Talk:The Game Changers/Archive 2

Dispute Thread

The dispute thread were closed due to "there is already a clear consensus of 4 editors saying there needs to be a shorter synopses vs. 1 person who wans a (much) longer one."

But if you read both @Aircorns and @Psychologist Guy, by my understanding, they have not clearly stated that the synopsis needs to be short.

Aircorn: "It does go into unnecessary detail. We don't need to know the quotes, the background and should definitely cut out the editorialising. Aircorn (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)" - I would not say that this equals to a statement that the synopsis needs to be short. But it definitely supports making the synopsis concise which I would not classify as a statement that the synopsis needs to contain minimal coverage of the documentary.

Psychologist Guy: "I think a good compromise here would be to re-write the synopsis i.e. condense it into less text. The suggested synopsis above was 30 lines, maybe 10 would be a better option." - Again, I would not say that this equals to a statement that the synopsis needs to be short. It definitely agrees to a compromise but I would not classify this as a statement that the synopsis needs to contain minimal coverage of the documentary.

I have not conceded because no reasons were provided to explain why this particular synopsis needs to be short. While I have provided reasons for the adversarial position. For example, if somebody does not want to read the in depth synopsis, they can easily scroll down. It is something I practice myself. I do not edit articles and delete information that I did not want to read because it were too detailed. If somebody does want to read the synopsis, but wants a several sentence overview, that is displayed when searching "Game Changers" on Google. As in, the overview from Netflix is featured. My argument is, is that why should this particular synopsis be minimal when there are so many synopsis on Wikipedia that aren't? And that we already have this in depth synopsis completed. It is written out. It requires minimal adjustment. Why delete all of it rather than adjust it?

@Aircorn and Psychologist Guy:, what is your position on this matter? RBut (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I continue to believe the synopsis should be much shorter than you have proposed, and would echo the call at the dispute resolution board for you to meditate a bit on WP:BLUDGEON. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy said "consense it into LESS TEXT" - Less = Shorter. Aircorn says "It goes into unnecessary detail. We don't need quotes..... cut out...." Again- That = shorter. You need to drop this stick RBut. If you continue to force against consensus you are risking a trip to the ANI. Why are you so focused on extending this one particular synopsys? Why not go find another article to focus on? Are you in some way connected to this documentary? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in as the creator of this article, for whatever that's worth. @RBut: Your proposed "synopsis" is far too long and far too detailed for a Wikipedia article on a documentary film. I advise that you accept the consensus and dispute resolution close and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@RBut, your determination to increase the length of the plot synopsis for this documentary has become disruptive and a timesink. I think it would be a good idea if you took this article off your watchlist and edited elsewhere. —valereee (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my questioning of the lack of consistency is frustrating to you. That is not something that I am used to. If it gives you any satisfaction, it is just as frustrating for me. There are so many synopsis on wiki that are just as long, even in identical articles (of documentaries). Which means in depth synopsis are not an issue, but it obviously is for this article given this outrage. Which my guess would be due to it's nature of contradicting common beliefs. I will no longer attempt to reason for this point, the in depth synopsis, as it is obviously futile. I've moved on. And please stop referencing editorials/opinion articles. RBut (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Final Synopsis 2

The documentary opens by introducing James Wilks, a combatives expert and instructor for government agencies such as the US Navy Seals, who, while sparring, tore ligaments in both of his knees, immobilizing him for 6 months. Through his recovery, he explores the effects of plant-based diets and athletic performance. Wilks first consults a study on Roman gladiators that argues they were mostly vegetarian. Wilks experience disbelief as this contradicts his knowledge on nutrition.

Wilks then interviews and highlights the accomplishments of elite-level athletes who eat a plant-based diet such as Scott Jurek, Patrik Baboumian, Bryant Jennings, and Derrick Morgan. In an interview, Arnold Schwarzenegger says that the universal stereotype that eating meat turns you into a man is marketing and that it is not based on reality. Conor McGregor plays to that stereotype and during trash talk, says that he will eat Nate Diaz like a lion eats a gazelle. In the fight, McGreogor taps out due to a rear naked choke by Diaz.

The documentary turns its attention to animal-based foods and cardiovascular health, arguing that animal based protein is packaged with molecules which include Neu5Gc, endotoxins, oxysterols, heterocyclic amines, AGEs, arachidonic acid, and heme iron that cause inflammation, and that animal products change the gut microbiota which produce inflammatory mediators such as TMAO. The movie contrasts this with plant-based proteins that are packaged with fiber, vitamin c, antioxidants and phytochemicals that include lycopene, carotenoids, flavanoids and lignans which reduce inflammation and optimize recovery and athletic performance.

