Talk:Under Our Skin

Encyclopedic tone

I've removed this material from the article. I see a couple of issues with it.

1. The tone is not encyclopedic. It reads like a plot summary or part of the film's press kit. This article already leans way too heavily on primary sources directly affiliated with the film, when we should be looking to independent, reliable third-party sources. We should limit ourselves to summarizing the content of the film, as third-party sources do and as a serious reference work would do.
2. The material is unsourced; see the policy on verifiability and sourcing.
3. The material is unbalanced. For example, it presents a somewhat one-sided perspective on Joseph Burrascano. For an independent, reliable third-party source's handling of the same subject, see the relevant portions of this New York Times article. Not that either one belongs in this article, but the coverage we do include needs to be more balanced and more solidly based on independent, reliable sources.

Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Response:

1. The tone is consistent with featured articles on Wikipedia. The content may be controversial, but the tone is perfectly neutral.
2. The material on Joseph Burrascano is factual. There is not a single statement about the correctness of his position provided. The discussion consists entirely of the statements he makes in the film, and is obvious to anyone that has seen it.Obamafan70 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I didn't make my concerns clear enough. I'm not sure which other featured articles you're referring to, but in any case my concern is only partly with the neutrality of the tone. It's more that it reads like the back of a DVD case, not an encyclopedia. Can you imagine Encyclopedia Brittanica adopting that sort of approach to summarizing this topic?

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)

I have not seen the film. (Then again, I never met Vasily Grossman either, but I feel capable of working on a Wikipedia article about him). OK, your turn: what is the source for the lengthy text you keep re-adding? I can't tell at this point whether I'm doing a really poor job of explaining my concerns, or whether you're intentionally or unintentionally failing to grasp them. The tone is informal, blurby promotionalese, rather than encyclopedic. That is separate from the issue of neutrality, although come to think of it, I did cite an example of non-neutral coverage, that of Burrascano. MastCell ^Talk 07:20, 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)

There's no requirement for an editor to see a film in order to write a synopsis of it. We really can only report detail consistent with what reliable sources have said about the film. Anything further would be original research. In this case, I think listing "prominent figures" and their stories is a poor method of plot summary. Briefly summarizing one or two stories as an example of the film's subject matter would be so much better. (I haven't looked, but I bet you could find a couple of WP:RS reviews of the film that do exactly that.) And I'm afraid I don't understand what's intended by an "Official synopsis". Is it supposed to be the single, "authoritative" synopsis? Or maybe a synopsis issued by the filmmakers that's expected to be self-promotional? A bad idea in either case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. You may want to revise the figures in the "Reception" section as there are at least 5 negative reviews rather than the 1 claimed. Take a look at Sicko (film) to see how that article handles that kind of section. Even with a 90% score it included a balancing bit of critical commentary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 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)

I'm sorry, are you talking about me? MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues

OK, perhaps we could discuss a few ongoing issues?

1. "Lawsuits" vs. "lawsuit". The sources seem to support multiple lawsuits here; Salon.com notes that Jemsek was sued by an insurance company ([1]). Forbes notes that Jemsek was being sued by a former patient who nearly died after being treated with a prolonged course of antibiotics (and who, according to the article, may not have had Lyme disease in the first place) [2]. Presumably, these are separate cases, since in one case the plaintiff is an insurance company and in the other an individual. Hence "lawsuits" seems to be the more accurate term.
2. If we are going to go on about Blumenthal's investigation of the IDSA, then we should not restrict our coverage to parroting one side's press release - that hardly seems like neutral or balanced coverage.

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)

It is quite clear that the Blumenthal discussion belongs in the plot summary as the film's final act is largely focused on his investigation. He did find "serious flaws". Did you read the press release?? You are the one who keeps putting one-sided material in this discussion. You also put scare quotes around chronic Lyme Disease, which is pejorative and biased. I could go on, but I've already demonstrated to any sane, educated person that you are not here to improve our encyclopedic understanding of this film, but rather to suppress the content of this film.Obamafan70 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to AGF. MastCell is highly qualified to understand this subject, and as an experienced editor and administrator, he is very careful to follow policies here. Your comments are not only incivil, they exhibit ownership issues, for which you can be blocked. It would appear that you are here to not only promote the film, but to promote the fringe POV expressed by the film. That is not allowed here. It is quite encyclopedic to briefly describe the film and its POV, but you should keep in mind that WP:NPOV requires that existing opposing POV be included, and that WP:Fringe requires that the mainstream POV be given most weight. This film is about a fringe subject, and the scare quotes demonstrate that "chronic" Lyme disease is a fringe diagnosis not recognized by mainstream medical science. They are justified by the sources we are using. I suggest you step back, take a few breaths, think things over, and edit from a more neutral POV. You need to allow opposing POV their say, as required by our policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 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)

I see you removed the edit warring warning from your talk page. Not a smart move. That will come back to haunt you. Collaborative editing is the ideal here, but you don't seem to allow any other POV. Too bad. As a complete newbie you do need educating. Until you drop the attitude and are willing to learn, you'll have to suffer the fate of one of my patients - I can't allow him to go home until he is safe, and he's not safe until he recognizes his condition. If you fail to admit that others find your editing here to be problematic, and take measures to seek consensus and collaboration with them, then you will continue to edit war and defend yourself, leading to your blocking from Wikipedia and the article being restored, with improved coverage of opposing POV. You're in over your head. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:53, 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 regardsObamafan70 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"An objective observer who has seen a film ten times". Are you by any chance a projectionist? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually one of the paradoxes of Wikipedia. Someone who's seen an advocacy film 10 times and feels passionately about it is likely to have trouble editing here, precisely because they feel passionately about the film and have strongly developed personal opinions about it. Someone who has never seen the film, but is willing to collect and synthesize reliable third-party sources dealing with it, is likely to do a better job within the confines and strictures of this particular website. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 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)

'Oscar finalist'

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)

External link?

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)

Reviewing WP:EL, I'm not seeing anything that explicitly prohibits its inclusion. We can probably include it as a useful and sponsored link. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)