This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just wrote this article before realising the lack of coverage outside that of Mulgrew's involvement. After realising the topic is pretty much covered at Robert Sungenis, I'm happy to AfD and/or merge this around if no more coverage comes up in the coming months. I figure it's not doing any harm for now though. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd leave the article for future expansion, it's a film and its made major news and seems likely to remain controversial, I'd qualify that as noteworthy Caasi560 ( talk) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
-- Pjwerneck ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You know what? Forget this. Do whatever you want. I just realized this article is under some project on Skepticism, and it's obviously useless to try to fight that agenda here. I thought the misleading article was an honest mistake, but after realizing that, it's obvious that someone intends to misrepresent the film even before it's released. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has turned into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I checked the Talk page on this entry because I had a suspicion that someone would be pitching a fit here. Glad to see it never fails: someone will always be along to defend conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, claiming unfair treatment. Poor little guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 ( talk) 16:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess what really matters is that you found a way to feel superior to both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.149.194 ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I added qualified sources to the article. Just because Krauss says he cannot recall being interviewed, then Mulgrew reacts does nont make it a fact. I added statements from the Producer (Rick Delano) about the nature of the film. This article read like a hit piece. The film The "Principle" is about recent observations regarding the Copernican "Principle"> Please check my cites before changing any factual information. 96.247.26.161 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sir- I am using statements directly form the producer of the film. This is more reliable than secondary blog sources. 96.247.26.161 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Folks- the producer of the film states the movie is about the Copernican Principle. You need to start with that. You can try and use secondary sources to say otherwise, but the producer of the film's statement is newsworthy. Joe6Pack ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Statements from the producer are reliable sources. The Rawstory blog author interviewed the producer. The magesterialfundies blog is the producer. You are replacing facts with hype and speculation. Joe6Pack ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Keep in mind that none of these scientists, nor Mulgrew have seen anything besides the trailer. So the word of the producer should have some weight here. There are a lot of accusations flying around, but few facts. Joe6Pack ( talk) 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Definately more fair. Thanks. I added somecontent and reworded things a little. I think as this story develops you will see that much of what is being said is hype, but for now, we have to go with what is being published. Joe6Pack ( talk) 05:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok. The producers released images of the release forms for Lawrence Krauss and Julian Barbour. I have added this information. Joe6Pack ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Samwaltion9: The image comes form the video and is readable once blown-up by clicking on it. The signatures are clear enough, and the words can be made out. I pulled the quote by reading it. If you want to work on the article, fine, but do not destroy work. Joe6Pack ( talk) 21:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Better? I would like to find a way to include the screen shots, also. Suggestions? Joe6Pack ( talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It was getting very argumentative. Just state who said what, and the counter claims, and it is well captured. Joe6Pack ( talk) 23:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I see the problem. Wiki users and editors searching for information on the movie are ending up on this page The Principle, and it is not about the movie. The topic is, in fact, a student's work that is totally slanted towards a single world-view and category as a -- "project" -- and the wiki project is focused on modern skepticism. Fine. Then as a wiki project on skepticism make sure that those searching for The Principle (movie) and summary discussion -- can link to THAT page -- with a link to THIS Sam Walton skepticism page (it doesn't need to be deleted just given a title that allows editors and readers to work within the limits of Sam Walton's world view and project. Then Sam will not need to delete his page or keep deleting excellent edits that he doesn't understand or like and Wiki quality will return at all levels. This page is not neutral, it involves a lot of original work (Sam's) and IF that is made clear by a TITLE like - The Principle (skepticism) or something that alerts the reader to the focus -- we don't need to battle edits. Startarrant ( talk) 03:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)startarrant
So once again -- are you saying, Sam, that Wikipedia itself is NOT a "reliable source" or that the pages of Wikipedia provide "false balance" for "verification that what is being added is "true" ??? All my edits referenced Wiki pages and definitions or they referenced internet pages that defined or referenced additions that were not covered in the Wikipedia pages. I did not have time to include other references which like yours would be classified as more or less arbitrary rather than perfectly authoritative. And the point is not to make arguments from authority, or any single one of a compounded-quadra-zillion countless particular consensuses or multiverses that might be construed as Pontificating, Papal or an Authority -- but you do seem to be THE authority, Pope, etc on The Principle. Startarrant ( talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant
User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Please keep your facts straight. Some scientists did complain, but this was in April 2014. They had not seen the film at that point. So it was not "subsequent" to their review of the film, nor of then film's release. It was subsequent specifically to their viewing a trailer for the film. Joe6Pack ( talk) 20:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
From The ChurchMilitant video:
Sungenis said: "The Copernican Principle" is basically the idea, that the earth is somewhere out there in the remote recesses of space, in no special place, with no special meaning, no special significance. It just got there by time and chance. And we're just as insignificant as any piece of rock or planet or star in the universe. And we just happen to have people on it, that have conscious existence, but that's no big deal, because we're just a cosmic accident - it just happened to be that way." (00:01:59 - 00:02:30)
The interviewer then says: "So extending that out sociologically, we just aren't anything. We're just a little cosmic blip somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and oh well, maybe a bunch of atoms came together and here we are, and that's all just a product of science, and therefore everything the Church and religion have said for all these years really doesn't mean anything, there is no God, we aren't specially created, and our home isn't anything, and all that. Right?" (00:02:30 - 00:02:55)
To which Sougenis replied: "Right. And there's no continuation. Once it all expands, and it contracts, and it evaporates, or whatever it does, whatever they think it does, that's it. It's all over. All those molecules go who knows where, into oblivion, and that's it. There's no afterlife, there's no beginning to it. It's just there, and then it's gone. (00:02:55 - 00:03:15)
Then the interviewer, "So the Principle's principle of fact, is a destruction of the whole previous order of understanding that there is a God, and we have not only a place in the universe, but a special place in the universe, and we have a destiny. That's what happens when you put the Copernican Principle in, which says we aren't special, and it replaces the old order, right?" To which Sougenis said, "Right." (00:03:15 - 00.03.42)
Rick Delano then says: "The Catholic world view, and whenever you read medieval art or theology.... the earth was always considered to be the place of the incarnation of the Son of God... that all the vastness out there was really considered to be insignificant compared to that. And so it is really a completely different way of looking at the cosmos. If we are at the center and God has created us, as the place of the incarnation of his son, you view the rest of the universe in one way. If we're just a cosmic accident, and we are one of hundreds of billions of planets that are just like ours, and there are billions of other species out there, well that's an entirely different view of the cosmos." (00.03.42 - 00.04.25. ) -- Jytdog ( talk) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is sourced only to primary sources. Needs discussion about whether this is UNDUE weight given to content based on primary sources. We could just as well provide the creationist quotes above in the article from this source. I don't think we should, but it shows the problems with WEIGHT that arise when a primary source is used this way.
The release forms for Krauss and Barbour were displayed on a live web cast session of ChurchMilitant.tv by the producers of the film on May 28, 2014. [1] The release forms include the verbiage, "Interviewee...agrees that the footage... will be used in a feature documentary ... interviewee also understands Producer will seek out ... unconventional interpretations and theories as well as mainstream views." [1] On the live recorded weblog Rationally Speaking, uploaded to YouTube on May 22, 2014, Krauss states that after thinking about it, he recalls being interviewed for The Principle. After making the admission, he is critical of Mulgrew's participation as narrator of the documentary but ultimately gives her the benefit of the doubt. [2]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be about what is in the film, not an analysis of it. Including analysis in this section implies the analysis is part of the film. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ancillary to the above, we attack this films science in the lead (fair enough), Twice (in effect, I have removed my added text as laboring the point)). Twice in the plot summery. Once in the Criticism and controversy section. Really? we need to hammer this home so much? Is not once in the lead and maybe a couple of mentions in the Criticism and controversy section enough to convince even the most dense of readers that this films science is iffy? This just looks very desperate and needy "WE MUST TELL YOU THIS FILM IS RUBBISH!!". Can we tone it down so as not to labour the point? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Try to follow along: we would not say in Wikipedia's voice a certain movie "showed how new understandings from the world of mathematics indicated that 2+2=5 is justified." A movie cannot change reality. jps ( talk) 06:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I changed the language describing geocentrism as long-discredited and pseudo-scientific to conform with how it is described in the main article on the geocentric model, as well as other articles across Wikipedia. Simply because the film is execrable is no reason to use inflammatory and biased language. We need to be consistent across articles. If you read the subsection on the geocentric model on relativity, you will see that Einstein, Born, Hoyle, and others have stated that the geocentric model is no less valid than the heliocentric model, just less convenient. That is not to say that Relativity IS Geocentrism, only that no frame of reference can be preferred in Relativity. I see that someone changed the language back. Rather than get into an editing war here, I will simply flag the claim that geocentricity is pseudo-science as needing a citation. Yaltabaoth83 ( talk) 18:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The article states "the scientific consensus is that observations have confirmed the Copernican principle." The reference provided does not say this and from what I can tell just from poking around Google links, this statement is incorrect. This sentence needs to be rewritten and an appropriate source stated. Yaltabaoth83 ( talk) 16:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
"The movie rejects the scientific consensus that the Earth and other planets orbit their stars"
Not really. For one thing, the scientific consensus is not simply that planets orbit their stars, but, that all objects within a solar system orbit that sysem's barycenter. And this The Principle affirms. And because the star is more massive than everything else, the barycentre is inside the star. So yes, the scientific consensus says that planets orbit their stars, and The Principle never rejects this but rather affirms it. So the bolded part is completely false.
What the movie does reject is the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, and the idea that the Earth moves at all. But even this needs qualification: according to the movie, the mainstream "acentric" (neo-Copernican) model and the movie's preferred neo-Tychonian model are geometrically equivalent. So there really isn't anything weird going on with the orbits. The movie, however, rejects the scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the Sun, and asserts, rather, that the Sun "orbits" a motionless Earth... although, technically, what's going on (Dr. Sungenis briefly explains this in the movie) is that the Sun is orbitting the barycenter of the entire universe, and the Earth just happens to be located there--something that could not have happened by chance. 73.133.224.40 ( talk) 06:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just wrote this article before realising the lack of coverage outside that of Mulgrew's involvement. After realising the topic is pretty much covered at Robert Sungenis, I'm happy to AfD and/or merge this around if no more coverage comes up in the coming months. I figure it's not doing any harm for now though. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd leave the article for future expansion, it's a film and its made major news and seems likely to remain controversial, I'd qualify that as noteworthy Caasi560 ( talk) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
-- Pjwerneck ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You know what? Forget this. Do whatever you want. I just realized this article is under some project on Skepticism, and it's obviously useless to try to fight that agenda here. I thought the misleading article was an honest mistake, but after realizing that, it's obvious that someone intends to misrepresent the film even before it's released. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has turned into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I checked the Talk page on this entry because I had a suspicion that someone would be pitching a fit here. Glad to see it never fails: someone will always be along to defend conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, claiming unfair treatment. Poor little guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 ( talk) 16:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess what really matters is that you found a way to feel superior to both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.149.194 ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I added qualified sources to the article. Just because Krauss says he cannot recall being interviewed, then Mulgrew reacts does nont make it a fact. I added statements from the Producer (Rick Delano) about the nature of the film. This article read like a hit piece. The film The "Principle" is about recent observations regarding the Copernican "Principle"> Please check my cites before changing any factual information. 96.247.26.161 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sir- I am using statements directly form the producer of the film. This is more reliable than secondary blog sources. 96.247.26.161 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Folks- the producer of the film states the movie is about the Copernican Principle. You need to start with that. You can try and use secondary sources to say otherwise, but the producer of the film's statement is newsworthy. Joe6Pack ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Statements from the producer are reliable sources. The Rawstory blog author interviewed the producer. The magesterialfundies blog is the producer. You are replacing facts with hype and speculation. Joe6Pack ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Keep in mind that none of these scientists, nor Mulgrew have seen anything besides the trailer. So the word of the producer should have some weight here. There are a lot of accusations flying around, but few facts. Joe6Pack ( talk) 00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Definately more fair. Thanks. I added somecontent and reworded things a little. I think as this story develops you will see that much of what is being said is hype, but for now, we have to go with what is being published. Joe6Pack ( talk) 05:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok. The producers released images of the release forms for Lawrence Krauss and Julian Barbour. I have added this information. Joe6Pack ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Samwaltion9: The image comes form the video