Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Hunting Ground: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:18, 24 November 2015 editCarl Henderson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,206 edits →possible conflicht if interest in the press: Please see previous discussion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:16, 3 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,694,618 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 
(90 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
⚫ {{WikiProject Film|American=yes|class=Start|documentary=yes|listas=Hunting Ground, The}}
| 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|
⚫ {{WikiProject Film |American=yes |documentary=yes }}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}}
}}
{{Press {{Press
| subject = The Hunting Ground
| author = Ashe Schow | author = Ashe Schow
| title = 'The Hunting Ground' crew caught editing Misplaced Pages to make facts conform to film | title = 'The Hunting Ground' crew caught editing Misplaced Pages to make facts conform to film
Line 11: Line 22:
}} }}
{{Connected contributor |user=Edwardpatrickalva|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes}} {{Connected contributor |user=Edwardpatrickalva|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes}}

== My additions ==

I just added some new text, along with new citations. There has been a flurry of coverage recently, and it seems what has been added here recently has focused disproportionately on the critical coverage. I believe my additions help bring the article back to a neutral point of view, though there is surely further work that could be done to organize content and smooth out the text. Please note my previously disclosure (I work for the director). -] (]) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
:Your editing clearly violates ]: "Do not edit Misplaced Pages in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."

::Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. (The word interest refers here to something in which a person has a stake or from which they stand to benefit.)

::Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.

::COI editing is strongly discouraged. I

:Even though your edits may be innocuous, accurate, or even arguably improve the article, they violate WP guidelines. You should stop. If you have any suggestions for changes, you should post them in Talk and wait for an editor without a COI to decide to include them. --] (])

:: Yes, the COI editor should stop. This is at AN/I now. Edit requests can be made on the talk page by a COI editor. See ]. ] (]) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

== Recent coverage ==
Lots of coverage of the controversy in the Hollywood Reporter. . Also, there are apparently now two cuts of the documentary, the "CNN cut" and the original version. Article needs an update. ] (]) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

== Accusations… section has only one low-quality source ==

The "Accusations..." section recently added has only one source, which is from a columnist (not a reporter) from an opinion-oriented publication. Since this section directly involves me, I'm asking others to take a look, and consider if it meets Misplaced Pages's standards. Maybe relevant, is that the author has written several such pieces about the film, without a clear disclosure of her own COI -- both in that she is a Florida State alum, and in getting her work covered in Misplaced Pages. I don't believe her coverage of my activities is accurate or helpful; I hope other Misplaced Pages editors will take a look. -] (]) 18:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

::1) The author is not editing Misplaced Pages and is not required to make CoI disclosures. 2) Being an alumni of a certain university is a fairly distant relationship to claim a CoI over. 3) "Getting her work covered in Misplaced Pages" would only be a CoI if she added her work to Misplaced Pages. 4) You claim what she wrote is inaccurate? In what way? She provided links to Misplaced Pages supporting her contentions. (While we can't use Misplaced Pages as a source for a Misplaced Pages article, using an independent source that looked at Misplaced Pages and wrote and article based on what they saw, is permitted. If it were not, it would be impossible for Misplaced Pages to have ANY articles that addressed Misplaced Pages itself.) ] (]) 22:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

:You say "I don't believe her coverage of my activities is accurate or helpful", but give no explanation as to why, beyond misunderstanding COI and impugning her motives. I'd need more from you to take your claims seriously. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::I removed the Misplaced Pages-related section. The only source it cites is the one Washington Examiner article. In addition to that having a spotty history as being a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion, it's ] to include a section about the article it criticizes because of its criticism. If a bunch of other sources pick up the Misplaced Pages angle, I wouldn't have any objection to restoring, however. I have not done sufficient digging to have an opinion about any of the claims therein, though we should obviously be looking into them. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

:::While I did not create that (now-deleted) section, I did do significant editing on it (fixing references, rewriting some possibly copyvio-level similar phrasing, trying to edit for clarity, and attempting to add context about Misplaced Pages rules on CoI). I will look for other RS reporting on the issue and restore/expand that section if such exist. I don't know if there is an official policy on such, but I do think it is important for avoid even the appearance of a cover-up in conflict of interest editing, and would like to suggest we err on the side of inclusion in such cases. ] (]) 22:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