An experiment is designed by Aaron Spitz, lead delegate at the American Urological Association to compare the postprandial effects of grass fed and organic meats, beans and meat analogues on endothelial function, a process that regulates blood flow. The results showed an increase of ~10% in the hardness of the erections, and ~360% in the duration of the erections during sleep following the plant based meals. Spitz affirms that while this is not a scientifically valid study, the results are exciting. Robert Vogel, Co-chair, NFL Subcommittee on cardiovascular health designs another experiment using the same protocol. The meals consisting of meat produced a cloudy plasma, demonstrating endothelial dysfunction, while the burritos consisting of beans produced clear plasma. Vogel says the cloudy plasma lasts for ~6 hours, and that this compounds after every meat meal, subverting performance throughout the day. Then Rip Esselstyn challenges firefighters to a 7-day plant-based diet, after which several firefighters drop their cholesterol level by ~100 mg/dl, with an average cholesterol drop of 21 mg/dl. Walter Willett argues that there is accumulating evidence showing that high consumption of protein from dairy sources is related to higher risk of prostate cancer and that the cancer causation is clear. Finally, the documentary introduces geneticists and anthropologists who contend that humans are best suited for plant-based diets.

Terry Mason, Cook County Department of Public Health remarks on the tobacco industry playbook, a combination of strategies that are also employed by the food industry. It embroils hiring researchers to create doubt, confusion, and combat public health messages. As well as incorporating idols and symbols of health, such as popular athletes and doctors for advertisement. Exponent is named as an example of a social engineering company that repeatedly challenges the health risks from substances such as asbestos, arsenic, mercury, second hand smoking to animal products. David Katz says despite the appearance of confusion in the media, the global consensus of a health promoting diet is a plant-food rich diet.

Rob Bailey, a research director of Energy, Environment, and Resources at Chatham House orates that 3/4ths of all agricultural land are used for livestock production, making it one of the leading drivers of deforestation which imposes a significant cost on biodiversity and habitat destruction, while only providing 34% of the protein and 18% of the calories worldwide. Other scientists cover co2 emissions, the overuse of fresh water, and water pollution by the animal agriculture industry. Finally, Tim Lang encourages reducing meat and dairy consumption, and increasing plant consumption which would improve both public health and environmental health.

The documentary ends with Wilks recovering and going back to teaching self defense but with a new component, internal defense. Armed with the tools of nutrition, he says he now has the tools to protect more lives than ever before.

I used your synopsis and changed a few things where the criticism "", "" and etc would be used. Is everyone happy with this one? RBut (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

When you say "I used your synopsis" who are you referring to? Funcrunch (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think this is still too detailed for Wikipedia standards; we don't need to know things like the exact levels of cholesterol drop or duration of erections for goodness sake, this is a summary of a documentary film, not a research paper. I recommend you take admin valereee's suggestion and take a complete break from this article rather than continuing to work on your vision of a perfect synopsis. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to jps. The level and duration are used so that it's not . For example, if it says "Rip Esselstyn challenges... and their cholesterol level dropped". You'll be thinking, what do they exactly mean by drop? Is it a 1 point drop, 50 point? leaving it vague creates speculation. This synopsis is within the MOS plot range, of which 500 - 700 words are recommended. RBut (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Still a no from me. And I think it would be helpful, RBut, if you answered Nightenbelle's question above: are you connected to this film in some way? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Still a no from me as well. Try to get it down to 10 lines. jps (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked RBut from this article and its talk. I'm sincerely hoping they'll go elsewhere and make productive contributions. —valereee (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed synopsis

RBut has proposed this as a synopsis, copying it here from my talk. —valereee (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

James Wilks suffers an injury and explores the effects of plant-based diets on health, recovery and athletic performance. He discovers that the Roman gladiators were mostly vegetarian and experiences disbelief as this contradicts his knowledge on nutrition. He interviews elite-level athletes who eat a plant-based diet such as Scott Jurek, Patrik Baboumian, Bryant Jennings, and Derrick Morgan who attribute their success to a plant based diet.

Scott Stoll, a team physician for the USA Olympic team and former Olympian argues that animal based protein impedes recovery and athletic performance as it's packaged with inflammatory molecules including Neu5Gc, endotoxins, oxysterols, heterocyclic amines, AGEs, arachidonic acid, and heme iron, as well as inflammatory mediators such as TMAO that cause dysbiosis. He contrasts this with plant-based proteins that are packaged with fiber, vitamin c, antioxidants and phytochemicals which include lycopene, carotenoids, flavanoids and lignans that promote gut microbial diversity, reduce inflammation and optimize recovery and athletic performance.

Several experiments are designed to compare the postprandial effects of grass fed and organic meats versus beans and meat analogues on endothelial function, a process that regulates blood flow. The meals consisting of meat reduced penile function and produced a cloudy plasma demonstrating endothelial dysfunction, which subverts athletic performance. Walter Willett then argues that there is accumulating evidence showing that high consumption of protein from dairy sources is related to a higher risk of prostate cancer.

