Talk:In the Beginning There Was Light

Background section

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)

I will assert again, the background section contains misleading information presented with interpretation sourced from Primary sources and presented in a way to give credence to a fringe belief. Also, the background section is not inherently important to an encyclopedia which summarizes the film, as you can see very few other documentaries (If any, i haven't found any) even HAVE a "Background" section. The film can stand on it's own, it doesn't need people trying to present its argument for it here on wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTADVOCATE UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:38, 27 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 I DO have MUCH more recent scientific evidence. From a peer reviewed study calle Nutrition with 'light and water'? In strict isolation for 10 days without food - a critical case study. from 2008: "CONCLUSION: The results refute the claim and indicate a phase-II fasting state." This is much more recent and pertinent than the directors interpretations of a 1973 article that requires interpretation to apply to this practice. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:19, 28 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 ?

As you have now reverted 4 of my edits within 24 hours I believe you are already in violation of WP:3RR, and I will not engage in edit warring with you. I would like to reach a constructive goal, but that will require compromise, and this is not a constructive way to go about it. You interpretation of that study based on its presentation in the film is irrelevant to the fact that it is a recent peer reviewed test of the views being presented. The other studies do not explicitly state anything about the specific claims they are being used to support. They are being used to misrepresent scientific consensus in order to push a fringe view. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

This section gives context that is not included in the synopsis. The film is about a fringe topic - yes. This section is not about a fringe believe but shows that based on the comparison between direct and indirect calorimetry there is an unexplained difference - based on scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. It just shows that classical believes about caloric nutrition are not supported anymore by science. This does not say or support the idea that humans don´t need calories at all, which is the fringe believe. On the contrary. This section says explicitly that also "Breatharians" need calories. So I think it actually supports the concerns you are having. Furthermore this section uses at least four reliable sources (two highly renowned peer-reviewed journals, a big english speaking publication and one big german magazine publication) and one source that is the Official Film´s Webpage but only to quote the director. So I don´t see any of the arguments, also from 3O-side fulfilled. The article is based on enough reliable sources and I don´t see WP:UNDUE as it´s not a fringe theory that classical Calorie Theory has flaws. That´s scientific consensus. This article just puts this mainstream wisdom in context to the film, what´s the purpose of this section and points out that "Breatharians" also have calorie intake . I actually think it´s dangerous, careless und misleading to leave this background context away as viewers could understand the film and the article wrong. Sources: NATURE: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v242/n5397/abs/242418a0.html AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/33/6/1287.full.pdf THE GUARDIAN: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/18/prahlad-jani-india-sunshine TATTVA VIVEKA Magazine: http://www.feng-shui-schule.ch/pdf/straubinger_am%20anfang%20war%20das%20licht.pdf

Robin Lakritz (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is for example a possible explanation where the gap between direct and indirect calorimetry could be filled http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/can-humans-photosynthesize-1. It has in a way indeed to do with "living on light". So instead of blanking information we should give more information. I don´t know if this fits in this article in particular but I want to show that we are speaking here not about a fringe believe but evidence based science. Robin Lakritz (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First, that source you just cited is not a reliable source for those claims, but second and more importantly your statement that "It just shows that classical believes about caloric nutrition are not supported anymore by science." is precisely the issue. Firstly, it does not actually do that, that is YOUR interpretation of what those studies show, and secondly this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is specifically against policy. Those studied do not show what you are trying to use them to assert, and the interpretations of those studies comes directly from either an unreliable source (The director) or original research (your own interpretation). Please thoroughly review Wikipedia policy, specifically the sections referenced by the Third Opinion. Also, as we have had (As you requested) a neutral third party weigh in, I would ask you to respect their conclusions and leave my edits until there is consensus that they should be re-added, as right now the section clearly violates the policies mentioned. You are welcome to pursue further arbitration, such as an RfC, but until such time as that is complete, please do not re-add the material as the current majority view opposes inclusion. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

First, this is not my interpretation. It´s scientific consensus that the human metabolism cannot be explained fully by caloric nutrition. Perhaps some experts will have the opinion that one day this could be possible. Others will have different opinions as you see in my link above. Anyways, you will find countless sources on the internet that will support this and it is not my interpretation. Anyways - as my sign of respect for you and as I violated the 3RR rule before I will wait in this case with a re-add. In the other case I have to insist to be correct. You changed the wording in a manner that the Official Website claims that the state attorney would say a causal connection "could not be definitely established". If you read the facsimile (put it in your Google translator) it says that "An adequate causality between the film and the death of this woman can be definitely excluded.“ That´s a difference to what you are writing. So I hope we have consensus that we correct this as it is written on the facsimile on the Official Webpage, pointing out that it´s published on the Film Webpage. Robin Lakritz (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked the wording and you are correct, the way you have currently phrased it is indeed more correct. I currently have no problem with the way it reads. I would like to thank you your restraint with regards to the other edits and for the manner in which you have engaged in this debate, it is through educated discourse such as this that true progress can be made. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 20:51, 30 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

Festivals

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.