:::The ] is a reliable source. http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2015/11/20/hunting-ground-crew-member-alters-wikipedia-pages-conform-film/76102516/ It's been around since 1905 and was owned by Knight and Gannett. --] (]) 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I restored this based on the Gannett pick-up of the article, although I agree with its original deletion, which I should have done myself when I added the CNN airdate link. It looks like there may be more activity around this article as the airdate approached, so we all need to remain vigilant. ] (]) 00:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::I made some minor edits. I also added a sentence stating "Such edits can violate Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest rules" (with source) and added two other sources to paragraph. ] (]) 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::I'll just say for the record that I don't have an objection to it being restored given the additional sources. I feel conflicted about the idea that avoiding perception of a cover-up should affect content or otherwise play a role in editorial judgment, though I do get the importance of being clear about COI-related rules in a public-facing example (ensuring others don't think Misplaced Pages can be manipulated to advance personal interests). Anyway, thanks for finding additional sources. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::You are welcome. As far as I know "avoiding even the appearance of a cover-up" is not a rule; it's just my opinion and best advice. I did notice when searching for RS reports on the issue that the story had started showing up on many blogs, including a report excerpting the original Washington Examiner article on the very popular ], titled "It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Coverup". ] (]) 01:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Edwardpatrickalva says that the source is a columnist from an opinion-oriented publication. To clarify, opinion pieces are reliable sources under Misplaced Pages ]:

:::::::::] "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
::::::::--] (]) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::An unqualified statement that "opinion pieces are reliable sources under Misplaced Pages ]" is misleading. That something could be considered reliable in some cases does not mean it is always reliable. ] is contextual, not binary. It's certainly true that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject", but the opinion piece is only reliable ''for'' that author's opinion on a subject, and it does not itself establish the significance of that perspective such that its publication alone demands inclusion on Misplaced Pages. It's sort of moot at this point, though, since other sources have picked it up and I don't think anybody is strongly objecting to its inclusion aside from Alva right now. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 03:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::The bottom line is that opinion pieces can be ]s. Saying that a source is an opinion piece is not a sufficient reason to reject a source from WP. --] (]) 14:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::You missed the point. They can be RS. This isn't an argument about rejecting the source from Misplaced Pages, it's about rejecting the content that source was used as sole justification for. For most subjects, opinion pieces are only reliable for the opinions of the author. They do not establish the significance of that opinion, however. But again, since it's no longer just the one source, I don't think anybody is arguing for that anymore. If you want to debate it further, I'd suggest ]. &mdash; <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}} I'm amazed to see that this section exists at all, let alone the fact that it has been expanded to such a ridiculous length. The articles used to generate this section are from far-right tabloids and small online gossip rags published with the intent of discrediting the film, and are obviously biased and not worthy of inclusion. Additionally, the way that one article from one of these biased tabloids has been used (that is, over and over again at the end of sentences to make it seem as if there are several sources being cited despite the fact that the information is all coming from the same article, CLEAR ]) is way out of bounds. ] (]) 15:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

==possible conflicht if interest in the press==
*http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-hunting-ground-crew-caught-editing-wikipedia-to-make-facts-conform-to-film/article/2576792
--] (]) 12:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

:: Thank you, you will find that story is already addressed under the "Controversy" section, "Reports of inappropriate Misplaced Pages edits" subsection. ] (]) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I'd move that this section be removed as the Washington Reporter is an extremely conservative publication with the intent of discrediting the film by way of attacking one of the crew members who posted here. One article from a small, extremely one-sided publication doesn't warrant inclusion. ] (]) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

:::: Please take a look at the discussion of that article directly above this section, and the consensus to include it. ] (]) 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:16, 3 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Hunting Ground article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years 

A fact from The Hunting Ground appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hunting Ground.
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: Documentary / American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Categories: