Talk:The Principle

This article

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)

Given the involvement of other scientists who seem to have been similarly duped, chances are it will gain further notability in the days to come. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is as misleading as the section at Robert Sungenis. The documentary isn't about geocentrism, it's questioning the Cosmological Principle. As far as I could tell from the trailer, since it's not released yet, it's not making any claims in favor of geocentrism, people are jumping to that because of Sungenis. Given that, the claim that the film supports that the Earth is motionless at the center of the universe is simply wrong, since the film merely supports that the Earth may be in a privileged location. This not only isn't a discredited theory, it's not a theory at all, it's the opposite assumption. I'm rewriting the Summary section to reflect this and moving what's there to the Controversy section, where it's more adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I urge you not to do this as I will simply revert you; that the film is about geocentricism is specifically written in the used sources; inferring that it is not about that but something else is original research. Sam Walton (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not reverting me. This isn't a fight. You're reverting the article. It's not original research, because it's not an inference, since I'm providing the primary sources saying: "It is a 90-minute documentary on the new evidence from modern cosmology that challenges the foundation of modernity – the Copernican Principle — that neither we on Earth are special or occupy a special place in the universe." It doesn't mention geocentrism at all. The sources you mention are specifically about the controversy surrounding the film due to the involvement of Sungenis, and that's why they belong in the controversy section, not in the summary. Even if the documentary is factually wrong, the summary has to describe what's intended to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That isn't even in opposition to the film being about geocentricism. Geocentricism would be a challenge to the Copernican Principle, and says that Earth is in a special place in the universe. At the end of the day the article must be based on secondary sources, not primary ones and original research. Sam Walton (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Taken to an extreme; the filmmakers could say the film is about unicorns for all we care - reliable sources of information say it's about geocentricism so that's what we say. Sam Walton (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First, if the film were about geocentrism, then it would be automatically challenging the Copernican Principle, but the opposite isn't true. You can challenge the Copernican Principle in many ways that doesn't entail geocentrism. To say the film is about geocentrism is a leap is original research in that direction, due to the involvement of Robert Sungenis. Second, the film isn't even released yet, so there are no possible secondary sources other than the controversy, and that's obviously a point of view. Third, if a film were about unicorns, the summary section has to reflect the fact that it is about unicorns, not whether unicorns exist or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT original research, because secondary sources say it. I have inferred nothing extra on top of what secondary sources have said. Your latest revert was because the sources were about controversy; that doesn't matter because the sources still contain the information I've cited in the summary section. Lastly you've misunderstood my argument, I mean to say that the filmmaker can tell us that the film is about anything under the sun, but if reliable sources of information come along and tell us it's actually about something else, we go with the secondary sources. This is a basic tenet of verifiability. Sam Walton (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How on Earth can you have reliable secondary sources of information for what the film is about if it's not released yet? You're having a knee-jerk reaction and you're quoting the controversy, not the film. The only reliable source of information in that case is whatever the producers are saying it's about. If you want to add that after the film is released and there are reliable secondary sources on its content other than the controversy, feel free to do so, but as of now, like it or not, there aren't simply because it's not released yet. WP:NOTGOODSOURCEWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD --Pjwerneck (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Salon says: "The film, funded by an ultra-conservative geocentrist, pushes the false idea that the sun moves around the Earth". Time says: "... a trailer for The Principle, an upcoming documentary that argues for geocentrism, the belief that the sun (as well as the rest of the universe) revolves around Earth." These are reliable secondary sources. So we're entirely justified in saying the film promotes geocentrism. Huon (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First, you can say the film promotes geocentrism, but not in the summary section. That would be like me going to the page for The Passion of the Christ and editing the summary or plot to say it promotes antisemitism. Would that be justified at all? Obviously not, but it's what you're saying. Second, how can you possibly have any reliable source for what a film is about if it's not released yet? Whatever anyone is saying, is based on the controversy surrounding the release of the trailer, it can't possibly be about the film, therefore, it doesn't belong in the summary."Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable". Secondary does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, or published by a reputable publisher. Secondary sources can be unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published. WP:NOTGOODSOURCEWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

--Pjwerneck (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an essay. Let me quote the relevant policy, WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." What the film promotes clearly is a matter of interpretation and should thus be based on secondary sources. Furthermore: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Also, you don't want to claim that Time is "unreliable, biased, self-serving and self-published", do you? Finally, there is no prohibition against using the descriptions given by the best available sources in the lead. Huon (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the policy, I don't see why we are having this discussion then, since I am using the primary source to provide an straightforward descriptive statement of facts, in opposition to an interpretation. You're also repeating the same argument you used before without answering my question. I already said you can claim the film promotes anything, as long as it's sourced, but not in the summary section. That's interpretation. The summary has to be a simple statement of fact. Second, you can't know what the film clearly promotes if it's not released yet. Period. All the controversy isn't about the film, but about the producer previous works on geocentrism, which is used for the interpretation that the film has to be about geocentrism, which is wrong. As a matter of fact, that's precisely what the controversy is about, since many physicists who question the cosmological principle but don't support geocentrism are quoted in the film. Third, the primary source is being used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person, the fact that the film is announced as challenging the copernican principle. To go from that to geocentrism is to do an interpretation. If people think the film has a hidden agenda to promote geocentrism, that belongs in the controversy section, not the summary. Fourth, Time may be a reliable source on the current ongoing controversy surrounding the movie, and therefore should be referenced in the controversy section. There can be no reliable source on what the film is about other than the producers due to the simple fact that it's not released yet. The author of the Time article doesn't claim to have already seen the film, nor that he has a crystal ball or a time machine. He's writing about the controversy, based on the fact that the producer published previous works on geocentrism. If this isn't interpretation, I don't know what else is. I think there's a clear compromise here. I'd agree with putting any sourced material in the controversy section, but it's nonsense to put the controversy in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 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)