Terry Mason, Cook County Department of Public Health remarks on the tobacco industry playbook, a combination of strategies that are also employed by the food industry. It embroils hiring researchers to create doubt, confusion, and combat public health messages and incorporating idols such as popular athletes for advertisement. Exponent is named as an example of a social engineering company that repeatedly challenges the health risks from substances such as asbestos, arsenic, mercury, second hand smoking to animal products. David Katz says despite the appearance of confusion in the media, the global consensus of a health promoting diet is a plant-food rich diet.

Rob Bailey, a research director of Energy, Environment, and Resources at Chatham House orates that 3/4ths of all agricultural land are used for livestock production, making it one of the leading drivers of deforestation which imposes a significant cost on biodiversity and habitat destruction, while only providing 34% of the protein and 18% of the calories worldwide. Other scientists cover co2 emissions, the overuse of fresh water, and water pollution by the animal agriculture industry. Finally, Tim Lang encourages reducing meat and dairy consumption, and increasing plant consumption which would improve both public health and environmental health.

Wilks recovers and returns to teaching self defense but with an additional component, internal defense. Armed with the tools of nutrition, he says he now has the tools to protect more lives than ever before.

Discussion

There's been no discussion, does that mean everyone's good with this suggested plot section? Pinging the top contributors to this talk: ජපස, Dumuzid, LuckyLouie, Psychologist Guy. valereee (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I have some objections. How would you like me to document them? In the past, I just edited this directly, but RBut typically was not amenable to that. jps (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping. IMO, the proposed synopsis presents the film's assertions (especially the 'experiments') uncritically, and in some cases, sympathetically ("Wilks recovers and returns to teaching self defense but with an additional component, internal defense"). Articles about similar films like The Exodus Decoded avoid the pitfalls of a detailed moment-by-moment synopsis by using a more objective "premise" summary, and maybe that's the way to go here. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Both, please do edit! I am not here as an editor, just as an admin, so I have zero opinion on content disputes. valereee (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks val for reminding us, I know for myself at least there was certainly some fatigue regarding this page. Suffice it to say the proposal still strikes me as simply too detailed; it verges more towards "fansite" than "encyclopedia" to me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I support putting this plot section into the article, if it needs to be reduced then it can be tweaked, I agree that it might be slightly too long but I think we are nearly here. I think the plot section is important for the article and I doubt any other user is going to write one. What is suggested above is a good template to work with. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of my synopsis below, User:Psychologist Guy? jps (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

jps redo

The documentary opens with James Wilks, a mixed martial artist and self defense instructor, describing an injury he suffered and how he used his downtime to explore the effects of plant-based diets on health, recovery, and athletic performance. He first explores the vegetarian diet of Roman gladiators before interviewing athletes such as Scott Jurek, Patrik Baboumian, Bryant Jennings, and Derrick Morgan who attribute their success to a plant-based diet.

Comments follow from Scott Stoll, a physician for the USA Olympic team, who argues that animal based protein impedes recovery and athletic performance due to certain inflammatory molecules and inflammatory mediators. He contrasts this with plant-based proteins that, he argues, promote gut microbial diversity, reduce inflammation, and optimize recovery and athletic performance. The film dramatizes a comparison of postprandial effects of meals consisting of animal- versus plant-based foods, purporting to show that those who ate meat showed reduced penile function and indications of endothelial dysfunction that could disrupt athletic performance. In an interview, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Walter Willett, argues that there is accumulating evidence showing that high consumption of protein from dairy sources is related to a higher risk of prostate cancer.

The next scenes criticize the meat and dairy industry for what Perry Mason, Executive Officer of the Cook County Department of Public Health, calls tactics out of the tobacco industry playbook where public relations firms such as Exponent hire researchers to create doubt to counteract public health messages. Doctor of preventative medicine, David Katz, says despite the appearance of confusion in the media, there is global consensus that a healthy diet is a plant-food rich diet.

A further indictment of animal agriculture comes from Bob Bailey, Research Director of Energy, Environment, and Resources at Chatham House, who says that while three quarters of all agricultural land are used for livestock production such food sources provide 34% of the protein and 18% of the calories worldwide. Animal agriculture is charged with being a main driver of deforestation and is implicated in habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. Other scientists in the film mention other environmental impacts of animal farming including carbon dioxide emissions, the overuse of fresh water, and water pollution. Professor of Food Policy, Tim Lang, makes a closing argument that reducing meat and dairy consumption and increasing plant consumption will improve both public health and environmental health.

At the end of the film, Wilks has recovered and is shown teaching self defense with an additional component, what he terms "internal defense", saying that with his understanding of the benefits of plant-based diets he now has the tools to protect more lives than ever before.

I believe this is good and I would support putting it onto the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't think such a long section would work, but it seems just the right amount of detail, objectively presented. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)