I have to revert the edit again as you cannot call an official governmental website a poor source just because you do not speak German. And the german Wikipedia articles has again a lot of references from secondary sources. Concerning "Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll" I added in addition to the Wikipedia article an article from the Austrian Broadcasting and I can add every major newspaper in Austria if you like...

The Planete Doc Festvial in Warsaw in one of the biggest Documentary Film Festivals in Europe. etc. etc.

I deleted the Awareness Festival in Los Angeles as it is really small but huge Festivals in Europe cannot be called irrelevant just because of an editors personal opinion.

Furthermore I clarified according to the sources what "most successful" was talking about. These are the facts as published in major newspapers like Kleine Zeitung and in the publications of the Austrian Film Institute.

Robin Lakritz (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS more carefully. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources in other Wikipedia articles, because they are WP:UGC, see also WP:CIRC. Film festivals are essentially awards, and awards need context. If there is an independent source that specifically explains why the appearance of this film in that festival is significant, then it can be considered. Press releases and routine listings are not acceptable for this kind of thing. Of course, if you would like to write the article first, then we could establish context for why these awards are notable and go from there. Wikipedias in other languages have their own standards, so notability in one does not automatically transfer to another. Without this context, these festivals do not belong because they promote the subject without providing any information.

I'm not sure why you reverted my other changes, which is why it's helpful to use edit summaries and discuss on the talk page instead of editwarring, which you have already been warned against in the past. Additionally, since you are a single purpose account who's only activity is to edit this article to promotional effect, if you have a conflict of interest, you must read about that here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This is not an optional step. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Responding to a point added as an edit conflict: "Most successful" needs to be clearly explained and attributed, because "successful" is to vague and too subjective. "Highest grossing" or "Most theatrical showings" would be possibly verifiable claims. "Successful" is not. The problem is not so much with the sources, although again, primary sources do not belong here, but that the claim is far too vague to be informative. Content that flatters without informing doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Highest Grossing" is good enough. "Most successful" is the term used in the original source - so I used it. When we talk about official ratings, awards and official selection so I think we can agree that is important in the context of the reception of a documentary if it received acclaim by independent juries. Documentaries and Feature Films are often submitted to different festivals. Nevertheless these festivals have the same importance for documentaries as other festivals for feature films. So we are talking here about official jury decisions and it´s an important information to see where a film was selected. I can provide for all of these festival dozens of secondary sources. They may not all be english but Wikipedia does accept sources in all languages and not just in english. I provided sources from official governmental sites, from the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation and major newspapers in addition to primary sources that I provided in the first place as they were written in English and more convenient. But when it reputability big national newspapers are of course reliable sources although they are not written in English.Robin Lakritz (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Highest grossing needs to be specifically supported. If a source doesn't specifically say it was the highest grossing, then that should not be added to the article. Inferring that "most successful" means "highest grossing" is a mild form of original research, which is not permitted. There are a lot of forms of success, "most watched", "most DVDs sold", "most reruns on late-night TV" etc. Get specific here. Even better than just "highest grossing" would be to mention the actual numbers over a specific span of time. This may not be right for the lede, but with sources, would be good for the body of the article. That way, the reader can draw their own informed conclusions on how successful it was.

The usability of a source always depends on context. Government documents are no different. If Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll (or de:Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll) has not been established as notable enough that it can be easily checked, and context (not just a factual statement or press release saying that the film received the award, but real context of what the award signifies) cannot be found in a reliable, independent source, then it doesn't belong. This is true for all awards, and applies to virtually all articles. Although English is obviously preferable on the English-language Wikipedia, you are correct that doesn't really matter what language this is in. The important thing is that readers are provided some way of checking to see what the award/festival signifies, and if they chose not to do that, they are not being mislead into thinking that it's more significant than it is. Routine listings, like the wko.at and pbs.org links and most of the other sources about this completely fail to provide that context, especially as it relates to this film.