In their trailer video, it states, "You can go on some websites of NASA and see they have started to take down stuff that might hint to a geocentric universe". DonPMitchell (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

New section

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)

Hi there. I reverted your changes because you replaced reliably sourced information with information taken from unreliable sources like IMDB (user generated content) and primary sources. Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 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)

Ok, that's a fair request, and I've added that in to the summary section. Again, the main reason I reverted the changes is because you replaced reliable sources like Equities and Yahoo News with blogs and IMDB; not reliable sources of information. Sam Walton (talk) 20:22, 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)

Fair point, I hadnt seen that they were interviews. Tomorrow when I have some time I will make some edits and try to come to some kind of middle ground with this :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:27, 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)

I've reworded the article a bit to be more neutral, but made sure to include the responses made by the producers. Sam Walton (talk) 09:29, 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)

I'm sure it will, unfortunately Wikipedia articles are always based on what reliable sources say and we usually have to assume them to be correct over a primary source's statement. Any person could come along and claim that information in their Wikipedia article wasn't true; we can't just take their word for it over what we consider to be reliable information! In this case though I think we've come to a nice conclusion since this is an unreleased film and a lot of the articles could be speculative. Sam Walton (talk) 14:05, 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)

The release form image is not suitable for the article and it should be removed. Wikipedia does not display primary sources, particularly when that source is provided by one side and is hard to read and harder to interpret. Also, the "Controversy" section is vastly over-blown—I suppose any publicity is good publicity, so padding out the article might help the film, but it is not Wikipedia's role to amplify a very minor disagreement. All that is needed is a very brief statement from each of the parties: X says they were misinformed, Y says that a release form signed by X provided correct information. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 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)

I added the image to an external link. This ok? Joe6Pack (talk) 23:35, 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)

Title needs to be changed

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

Hello Startarrant. I think you may have misunderstood a few things about how Wikipedia articles are written and what WikiProjects are, allow me to explain. This article, as with ideally every article, is a collection of the information that could be found about the subject by reading and citing reliable sources of information. Every piece of information in the article is cited to such a source so that we can verify that information being added is true. The reason I removed your large additions to the article is that they did not cite any reliable sources, and appeared to be your own opinions and original research. You may think the page is not neutral because it currently contains a lot of coverage of the controversy etc, but that's because that's what the reliable sources covered. To add additional positive coverage with no reliable sources would be a kind of false balance. As for WikiProject Skepticism; WikiProjects are areas where editors can discuss articles within the scope of the project. When I created this article I thought that the Skepticism project seemed a sensible one to add, the movie is about scientific claims and reliable sources have disputed those claims. You'll notice this article is also part of WikiProject Film, because it's a film and editors interested in film articles are likely to be interested in looking after it. The bottom line is that information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, with a citation to a reliable source. If you have information you'd like to add to the article please reference such source a when doing so. Also, I don't appreciate being referred to as a student as though that makes my edits any lesser than anyone elses. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Well first of all I'm very much not the 'authority' - anyone could weigh in with their opinion here and if the consensus was against what I said then that's the way it would be. You can, for example, ask for a third opinion on a debate such as this one. As for your addition, You cited no actual sources; all you did was link to other Wikipedia articles while including your own opinions and original research, through terms such as "The Prinicple, suggests that...", "The Principle, steps unavoidably into the modern controversy...", "The Principle, focuses on the newest scientific theories...", none of which were cited. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citing information on Wikipedia and statements such as the ones you added require external verification from a published source. Sam Walton (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest Round of Editing, February 2017

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)

Every single scientist who has ever commented on the film complained about it. To complain about the release date is original research since there are literally ZERO reliable sources which make this point. jps (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Does that matter? The articles you are using are all from April/May 2014. The film was released in November 2014. Even in the Slate article, Krauss refers to the trailer, not the film. Joe6Pack (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

rather he inserted the trailer...Joe6Pack (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If there was a substantive difference between the trailer and the film, surely there would be a reliable source saying that. Please let me know if you ever locate such a beast. jps (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Some transcripting

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)

content sourced only to primary sources

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. 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." 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.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So we can say "Michael Voris claimed that Krauss and Barbour had given consent".Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"plot" summery

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)

