This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I've removed this material from the article. I see a couple of issues with it.
Thoughts? MastCell Talk 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice you didn't address my second concern: what is the source for this lengthy section, which dominates the article? Is it your personal summary of the film, or is there an actual source as demanded by fundamental Wikipedia policy?
I think we can both agree that material can be factual in a strictly legalistic sense, but still deeply unbalanced or misleading. For example, if I wrote an article on George W. Bush based solely on material from Fahrenheit 9/11, you wouldn't consider that a balanced, encyclopedic summary of the subject worthy of a serious, respectable reference work, would you? MastCell Talk 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Response: Again, you are confusing the controversial nature of the content with the tone of the discussion. The discussion is perfectly even-handed. The description uses words like, "x reports" or "x describes." I noticed that you prefer making blanket statements about the "unbalanced" tone than actually citing examples of biased reporting. Your implication is ridiculous and shows you are more serious about demonstrating your abundant knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines than the topic discussed. And of course, you have conveniently not addressed my legitimate concern about whether or not you have even seen this film. Obamafan70 ( talk) 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Response: Thank you for admitting you have not seen this film. I encourage you to go see it before attempting to engage in an informed discussion about the film.
Why don't I make you a deal? Go see this film, and then write your own "formal", "objective" prominent figures list or plot summary or extended discussion for this film. It's an Oscar finalist, which merits at least that much. I'm sure you would do a good job, and the world would be a better place for you having actually' seen it. And I mean that in the least patronizing way possible. Obamafan70 ( talk) 07:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is much improved. Some language had to be changed to be more encyclopedic. There needs to be caution about his reporting on this subject, as he has not seen this film and is clearly an IDSA guidelines proponent from his other posts on the broader subject of LD. Obamafan70 ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, perhaps we could discuss a few ongoing issues?
Most importantly, the article history suggests (to me, at least) that Obamafan70 ( talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting and re-inserting material to which multiple other editors object, without really trying to address those objections. That's not a particularly healthy approach - do you think we could slow it down and maybe try to convince at least one other person that your proposed edits have merit? MastCell Talk 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am glad that you are both well versed "Wikipedia policy experts" because neither of you are experts on this film, which is after all the subject. The fact that you believe anyone "highly qualified" to comment on the plot summary of a film he or she hasn't even seen, severely implicates your judgment. I have seen this film at least ten times, and I am not here to promote anything other than encyclopedic knowledge about this film. Reporting the plot summary facts about an Oscar finalist film does not constitute bias, as you seem to suggest. Again, you are the one exhibiting bias. You and MastCell have referred to Lyme treatment as "unconventional therapy" and a "fringe diagnosis". The last time I checked that was a biased statement. The source I used most recently is from the Connecticut Attorney General, who is a government official not a "fringe" advocate. Yet, MastCell indicts me of "parroting" one-sided reporting. Your behavior is uncivil, bogus, baseless, ad hominum, and deliberately intimidating. Please spare your patronizing attempt to educate me on Wikipedia policies. Obamafan70 ( talk) 06:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You win, BullRangifer. I'm done posting on this topic; reporting facts on a movie is really not worth dealing with smug Wikipedia experts who don't actually want to discuss the facts. That people who have never even seen this film are allowed to exert their influence merely as a result of their imagined self-importance over an objective observer who has seen a film ten times is precisely why the Wikipedia project has failed so miserably. No serious academic has ever considered this site a legitimate source, anyway. Best regards Obamafan70 ( talk) 07:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
One person's "fringe diagnosis" is another person's well-formed medically-bsed conclusion. One person's "mainstream medical science" is another person's quackery (for example, "mainstream science" at one time accepted Earth as the center of the universe). That there are quotes around "chronic" and not around "legitimate" (in describing IDSA) constitutes two counts of neutrality violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madpogue ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Those of you so called "editors" are the ones pushing YOUR point of view. It's clearly obvious that you are not neutral and are using your editing "power" to try and kick out anyone you feel you want to bully into agreeing with you. I'll be reporting both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.183.246 ( talk) 09:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This film was described in the lead as an 'Oscar finalist'. While it is true that it made the shortlist of 15 films for the 82nd Academy Awards, it did not actually go on to receive a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. I've removed this description as misleading, and clarified the article. Robofish ( talk) 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
An advertisement-loaded Under Our Skin is on Hulu for free. Should I make an external link to the page? - BlueCaper ( talk) 21:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I've removed this material from the article. I see a couple of issues with it.
Thoughts? MastCell Talk 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice you didn't address my second concern: what is the source for this lengthy section, which dominates the article? Is it your personal summary of the film, or is there an actual source as demanded by fundamental Wikipedia policy?
I think we can both agree that material can be factual in a strictly legalistic sense, but still deeply unbalanced or misleading. For example, if I wrote an article on George W. Bush based solely on material from Fahrenheit 9/11, you wouldn't consider that a balanced, encyclopedic summary of the subject worthy of a serious, respectable reference work, would you? MastCell Talk 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Response: Again, you are confusing the controversial nature of the content with the tone of the discussion. The discussion is perfectly even-handed. The description uses words like, "x reports" or "x describes." I noticed that you prefer making blanket statements about the "unbalanced" tone than actually citing examples of biased reporting. Your implication is ridiculous and shows you are more serious about demonstrating your abundant knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines than the topic discussed. And of course, you have conveniently not addressed my legitimate concern about whether or not you have even seen this film. Obamafan70 ( talk) 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Response: Thank you for admitting you have not seen this film. I encourage you to go see it before attempting to engage in an informed discussion about the film.
Why don't I make you a deal? Go see this film, and then write your own "formal", "objective" prominent figures list or plot summary or extended discussion for this film. It's an Oscar finalist, which merits at least that much. I'm sure you would do a good job, and the world would be a better place for you having actually' seen it. And I mean that in the least patronizing way possible. Obamafan70 ( talk) 07:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is much improved. Some language had to be changed to be more encyclopedic. There needs to be caution about his reporting on this subject, as he has not seen this film and is clearly an IDSA guidelines proponent from his other posts on the broader subject of LD. Obamafan70 ( talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, perhaps we could discuss a few ongoing issues?
Most importantly, the article history suggests (to me, at least) that Obamafan70 ( talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting and re-inserting material to which multiple other editors object, without really trying to address those objections. That's not a particularly healthy approach - do you think we could slow it down and maybe try to convince at least one other person that your proposed edits have merit? MastCell Talk 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am glad that you are both well versed "Wikipedia policy experts" because neither of you are experts on this film, which is after all the subject. The fact that you believe anyone "highly qualified" to comment on the plot summary of a film he or she hasn't even seen, severely implicates your judgment. I have seen this film at least ten times, and I am not here to promote anything other than encyclopedic knowledge about this film. Reporting the plot summary facts about an Oscar finalist film does not constitute bias, as you seem to suggest. Again, you are the one exhibiting bias. You and MastCell have referred to Lyme treatment as "unconventional therapy" and a "fringe diagnosis". The last time I checked that was a biased statement. The source I used most recently is from the Connecticut Attorney General, who is a government official not a "fringe" advocate. Yet, MastCell indicts me of "parroting" one-sided reporting. Your behavior is uncivil, bogus, baseless, ad hominum, and deliberately intimidating. Please spare your patronizing attempt to educate me on Wikipedia policies. Obamafan70 ( talk) 06:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You win, BullRangifer. I'm done posting on this topic; reporting facts on a movie is really not worth dealing with smug Wikipedia experts who don't actually want to discuss the facts. That people who have never even seen this film are allowed to exert their influence merely as a result of their imagined self-importance over an objective observer who has seen a film ten times is precisely why the Wikipedia project has failed so miserably. No serious academic has ever considered this site a legitimate source, anyway. Best regards Obamafan70 ( talk) 07:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
One person's "fringe diagnosis" is another person's well-formed medically-bsed conclusion. One person's "mainstream medical science" is another person's quackery (for example, "mainstream science" at one time accepted Earth as the center of the universe). That there are quotes around "chronic" and not around "legitimate" (in describing IDSA) constitutes two counts of neutrality violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madpogue ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Those of you so called "editors" are the ones pushing YOUR point of view. It's clearly obvious that you are not neutral and are using your editing "power" to try and kick out anyone you feel you want to bully into agreeing with you. I'll be reporting both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.183.246 ( talk) 09:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This film was described in the lead as an 'Oscar finalist'. While it is true that it made the shortlist of 15 films for the 82nd Academy Awards, it did not actually go on to receive a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. I've removed this description as misleading, and clarified the article. Robofish ( talk) 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
An advertisement-loaded Under Our Skin is on Hulu for free. Should I make an external link to the page? - BlueCaper ( talk) 21:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)