| Revision as of 02:01, 26 April 2016 editD.Creish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users864 edits →Placement and wording of Variety "worst of the year" review← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:16, 3 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,690,103 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 |
| (42 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{WPBS|1= |
|
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|class=Start|documentary=yes|listas=Hunting Ground, The}} |
|
|
|
| algo = old(730d) |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality}} |
|
|
|
| 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 14: |
Line 22: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Connected contributor |user=Edwardpatrickalva|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes}} |
|
{{Connected contributor |user=Edwardpatrickalva|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Untitled == |
|
|
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--> |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
:: 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." |
|
|
:::You are "strongly discouraged" from editing Misplaced Pages, and your account may be blocked if you do. |
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
{{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) |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
:Exactly what is the text of the provision in ] that you believe it violates? I see a lot in ] that favors keeping it in. |
|
|
|
|
|
: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.) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
You write: |
|
|
:In regards to WP:BALANCE, "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 WP:UNDUE |
|
|
You quoted from WP:BALANCE selectively. It reads: |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
Your edit fails to comply with ] because it doesn't describe the opposing view clearly. There is nothing in the article after you got finished with it that explains Yoffe's view, or any critic's view. I challenge you to quote the text in the article that explains Yoffe's view. You can't do it. |
|
|
] says: |
|
|
:Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources |
|
|
The following are prominent, reliable sources:<br> |
|
|
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/01/central-allegation-in-rape-film-the-hunt |
|
|
Central Allegation in The Hunting Ground Collapses Under Scrutiny<br> |
|
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-continuing-collapse-of-the-hunting-ground-a-campus-sexual-assault-propaganda-film/article/2565464 |
|
|
The continuing collapse of 'The Hunting Ground,' a campus sexual assault propaganda film<br> |
|
|
http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4923/The-problem-with-the-medias-coverage-of-sexual-assault.html |
|
|
The problem with the media's coverage of sexual assault<br> |
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/02/why-do-high-profile-campus-rape-stories-keep-falling-apart/ |
|
|
Why do high-profile campus rape stories keep falling apart?<br> |
|
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415269/filmmakers-omit-inconvenient-facts-about-campus-rape-allegation |
|
|
The Cinematic Railroading of Jameis Winston<br> |
|
|
Yoffe's article got a significant amount of coverage in ]s. For that reason it should get significant coverage in this article -- it should "describ the opposing views clearly". You haven't described the opposing views clearly. On the contrary, you quoted them selectively and deleted all their supporting evidence.<br> |
|
|
You write: |
|
|
:"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. |
|
|
The reason you can't say that is that it violates ]. You can't write those your opinions and interpretations in WP's voice. ] "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." |
|
|
The quote: |
|
|
:"Yoffe's article was subsequently criticized as an alarmist and misinformed piece that twisted the facts—including Winston's confessions—in order to serve her own agenda." |
|
|
is interpretation or opinion which violates ].<br> |
|
|
You write: |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
Well, actually it is your job. ] "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page."<br> |
|
|
I read the guidelines and they don't support your claims. In fact they say the opposite, as I've described here. --] (]) 02:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} |
|
|
: 1) Again, no, it's not my job. The section you just quoted says absolutely nothing about demanding that users select passages from WP guidelines and list them out. It simply says that one must present a reason for their edit, which is completely different (and something I did, in detail). |
|
|
: 2)I personally didn't say that the article twisted the facts; the rebuttal article listed did. That's fairly obvious. It's a cited summation of a journalist's response. |
|
|
:3) The "articles" you listed are either from blogs or far-right tabloids that are not suitable for inclusion on this encyclopedia. |
|
|
:4) All of this is very clearly you attempting to manipulate WP guidelines to justify listing out an extremely detailed criticism of the film that has since been heavily criticized in subsequent articles. If anyone is attempting to get their personal opinions listed on this page, it would be you, as evidenced by your citing of untrustworthy and extremely conservative think-pieces from tabloids to justify this clearly WP:UNDUE edit. Including a criticism from a WP:FRINGE opinion that is twice as long as the entire rest of the critical reception section is nonsensical and violates several WP guidelines, especially WP:NPOV, and fairly obviously so. ] (]) 15:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
::: Has anyone here actually looked at the very few edits Alva made here? There is no violation. They declared their COI, edited carefully, and were collaborative. No problem so far, and the same for the ] article. A COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies, then judge based on those infractions. While it's wisest for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus. If Alva had edit warred and shown ownership behavior, it would be another matter entirely, but he didn't. -- ] (]) 06:00, 26 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">— 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. — <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. — <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. — <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 ]. — <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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: {{u|Reece Leonard}} wrote: ''“expanded to such a ridiculous length”''. The “Reports of inappropriate Misplaced Pages edits” section is 100 words including the title. That is hardly a ridiculous length. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“from far-right tabloids”''. First, I strongly disagree with your implied assertion that conservative or right-of-center news sources are somehow inherently automatically biased and unworthy of being cited in Misplaced Pages. Second, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was picked up by three other sources—two physical newspapers (Tallahassee Democrat & Palm Beach Post) and an online-only site (Independent Journal Review). Finally, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was factually correct, and is easily verifiable by looking at the links included in that story to Misplaced Pages history logs (which I assume the reporters for those other sources cited did when writing their articles). |
|
|
|
|
|
: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“small online gossip rags published with the intent of discrediting the film”''. This is hyperbole. Three of the cited sources are real world print newspapers (Washington Examiner, Tallahassee Democrat, Palm Beach Post), and while the Washington Examiner does tend to be conservative, none have a reputation as ''“gossip rags”.'' And all of the sources cited predate the film by years or even decades, and can't conceivably have been published for the purpose of ''“discrediting the film”''. If you are saying the articles themselves were published for the purpose of ''“discrediting the film”'', I would say that they are more discrediting to Misplaced Pages, a situation that we only exacerbate if we hide the evidence of misuse of the encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“obviously biased”'' is a matter of opinion. It is a natural human tendency to see sources of news we agree with as being less biased than those we disagree with. As for ''”not worthy of inclusion”'' I would point you to the preceding discussion that determined that this section was appropriate. ] (]) 21:25, 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent Changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Reece Leonard}}, I've reverted your recent changes . They were significant and not discussed. I don't necessarily disagree with all of them but I'd like to open the discussion first. Could you outline your justifications for the removals/additions here? ] (]) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I looked at {{u|Reece Leonard}}'s talk page and saw that he is from "Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles." If ''The Hunting Ground'' article qualifies as Lady Gaga-related article, his edits here may be in violation of that ban. As this article was featured on a about Lady Gaga (... that Lady Gaga recorded the song "Till It Happens to You" for the 2015 film The Hunting Ground?"), I believe that his edits here could very likely be seen as a violation. Whether or not his edits do violate that ban, I continue to think those edits are inappropriate for the reasons I outlined in my response in the "Accusations… section has only one low-quality source" section above. ] (]) 02:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism , , , . User has been given two 3RR warnings: , , as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling.... |
|
|
|
|
|
::That sounds an awful lot like what he was doing in the discussion here with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Hunting_Ground#Untitled The issue involved ], ], and ]. I thought the entry should include a short summary of Emily Yoffe's criticisms in Slate; Reece Leonard cut it down to a single sentence which didn't explain the issues, and added a rebuttal of equal length that didn't address the issues I didn't want to fight about it with Reece Leonard at the time, because he was doing to me what he was doing to the other editors that he was topic-banned for. It's unpleasant to spend a lot of time trying to explain something to another editor, and have him dismiss it all by essentially saying, "I don't agree." Now that I see he's been banned for his interactions with others, I'm more confident in concluding that it is worth fighting about. I think it would improve the article to add my summary of Yoffe's article again, which has been cited even more in ]s since that time. Any comments? --] (]) 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::My only concern about adding more about the Emily Yoffe Slate article is that the Controversy section seems to be coming to dominate the article. While the film is controversial and the article is highly referenced, I want to be sure we are not giving undue weight to the critics, too. A possible solution could be to look at beefing up the general content of the article at the same time you put some of the deleted Yoffe stuff back in. I'd also like to hear from other editors, too. ] (]) 01:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{outdent}} To address the pretty tiresome and inflammatory criticisms laid out above predicated upon an example of my editing behavior from '''''nearly three years ago''''', I'd like to point out that the articles that Nbauman and Carl Henderson are using to justify their massive additions to the page's "controversy" section are from far-right websites who's information shouldn't be included in the article at all given the fact that they promote a particularly biased view of the documentary. Hell, one of the articles that's cited several times flat out calls the documentary "one-sided", presenting