The film is disjointed interviews interspersed with "gee-whiz" special effects and drawn-out arguments in favor of ludicrous misconceptions. There is no "plot" to speak of. It's, as I said elsewhere, basically pulp. jps (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And? none of that matters, it is a section about the "plot".Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you could remove the section since there is no plot to the movie, if you wanted to. jps (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, lets see how they works.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Telling the reader this film is unscientific

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)

One option is to remove the coatrack where the film's content is described by the filmmakers in misleading fashion. The claim is that the film is about the Copernican Principle (would that it were), that it describes observations that contradict said principle (it does not), that it illustrates a controversy about the Copernican Principle (there is no such controversy apart from the filmmakers' fantasies), that it's not promoting geocentrism (it is!), and that the film is balanced (it is decidedly skewed towards the paleo-Catholic perspective that GALILEO WAS WRONG!). How do you describe such a film? The goal is not to attack the film. The goal is to provide context so the reader knows what the facts are. This isn't easy to do with demonstrably incorrect ideas, but if you see ways to tighten the wording, that can work too. (Saying something like "The Principle advocates for the pseudoscience of geocentrism" is a nice succinct way to make the same point as "The Principle presents arguments in favor of geocentrism. Geocentrism is a pseudoscience.") jps (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need to "describe" it in every section of the article (almost every other line)? Yes you are right we can just say "The Principle advocates for the pseudoscience of geocentrism" , we do not need to say it 5 or 6 time in one short article (just worded differently). In fact it works better to have a "plot" section (free from analysis), and then a scientific critique secretion, and let the reader make up their own mind rather then binge hectored with "BUT ITS NOT SCIENCE CAN YOU SEE "HAT!" every other line. If any thing this approach has to opposite of the desire effect, it makes people wonder why this has to be mentioned so often. Frankly is reads rather childishly, like the kind of thing a kid would do when it wants you to know how great it's idea is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You think the desired effect is to persuade the reader that the movie is wrong, but that's not the desired effect. The desired effect is to elucidate the facts that pertain to the movie and its subject material. There are ways to do this that do not "hit people over the head", but they do not involve saying things such as, "The movie discusses observations that call into question the Copernican Principle." jps (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well yes they do, because that is what the movie claims. They may well be wrong, but it is still what it is about. Not that Copernicus was right. And you still have not explained why we need to point out it is flawed in every section, and every paragraph that is not about the movies controversial nature.Slatersteven (talk) 21:57, 23 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)

1. please do not be condending.

2, Do not make straw man arguments

3, This dose not address the question "why do we need to mention this 5 or more times.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

4 we can (and should say) "claimed how new understandings from the world of mathematics indicated that 2+2=5 is justified., that is what a summery of the film would be, a summery of it's claims.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"Claim" is a word to avoid. Try again. You need to learn to write sentences that aren't coatracks. You haven't demonstrated that skill yet. This is not a strawman, this is indicative that you do not know how to write these articles. jps (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I have asked if others can take a look at this, lets see what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Need for consistency across articles on the Geocentric Model

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)

If this were the 18th century, you could call geocentrism a "superseded scientific theory". In the 21st century it's pseudoscience. Source provided. Kleuske (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the link, it helps the article a lot. Agreed that modern geocentrism as opposed to classical geocentrism are different theories, and we need to keep the two theories straight in the article. Therefore, I propose pointing the phrase "modern geocentrism" to the section in the main article on contemporary geocentrism rather than to the main page which describes geocentrism as superseded (not pseudoscientific). A paragraph should be added to the section on modern geocentrism clarifying that modern geocentrism is pseudoscience, perhaps giving Dr.Sungenis a "shout-out". I have a reference for "religious beliefs" from Sungenis's book which is more pertinent to the movie to replace the current link to the Wikipedia article that I will add if you agree.Yaltabaoth83 (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the revision of language done by Jytdog, but I'm wondering why my reference to Sungenis's book was removed. Can someone explain this to me? Yaltabaoth83 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoops never mind my last comment. Just read the explanation which accompanied the revision. Yaltabaoth83 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• it is superceded and pseuodscientific. I've fixed the lead of the other article. The pseudoscience of modern geocentrism was discussed in the body there; just not mentioned in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tests of the Copernican Principle

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)

Yes I have been working on figuring out how to write this better. There are some high level astronomy issues here that have everything to do with science and nothing to do with religion. It is not worth going into detail here about it - biblical geocentrism is pseudoscience. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"The movie rejects the scientific consensus that the Earth and other planets orbit their stars"

"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)

Re: "06:20, 10 February 2022‎ Rp2006 talk contribs‎ 41,398 bytes −1,602‎ Undid revision 1070969258 by 73.133.224.40 (talk)Talk is not a place for OR and opinion. It’s to discuss what should be on the page."

What original research? I was pointing out that the article's claim (namely, the bolded part) is outright false, as anyone who actually watched the movie would be able to tell you. 73.133.224.40 (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have watched the film, and have read the citation, so I updated the text to match what is in that material. Rp2006 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)