and is readable once blown-up by clicking on it. The signatures are clear enough, and the words can be made out. I pulled the quote by reading it. If you want to work on the article, fine, but do not destroy work. Joe6Pack ( talk) 21:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Better? I would like to find a way to include the screen shots, also. Suggestions? Joe6Pack ( talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It was getting very argumentative. Just state who said what, and the counter claims, and it is well captured. Joe6Pack ( talk) 23:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I see the problem. Wiki users and editors searching for information on the movie are ending up on this page The Principle, and it is not about the movie. The topic is, in fact, a student's work that is totally slanted towards a single world-view and category as a -- "project" -- and the wiki project is focused on modern skepticism. Fine. Then as a wiki project on skepticism make sure that those searching for The Principle (movie) and summary discussion -- can link to THAT page -- with a link to THIS Sam Walton skepticism page (it doesn't need to be deleted just given a title that allows editors and readers to work within the limits of Sam Walton's world view and project. Then Sam will not need to delete his page or keep deleting excellent edits that he doesn't understand or like and Wiki quality will return at all levels. This page is not neutral, it involves a lot of original work (Sam's) and IF that is made clear by a TITLE like - The Principle (skepticism) or something that alerts the reader to the focus -- we don't need to battle edits. Startarrant ( talk) 03:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)startarrant
So once again -- are you saying, Sam, that Wikipedia itself is NOT a "reliable source" or that the pages of Wikipedia provide "false balance" for "verification that what is being added is "true" ??? All my edits referenced Wiki pages and definitions or they referenced internet pages that defined or referenced additions that were not covered in the Wikipedia pages. I did not have time to include other references which like yours would be classified as more or less arbitrary rather than perfectly authoritative. And the point is not to make arguments from authority, or any single one of a compounded-quadra-zillion countless particular consensuses or multiverses that might be construed as Pontificating, Papal or an Authority -- but you do seem to be THE authority, Pope, etc on The Principle. Startarrant ( talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant
User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS Please keep your facts straight. Some scientists did complain, but this was in April 2014. They had not seen the film at that point. So it was not "subsequent" to their review of the film, nor of then film's release. It was subsequent specifically to their viewing a trailer for the film. Joe6Pack ( talk) 20:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
From The ChurchMilitant video:
Sungenis said: "The Copernican Principle" is basically the idea, that the earth is somewhere out there in the remote recesses of space, in no special place, with no special meaning, no special significance. It just got there by time and chance. And we're just as insignificant as any piece of rock or planet or star in the universe. And we just happen to have people on it, that have conscious existence, but that's no big deal, because we're just a cosmic accident - it just happened to be that way." (00:01:59 - 00:02:30)
The interviewer then says: "So extending that out sociologically, we just aren't anything. We're just a little cosmic blip somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and oh well, maybe a bunch of atoms came together and here we are, and that's all just a product of science, and therefore everything the Church and religion have said for all these years really doesn't mean anything, there is no God, we aren't specially created, and our home isn't anything, and all that. Right?" (00:02:30 - 00:02:55)
To which Sougenis replied: "Right. And there's no continuation. Once it all expands, and it contracts, and it evaporates, or whatever it does, whatever they think it does, that's it. It's all over. All those molecules go who knows where, into oblivion, and that's it. There's no afterlife, there's no beginning to it. It's just there, and then it's gone. (00:02:55 - 00:03:15)
Then the interviewer, "So the Principle's principle of fact, is a destruction of the whole previous order of understanding that there is a God, and we have not only a place in the universe, but a special place in the universe, and we have a destiny. That's what happens when you put the Copernican Principle in, which says we aren't special, and it replaces the old order, right?" To which Sougenis said, "Right." (00:03:15 - 00.03.42)
Rick Delano then says: "The Catholic world view, and whenever you read medieval art or theology.... the earth was always considered to be the place of the incarnation of the Son of God... that all the vastness out there was really considered to be insignificant compared to that. And so it is really a completely different way of looking at the cosmos. If we are at the center and God has created us, as the place of the incarnation of his son, you view the rest of the universe in one way. If we're just a cosmic accident, and we are one of hundreds of billions of planets that are just like ours, and there are billions of other species out there, well that's an entirely different view of the cosmos." (00.03.42 - 00.04.25. ) -- Jytdog ( talk) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is sourced only to primary sources. Needs discussion about whether this is UNDUE weight given to content based on primary sources. We could just as well provide the creationist quotes above in the article from this source. I don't think we should, but it shows the problems with WEIGHT that arise when a primary source is used this way.