a clear bias. It's not your job to "explain the issues" presented in one article. You're supposed to present the general idea that they put forth in a brief sentence. Certain articles don't get to dominate wikipedia pages because they present several points. There is a massive problem with ] in the article the way it currently stands, as the vocal minority of critics of this film have been given a massive bully-pulpit in the form of the "controversy" section as every one of their points have been addressed extensively, a courtesy not extended to the much larger amount of praise this film has received. I was previously under the impression that an article only tangentially related to Lady Gaga would therefore not be considered to be included in my topic ban, but I don't want to violate it so I'm going to stop my edits here. This aside, I'd just point out that Carl Henderson and Nbauman have added thousands of characters of information to this page without being challenged and without presenting a clear reason for why their edits are justified. As they are introducing new information to the page, the responsibility falls on their shoulders to justify it, something they've not done (nor have their justified the use of far-right tabloids, publications clearly not fit for this website). The article should be reverted back to the way it was before their extensive additions were included until they do so. ] (]) 17:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{u|Reece Leonard}}, I addressed most of your points in a section above, but as is often the case with Misplaced Pages talk pages, things have gotten a bit disorganized, so I will repeat them here: |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“expanded to such a ridiculous length”''. The “Reports of inappropriate Misplaced Pages edits” section is 100 words including the title. That is hardly a ridiculous length. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“from far-right tabloids”''. First, I strongly disagree with your implied assertion that conservative or right-of-center news sources are somehow inherently automatically biased and unworthy of being cited in Misplaced Pages. Second, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was picked up by three other sources—two physical newspapers (Tallahassee Democrat & Palm Beach Post) and an online-only site (Independent Journal Review). Finally, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was factually correct, and is easily verifiable by looking at the links included in that story to Misplaced Pages history logs (which I assume the reporters for those other sources cited did when writing their articles). |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“small online gossip rags published with the intent of discrediting the film”''. This is hyperbole. Three of the cited sources are real world print newspapers (Washington Examiner, Tallahassee Democrat, Palm Beach Post), and while the Washington Examiner does tend to be conservative, none have a reputation as ''“gossip rags”.'' And all of the sources cited predate the film by years or even decades, and can't conceivably have been published for the purpose of ''“discrediting the film”''. If you are saying the articles themselves were published for the purpose of ''“discrediting the film”'', I would say that they are more discrediting to Misplaced Pages, a situation that we only exacerbate if we hide the evidence of misuse of the encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''“obviously biased”'' is a matter of opinion. It is a natural human tendency to see sources of news we agree with as being less biased than those we disagree with. As for ''”not worthy of inclusion”'' I would point you to the preceding discussion that determined that this section was appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
: In addition, your most recent post above raises several other issues that I would like to respond to: |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''"address the pretty tiresome and inflammatory criticisms laid out above predicated upon an example of my editing behavior from '''''nearly three years ago'''''"''. The were not imposed "nearly three years" ago, but were initiated on 12 March 2014—approximately 20 months ago, and are still in place according to the list at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''" Carl Henderson and Nbauman have added thousands of characters of information to this page without being challenged and without presenting a clear reason for why their edits are justified"''. All of my edits have been well sourced, and many have been discussed here at the talk page. I've also added neutral and positive information about the ''The Hunting Ground'', as well as correcting or removing some cases of outsourced or inaccurate information critical of the film. Additionally, in the comment posted immediately above your latest post here, I expressed concerns about undue weight saying, ''"the Controversy section seems to be coming to dominate the article. While the film is controversial and the article is highly referenced, I want to be sure we are not giving undue weight to the critics, too"''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Reece Leonard wrote: ''"Hell, one of the articles that's cited several times flat out calls the documentary "one-sided", presenting a clear bias"''. If a source having a opinion were a valid reason that information from that source should not be included, then all of the positive reviews and comments from articles praising the film should also be removed. That would leave us with... well nothing. ] (]) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] is a "far-right website"? Slate is clearly a ]. Slate conducts fact-checking, its editors are established professionals, Yoffe is all about fact-checking, and it has been cited repeatedly by other ]s, and by law professors. Unless anyone ''seriously'' doubts that, I need say no more about it. |
|
|
