Talk:Earthlings (film)/Archive 1

PETA

I have removed the references to PETA until it can be shown that PETA was responsible for the film as claimed. The DVD I own makes no reference to PETA. The film appears to have been produced by Nation Earth. - Solar 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not denoting "responsibility for the film", PETA was one of the many providers of video footage used, listed in the "Footage Courtesy of" and "A Debt of Thanks to" lists during the end credits of the film. - SeattleOtaku 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All video footage of PeTA is uncopyrighted. Therefore, PeTA didn't necessarily provide any of the footage used. A filmmaker can simply take any PeTA footage and use it. So, I believe that there shouldn't be any reference to PeTA as having been "responsible" for the film. 137.81.104.57 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this IP?

Look at the edits by this kid, 65.43.208.206 . Is there any way to block him? It's getting annoying. J1.grammar natz (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article. Hopefully the IP will get the message and bring his suggestions to the talk page. Rockpocket 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Synopsis in two weeks. J1.grammar natz (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Earthlingsdocumentary.jpg

Image:Earthlingsdocumentary.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Migospia †♥ 04:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The entire "production" section was lifted wholesale from the doc's official web site, isawearthlings.com. Plagiarism isn't cool, folks (and a no-prize to the first person who says that deleting plagiarised text isn't, either). PacificBoy 03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Neutral

Is it just me or is this article written as a political statement on the protection of animals? the whole article in my mind needs to be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg robs (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahahahahaha! Wow, the entire article is just a scathing review! Who the heck made that edit? I will add a synopsis when I see it next week. J1.grammar natz (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information?

Why is there no information in this article? I don't mean it's been blanked, I just mean what is there says nothing. I haven't watched it, so came here for a little more information without the hassle of watching the whole thing, but nothing! Certainly a section on its reception would be pretty lengthy and interesting, at least? 77.12.57.127 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't write itself, it needs editors to generate content. If you think a section on its reception would be useful, why don't you write one? 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism needed

I believe a criticism section should be added to this article to show things like how the Science section of the documentary using outdated footage and how some of the language used contains logical fallacies. Why are there no intellectually honest reviews of this film? I've been searching for a review that says more than "everyone should watch this documentary" Aequitas12345 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People with brains just don`t watch this trash, so how you even supposed to get some real criticism on this? This is like film "Secret" and other new age semi-religious stuff. Just stay away from this sect and all be okay. They just die from malnutrition anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.129.89 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting against unreason of Wiki is a impossible battle, so its quite impossible that any critical voices will ever be heard here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8600:B080:C1C2:A679:AFDC:4CDD (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improved Article Only To...

Wow, so I went and made massive changes to this article (mostly deleting unencyclopedic content), in order to not have the article read as an advertisement anymore, only to have my changes reverted automatically by a bot! I wasn't aware that Wikipedia did this... How are we supposed to make substantial changes to articles that desperately need them?

If anyone can help, my changes were done on November 24th, 2010. I'll see what I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.54.221 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Seems reverting the bot's changes allows changes to remain. Let's see... :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.54.221 (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about: A second installment is set for August 2015 titled Unity?

I saw some new publications about earthlings (nationearth.com) earlier today. wonder what is the status as the link to reference [1] is broken. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Earthlings (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://earthlings.com/?page_id=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Earthlings (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]