Talk:Root Cause (film)

FRINGE
Wait, what? Why is someone adding all this crackpot WP:FRINGE detail about this film? This film was yanked because it spread false information. The film's precepts are promoted by Minkoff, a scientologist and medical doctor (but not a dentist). Focal infection theory has been debunked. Hal Huggins was a quack. Joseph Mercola makes his money promoting pseudoscience. (Mercola and Huggins are heavily promoted amongst the scientologist crowd.) The bulk of this article needs to be nuked. Sure, mention it was a film, mention the general principles of the film, and the reception, but do not go into detail regurgitating the details of this film or, worse, granting the concepts some credence by attaching scientific papers which do not mention this film. The bulk of this article is an essay replete with original research and bereft of actual citations about the film. It is actually promoting the concepts in the film with only a casual mention that the film contained false information. And don't miss the part where it blames "the intervention of dentist associations" for the film's takedown. I see it was written by a sleeper account with a very narrow and focused topic bent. Grorp (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh wow - what mess is this? "death tissue in the body"??? What? Sgerbic (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a ton of time but removed some obvious issues. A lot more needs to be done. Candice Owens wasn't hyperlinked and OMG she is on this??? Sgerbic (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A different person than the Candace Owens, you're probably thinking of. Grorp (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Reported to FTN. Ixocactus (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

After some serious WP:TNT and rebuilding, I think the article now comes across well enough and aligns better with Wikipedia standards. I removed the 13 top-of-page tags because I think each one has been addressed. If anyone wants to re-add a tag back, I won't be offended, but please add a note on the talk page as to why, so it can be addressed, too. Grorp (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing and removing junk references, but I think this article should be cut down even more (if not deleted outright). All reputable sources say the film is pure nonsense and having any summary at all here just gives it a hint of legitimacy.  Would probably suffice to have a one-sentence description and then two or three sentences/quotes debunking the claims made, and leave it at that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)