:::I think my discussion with Reece Leonard above shows that I've tried to engage him in a rational discussion, and develop an article following WP guidelines, but he has consistently engaged in ] and seized ] of the article. I'm not surprised that WP admins came to the same conclusion and he was topic banned. I think I've discussed it as much as can reasonably be expected from any WP editor, or any fair-minded person. My comments stand and I doubt that I will have any more to say to him. |
|
|
:::I'm going to revert his deletions of my summary of Emily Yoffe's article. It violates ] and many other WP policies to ignore the criticisms of what is, among other things, an attack movie on an individual. --] (]) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I never said Slate was a far-right magazine; I said that the others used (National Review particularly) were well-known far-right news outlets. Additionally, none of my edits violated ] simply because I removed non-reliable information from sources widely considered to be far-right, as well as the one critic of the film (the Slate article) as it represents a ] opinion. I'm confused as to why you've taken my edits so personally and have attempted to attack me personally. I'd also like to point out that you made your own bias clear here; you flat out admitted that you consider the film to be an "attack movie on an individual". That inelegant description makes it relatively clear that you have personal issues with this film and have pushed for these edits as a result of these issues, demonstrating actual ]. As I said before, all of this very clearly shows that you are attempting to manipulate WP guidelines to justify listing out an extremely detailed criticism of the film that has since been heavily criticized in subsequent articles, but I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you about it as you don't seem willing to justify any of your edits on this talk page but are more than willing to revert mine and claim that I'm not justifying my own; it's obvious that this is a pointless debate. Good luck with this article. Please refrain from attacking my character in the future, and if you feel the need to do so, at least find something more substantive than a topic ban that was implemented two years ago. ] (]) 19:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Who cares what one editor thinks? == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|The Rambling Man}} removed the following from the "Reports of inappropriate Misplaced Pages edits" section: |
|
|
|
|
|
:As of November 24th, 2015, ] was considering proposals for ] on such edits in order to try to avoid similar conflicts of interest in the future.<ref name=WashExam>{{cite news |last=Schow |first=Ashe |date=24 November 2015 |title=Misplaced Pages founder considers updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy |url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikipedia-founder-considers-updating-policies-following-the-hunting-ground-controversy/article/2577075 |newspaper=] |location=Washington DC |access-date=24 November 2015 }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
While I am generally in sympathy with the removal of that sentence—as Misplaced Pages has not taken any sort of systemic action based on alleged COI edits to ''The Hunting Ground''. However, I do want to point out that Jimmy Wales's opinion counts for much more than "what one editor thinks". ] (]) 03:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Totally agree. Jimmy Wales is not speaking as an editor but rather as a public figure here. ] (]) 07:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The point is that it's nothing to do with Jimmy Wales, the way Misplaced Pages works is governed by consensus. Moreover, it's somewhat trivial and crystal balling to add this kind of conjecture. ] (]) 08:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I agree that the sentence needed to go. If something comes of Jimmy Wales remarks—because of this incident—then we may want to revisit it. ] (]) 18:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing "See also" Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am removing the recently added "See Also" section directing readers to an article on ]'s now discredited '']'' article. Presenting that article along in a "See Also" section seems to me to imply that ''The Hunting Ground'' has been similarly discredited. That's not the case. While reasonable objections have been raised to some of the content of the film, the situations are in no way comparable. If other editors object, I welcome your reasoning and am in no way adverse to being reverted. ] (]) 21:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It doesn't discredit it but it is part of the overall 'conversation' ongoing for the last year and is completely relevant. ] (]) 00:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I disagree, and I see you have reverted my removal of that "See Also" section. Let's see what sort of consensus we can reach here among the various editors. I would suggest that a "See Also" section that had additional items other than a single instance of a discredited media allegation of rape, might work. Especially, if the items were presented without additional editorial comment. ] (]) 00:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
Seems relevant. I edited the section, though. Other links ''might'' be appropriate. By the way, ''"seems to me to imply that ''The Hunting Ground'' has been similarly discredited. That's not the case."'' means you're editing out of your own ]. I read the article, and that's what the controversy section is about. You declaring a side that contradicts the article is irrelevant to actual editing. ] (]) 14:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Other links will definitely work, no "might" about it. I agree with Carl Henderson, adding just the one link as if it pertains to this article does imply that an opinion is fact, and that this film has been similarly discredited, when according to reliable sources it has not. I'm not sure what the Rolling Stone rape on campus story article has to do with the this article, except it 'seems relevant' without explanation. I will leave it, but I've added links which are also relevant. ] (]) 01:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't know why people feel