sources, I feel this entire section should be removed. A Nature study has been quoted and further used to show something not mentioned in it, this counts as original research. Citing multiple unreliable sources doesn't increase it's credibility as opposed to citing just one reliable source as required. If there are reliable sources indeed talking about its background then it would have been warranted but that is not the case. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:FRINGE comes to mind. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I added secondary sources to each festival, mainly the Wikipedia articles as all the festivals are well known in Europe. I deleted the Awareness Festival in Los Angeles as there was no Wikipedia article about it and only smaller publications featuring it. Furthermore I added secondary sources to the international reception of the film including the German Wikipedia article. Marche Du Film is indeed a part of the Cannes Film Festival and therefore I wrote a clarification.
Robin Lakritz ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
You are not addressing my concerns. Nobody is denying that the prize has been granted. I am saying that in order for the prize to be mentioned, it needs some explanation of the award's significance supported by independent sources. The article -not the talk page, the article- needs to provide some way for readers to understand the significance of the award, and the sources you have provided have been cryptic, underwhelming, or overly promotional. Once again: the award's own guidelines, which are extremely routine and do not show anything about larger significance, are not independent of the award. If you want to include reliable reviews of the movie, that can be done, but it's unacceptable to merely mention the Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll without any other information. A link to the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber would at least be something, even if it's still pathetically vague. The Der Standard review could be included, but using it to support the prize without at a minimum explaining what the prize means is deceptive. That there were complaints and protests over the awarding of a prize might also be worth considering, but mentioning the prize without any of that is using Wikipedia for advertising which is not what Wikipedia is for. Google hit-counts are useless for building an article; among other problems, there are far too many unreliable sources being included. Grayfell ( talk) 03:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The article sources some of the reception section to bare URL youtube clips. This is a problem because they are all obvious WP:COPYVIOs uploaded without any indication of permission from the copyright holders or legit claims of fair-use. The content they are referencing is potentially usable, but the sources need to go, per WP:ELNEVER (which specifically calls-out Youtube for this reason). I am removing the links for this reason. Again, this isn't an attempt to remove the information, just the youtube links improperly being used to support the information. Grayfell ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The background section of this article seems problematic to me for several reasons. Firstly it is sourced almost entirely from the film's website, and secondly it seems to give excessively undue weight to what is widely known to be a fringe belief. As stated on the Inedia page, the consensus among scientists and medical professionals is that this practice is a "lethal pseudoscience", yet it is presented in the background section with no mention of this, and a Nature article from 1973 is being presented as if it represented the wider views of current scientists. If it is to remain, it should be re-written in a way that gives accurate representation to the accepted views of the scientific community. However, as a background section seems to be unnecessary within the context of the page, barring any serious objections I will boldly remove this section shortly. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 09:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about a documentary. So first of all statements from the film´s director are of course an important input for this article. That you don´t want to include them in the article about Inedia is no problem but the readers who visit this article come because of the film. Furthermore this section is full of other valuable information including the highest ranking scientific journals in the world like Nature and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. To connect this with "lethal pseudoscience" is rude and disrespectful. If you have recent information that contradicts these publications you are free to submit them. Until then they have to stay of course in the article as well as the statements from the director concerning the film´s topic. I might remind you again - this is an article about "In the beginning there was light". So also official statements from the Film´s Website are important if they adress certain topics of the film.
This of course refers as well to the second blanking. Of course the reader has the right to know what the state attorney and the film director have to say in this case. On Wikipedia we need a neutral point of view. This means the journalist of the Tagesanzeiger has to be cited but of course but we also have to hear the other side as well and especially if there is a statement from jurisdiction. If you want you can write that the facsimile of the statement is published on the Official Film Website. But of course this information has to be included in the article. If you want this information out of "your way" this would be a strong sign that you want to push a one sided agenda.
If you have more information you are welcome to submit but stop blanking and stay neutral. Robin Lakritz ( talk) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact this study is featured in the film but it has nothing to do with the research that is featured in NATURE and the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION. Did you even watch the film ?
I also would like to reach a constructive goal. I don´t think surpressing information is a constructive. I remember: "When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so." There is no consensus at all. You just want to push you agenda. Why don´t you add the information you think is important instead blanking information that could valuable for others. Wikipedia is a neutrality not making opinion. So add the information you think is important and cited the sources. Robin Lakritz ( talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you are just not very well informed about scientific consensus. The Background section is no way opposing scientific consensus. It´s presenting information on the topic. And the study of Michael Werner you posted is featured in the film already. But it offers nothing that opposes anything that is said in the background section. Robin Lakritz ( talk) 00:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)e::As I stated, and as you have admitted, the belief in the validity of Breatharianism is a fringe view, so when discussing it we must give proportional representation to the mainstream view. To do this would require GREATLY expanding the section to include the vast amount of research and science that contradicts the claims, and that would make the page both unwieldy and unhelpful for a person looking for a BRIEF summary of what this film is about. This page is NOT for presenting evidence for the argument the film puts forth, it is simply for BRIEFLY explaining what the film is about. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and this is not the place for attempting to prove or offer supporting evidence for the thesis of the film. The background section is entirely unnecessary, the plot and introduction sections cover it just fine. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Robin Lakritz ( talk) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: I conclude that the given section is WP:UNDUE. Given the size of this section (almost bigger than the plot and impact sections) and sourced multiple times to non-reliable and self-pulbished sources, I feel this entire section should be removed. A Nature study has been quoted and further used to show something not mentioned in it, this counts as original research. Citing multiple unreliable sources doesn't increase it's credibility as opposed to citing just one reliable source as required. If there are reliable sources indeed talking about its background then it would have been warranted but that is not the case. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:FRINGE comes to mind. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I added secondary sources to each festival, mainly the Wikipedia articles as all the festivals are well known in Europe. I deleted the Awareness Festival in Los Angeles as there was no Wikipedia article about it and only smaller publications featuring it. Furthermore I added secondary sources to the international reception of the film including the German Wikipedia article. Marche Du Film is indeed a part of the Cannes Film Festival and therefore I wrote a clarification.
Robin Lakritz ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
You are not addressing my concerns. Nobody is denying that the prize has been granted. I am saying that in order for the prize to be mentioned, it needs some explanation of the award's significance supported by independent sources. The article -not the talk page, the article- needs to provide some way for readers to understand the significance of the award, and the sources you have provided have been cryptic, underwhelming, or overly promotional. Once again: the award's own guidelines, which are extremely routine and do not show anything about larger significance, are not independent of the award. If you want to include reliable reviews of the movie, that can be done, but it's unacceptable to merely mention the Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll without any other information. A link to the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber would at least be something, even if it's still pathetically vague. The Der Standard review could be included, but using it to support the prize without at a minimum explaining what the prize means is deceptive. That there were complaints and protests over the awarding of a prize might also be worth considering, but mentioning the prize without any of that is using Wikipedia for advertising which is not what Wikipedia is for. Google hit-counts are useless for building an article; among other problems, there are far too many unreliable sources being included. Grayfell ( talk) 03:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
References
The article sources some of the reception section to bare URL youtube clips. This is a problem because they are all obvious WP:COPYVIOs uploaded without any indication of permission from the copyright holders or legit claims of fair-use. The content they are referencing is potentially usable, but the sources need to go, per WP:ELNEVER (which specifically calls-out Youtube for this reason). I am removing the links for this reason. Again, this isn't an attempt to remove the information, just the youtube links improperly being used to support the information. Grayfell ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)