The release forms for Krauss and Barbour were displayed on a live web cast session of ChurchMilitant.tv by the producers of the film on May 28, 2014. [1] The release forms include the verbiage, "Interviewee...agrees that the footage... will be used in a feature documentary ... interviewee also understands Producer will seek out ... unconventional interpretations and theories as well as mainstream views." [1] On the live recorded weblog Rationally Speaking, uploaded to YouTube on May 22, 2014, Krauss states that after thinking about it, he recalls being interviewed for The Principle. After making the admission, he is critical of Mulgrew's participation as narrator of the documentary but ultimately gives her the benefit of the doubt. [2]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be about what is in the film, not an analysis of it. Including analysis in this section implies the analysis is part of the film. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ancillary to the above, we attack this films science in the lead (fair enough), Twice (in effect, I have removed my added text as laboring the point)). Twice in the plot summery. Once in the Criticism and controversy section. Really? we need to hammer this home so much? Is not once in the lead and maybe a couple of mentions in the Criticism and controversy section enough to convince even the most dense of readers that this films science is iffy? This just looks very desperate and needy "WE MUST TELL YOU THIS FILM IS RUBBISH!!". Can we tone it down so as not to labour the point? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Try to follow along: we would not say in Wikipedia's voice a certain movie "showed how new understandings from the world of mathematics indicated that 2+2=5 is justified." A movie cannot change reality. jps ( talk) 06:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I changed the language describing geocentrism as long-discredited and pseudo-scientific to conform with how it is described in the main article on the geocentric model, as well as other articles across Wikipedia. Simply because the film is execrable is no reason to use inflammatory and biased language. We need to be consistent across articles. If you read the subsection on the geocentric model on relativity, you will see that Einstein, Born, Hoyle, and others have stated that the geocentric model is no less valid than the heliocentric model, just less convenient. That is not to say that Relativity IS Geocentrism, only that no frame of reference can be preferred in Relativity. I see that someone changed the language back. Rather than get into an editing war here, I will simply flag the claim that geocentricity is pseudo-science as needing a citation. Yaltabaoth83 ( talk) 18:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The article states "the scientific consensus is that observations have confirmed the Copernican principle." The reference provided does not say this and from what I can tell just from poking around Google links, this statement is incorrect. This sentence needs to be rewritten and an appropriate source stated. Yaltabaoth83 ( talk) 16:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
"The movie rejects the scientific consensus that the Earth and other planets orbit their stars"
Not really. For one thing, the scientific consensus is not simply that planets orbit their stars, but, that all objects within a solar system orbit that sysem's barycenter. And this The Principle affirms. And because the star is more massive than everything else, the barycentre is inside the star. So yes, the scientific consensus says that planets orbit their stars, and The Principle never rejects this but rather affirms it. So the bolded part is completely false.
What the movie does reject is the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, and the idea that the Earth moves at all. But even this needs qualification: according to the movie, the mainstream "acentric" (neo-Copernican) model and the movie's preferred neo-Tychonian model are geometrically equivalent. So there really isn't anything weird going on with the orbits. The movie, however, rejects the scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the Sun, and asserts, rather, that the Sun "orbits" a motionless Earth... although, technically, what's going on (Dr. Sungenis briefly explains this in the movie) is that the Sun is orbitting the barycenter of the entire universe, and the Earth just happens to be located there--something that could not have happened by chance. 73.133.224.40 ( talk) 06:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)