| Revision as of 18:41, 20 July 2015 editRenamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk | contribs)1,781 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:16, 3 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,690,427 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Film}}, {{WikiProject Sexuality}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (124 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|class=Start|documentary=yes|listas=Hunting Ground, The}} |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| algo = old(730d) |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 175k |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
| archive = Talk:The Hunting Ground/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
{{dyktalk|28 February|2015|entry= ... that ] recorded the song "Till It Happens to You" for the 2015 film ''''']'''''?}} |
|
{{dyktalk|28 February|2015|entry= ... that ] recorded the song "Till It Happens to You" for the 2015 film ''''']'''''?}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Hunting Ground, The| |
|
The first paragraph of the article says "The film was released on February 27, 2015, and was subsequently broadcast on CNN." The film hasn't been broadcast on CNN to my knowledge at all, it's been delayed for reasons that I also don't know (maybe it's being updated, but that's my speculation). I don't know how best to edit this but I wanted to bring this to the attention of readers, maybe someone could find better references for an air date or reason(s) for the delay. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Film |American=yes |documentary=yes }} |
|
:I work for the film's director, ]. I can confirm that the CNN broadcast has not taken place, and that there was never a plan for it to be broadcast so soon after theatrical release. I see introduced the error; I suggest adjusting it to say, "a New York Times piece announced the film would be subsequently broadcast on CNN." -] (]) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}} |
|
:: I adjusted the text to meet this concern. I have made a few other edits, too, and plan to make some more cited additions in the next few days. -] (]) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::If you work for the director, then your editing would be a violation of ]: "Do not edit Misplaced Pages in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." |
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
:::You are "strongly discouraged" from editing Misplaced Pages, and your account may be blocked if you do. |
|
|
|
| author = Ashe Schow |
|
:::There were several anonymous edits that violated ], and I'll try to change some of them. They could be reverted simply because they gave no reason for the edit in the edit summary. --] (]) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| title = 'The Hunting Ground' crew caught editing Misplaced Pages to make facts conform to film |
|
{{outdent}} In regards to the massive section detailing what one journalist wrote in one article that has subsequently been criticized, it's obviously far too long, violating ], as it's larger than the entire rest of the critical reception section. It should be drastically shortened. ] (]) 20:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| org = Washington Examiner |
|
:If you're worried that it's larger in proportion to the rest of the critical section, then add more to the rest of the critical section, don't just delete it. That's what the Misplaced Pages guidelines say. |
|
|
|
| url = http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-hunting-ground-crew-caught-editing-wikipedia-to-make-facts-conform-to-film/article/2576792 |
|
:Exactly what is the text of the provision in ] that you believe it violates? I see a lot in ] that favors keeping it in. |
|
|
|
| date = November 19, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:For example, ]: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves '''describing the opposing views clearly''', drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." (My bold.) |
|
|
|
{{Connected contributor |user=Edwardpatrickalva|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
:The article must describe the opposing view clearly. After your deletion, the article no longer described the opposing view clearly, or at all. You can't just say, "Emily Yoffe of Slate challenged the factual accuracy of the documentary, based upon her evaluation of the testimony...." and then explain it away with, she was "misinformed" and "twisted the facts." |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's not enough to link to the original article, either. As ] says, "articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." As you left it, the reader can't infer the meaning from the text. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Therefore, I believe that this material is required by Misplaced Pages guidelines, including ]. If you disagree, cite the text of ] that supports your position. --] (]) 05:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: In regards to ], "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints '''''in proportion to their prominence'''''" describes detailing opinions by commentators in regards to the rest of the passage that is proportion to the rest of the debate. The passage included is twice as long as literally every other aspect of that section combined. It's obviously an issue ]. You stated: "You can't just say, "Emily Yoffe of Slate challenged the factual accuracy of the documentary, based upon her evaluation of the testimony...." and then explain it away with, she was "misinformed" and "twisted the facts." - Actually, yes, we can, seeing as how that's what happened according to the sources listed on this page. As this page currently stands, there is a gigantic portion of the reception page devoted so a ] opinion with a small qualifier after it stating that she has been criticized by several people for said fringe opinion. I don't get what's difficult to understand about how that's obviously an issue of ]. For example: "Giving due weight and avoiding '''''giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.''''' Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views" details exactly what I'm talking about. This ] opinion might not even be warranted a description at all, let alone a gigantic detailing of every aspect of her claims. Just for the record, it's not my job to list out passages from WP guidelines for you. You're perfectly capable of reading them yourself. ] (]) 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}