You say that where a film was selected is important info. Important is a judgement-call. The way to demonstrate its importance is with reliable, independent sources that explain why it's important. As the PBS link shows, there are a huge number of film festivals. There are a lot more than that, as well. Not every festival selection is notable. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll" is a rating that is awarded to very view films and it is easy to check what it means as the jury has to follow governmental guidelines. You can read them here:

"(3) Mit dem Prädikat „besonders wertvoll” ist ein Film zu bewerten, der ein für die menschliche Existenz im persönlichen oder gesellschaftlichen Bereich relevantes Thema in seiner filmischen Gesamtheit außergewöhnlich gestaltet, so dass seine Einstufung unter dem Begriff Spitzenfilm gerechtfertigt erscheint." Only films that are highly relevant for society and exceptionally crafted are given this award. Perhaps you want to translate it yourself. Anyways this fact that the film was awarded "Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll" is not only mentioned in positive reviews, and you find hundreds of them on the net, but also in the negative ones. Der Standard, a newspaper which was highly critical against the film, wrote a whole article just about the fact that "Light" received this prize. Just google "Am Anfang war das Licht" and "Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll" and you will see how many hits you get. I can provide as much more from all major newspapers in Austria and also Germany - but I think Kleine Zeitung, The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation and Der Standard should be more than enough. So of course this information is necessary for the context.Robin Lakritz (talk) 02:44, 3 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)

Now I get your point concerning "Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll". I think that´s a good idea. I interpreted your argument that you want to delete "Prädikat Besonders Wertvoll" completely because you think it´s not interesting enough to write about it. So - understood. I suggest to write a section that is missing in this article anyways - "Reception". I will divide it in "Commercial reception" and "Critical reception" and when I find time I will research all the necessary sources with box office numbers, good and negative reviews in major media outlets.(talk) 18:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing that would convince me that it's interesting enough to write about is good sources. This isn't the Nobel Prize, and we can't assume such sources exist. I think I've hammered on this point enough already, but it's central to Wikipedia's philosophy and to maintaining WP:NPOV. If such substantial independent sources don't exist about the award in connection to this film, then it's not worth mentioning. It's just that simple, but I think we agree on that now.

Reception sections are tricky. One very common problem is with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reviews should represent major viewpoints from established experts, and should not try to match "Good film vs. Bad film" one-to-one. This problem shows up when obscure or unreliable sources are added to 'balance out' significant reviews with the opposite opinion.

Reviews of the film as a creative work are very different from commentary about the accuracy of its content. It looks like this has already been mentioned, but it's worth repeating: Inedia is a WP:FRINGE practice with medical considerations, so anything that could be reasonably interpreted as an endorsement, even indirectly, of that practice in Wikipedia's voice is not going to work. The article contains content related to both pseudoscience and complimentary and alternative medicine, which could likely place it under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. That's not a bad thing, exactly, but it shows that this area is a major source of contention on Wikipedia. Looking over WP:MEDRS might help explain this, also. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Youtube clips

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)

Regardless that I think this interpretation of neglecting youtube-sources does not help writing good articles I think it´s quite interesting that you seem to have not much problems with content that has no citable sources at all, as long as it supports criticism and negativity but even the highest ranking sources are not good enough when it could lead to a positive impression of the film. Do you see the bias in this strategy ?Robin Lakritz (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't help in writing good articles. This is one of those areas of Wikipedia which overrule that. As the WP links explain, this is about copyright law, not convenience.

Again you are twisting my words. Just because the sources cannot be linked doesn't mean they don't exist. Do we have any reason to think the youtube videos are not accurate reflections of the shows? Maybe, I'm not sure, but I don't think the content should be automatically rejected. Since they are illegally uploaded, they cannot be linked. Do you get the distinction? If you don't understand that, you may need to review WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and others. If you can provide replacement info, that would be appreciated. If you think the entire section should be trashed, than it doesn't seem like you're interested in writing good articles either. Still, if you think they should be removed completely, that's an option. Straubinger's responses would then be undue weight, and the whole section would likely have to be removed or very heavily rephrased. There is a major difference between critical journalistic coverage and the kind of promotional content discussed above. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very important section and the information about the criticism in these talk shows is highly relevant to cover the impact of this film. I just had the impression that you have a double standard measuring when it comes to sources. When I reviewed your edits I recognized that you give a certain one sided impression - namely to implicate that the film was only commercially successful and apart from that received just criticism and negativity. This was not the case and would be not a neutral point of view but agenda setting as you can find a lot of highly positive reviews in quality media. So I hope we can sort this out in the reception section and I will try to find secondary sources concerning the talk shows to use instead of the youtube linksRobin Lakritz (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)