the need to express opinions here and with links somehow, but the new links do fit, so whatever works. ] (]) 02:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The current link to "A Rape on Campus" in the "See Also" section now contains the following text next to the link "Allegations, controversies, and the full retraction of a Rolling Stone gang rape story." I wanted to say again that I really don't the implied comparison in Misplaced Pages's "voice". I would be a lot more comfortable it there was just a typical See Also link that was a link with no commentary. ] (]) 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So why is the Rolling Stone article link necessary? There have been multiple cases of campus rape or alleged campus rape with their own Misplaced Pages articles, so why pick the most shamelessly false one to put into the See also section. Seems like POV pushing to imply the film is false. ] (]) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The article reflects prominence in proportion to the coverage of reliable sources. If there's a more widely reported campus rape story I've missed it. ] (]) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Size of Controversy section== |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said earlier, I'm a bit concerned that the "Controversy" section is growing to dominate the article. However, in spite of my concerns, I added more to it this afternoon (while removing a paragraph that I thought was only tangentially related to the article). |
|
|
|
|
|
My current thoughts are: |
|
|
* 1) the controversy over the film is a huge part of the story of the film, and should be reflected here, |
|
|
* 2) currently, the Controversy section breaks down to 530 words about issues raised by opponents of the film and 229 words devoted (just under half) to the filmmaker's responses, so even in that section, multiple sides of the issue are represented, and |
|
|
* 3) the best way to avoid even an appearance of undue weight is to beef up the rest of the article, rather than minimizing the controversy surrounding the film. (I did my bit for that today by adding a sentence about "The Hunting Ground" making the "Best Documentary Feature" shortlist.) |
|
|
|
|
|
What do the rest of you think? ] (]) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Technically, there should be no need fir a Controversy section in any article since NPOV says we should talk about it throughout the article. I don't know if that'll really work with this article, though. Responses make a good section. The lead, however, should reflect the whole article. The lead is very much not about the Controversy section. A fair lead nees to mention it, especially since so many people just read the lead. ] (]) 01:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I took a crack at capturing the main points in the lede.] (]) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thank you for doing that. I did a rewrite of your lead paragraph sentences on the controversy. I tried to make it more in the active voice, and be more specific. I hope reads better now. See what you think. I also added some content to the "Content" section to expand on what the film covers, and to help balance out controversy section, so that it does not seem overwhelm the rest of the article.] (]) 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Looks good. Thanks.] (]) 13:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Placement and wording of Variety "worst of the year" review == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following sentence from the Controvery/Charges of inaccuracy section, "When Variety asked film critics for their choices for the best and worst films of 2015, film critic Ella Taylor named The Hunting Ground as one of the worst films of 2015 and accused the film makers of using shoddy journalism." and added "In a rare negative review, Variety film critic, Ella Taylor, named The Hunting Ground as one of the worst films of 2015 and accused the film makers of using shoddy journalism." to the end of the Reception/Critical paragraph about bad reviews. ] reverted my change, with the comment "rv editorializing and better where it was". |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with D.Creish's reversion, and think that a sentence about a bad review belongs in the section with the other reviews, rather than in the Controvery/Charges of inaccuracy section. Nor do I think it is editorializing to open my sentence with "In a rare negative review" as that paragraph had already established that the film had a 92% positive rating among critics. So in the interests of BRD, I'm starting a discussion here. Comments? ] (]) 05:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I apologize for not providing a fuller explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Re: editorializing''' Even assuming the 92% number is accurate and relevant, that’s 1 in 11. If every 11th car is a Lamborghini, Lamborghinis are not rare. Or a more analogous (binary) example: if 1 out of 11 residents are non-citizens, non-citizens are not rare. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: What about "In an uncommon negative review" instead of a "In a rare negative review"?] (]) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Re: placement''' The “shoddy journalism” criticism is the fundamental one. The critic rates the movie poorly because of (what she views as) shoddy journalism, rather than the “shoddy journalism” being a consequence of a poorly-made movie. This was my reasoning. ] (]) 20:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: All of the other sources cited in the Controvery/Charges of inaccuracy are news articles or op-ed pieces; there are no other reviews referenced in that section. The Ella Taylor sentence is out of place and would make more sense grouped with the rest of the reviews. Additionally, the doesn't list the film as "worst of the year" but instead, under the "empty prestige" category. (Each critic was allowed to pick one "worst" and one "empty prestige" film for the article.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I would suggest this alternate wording: |
|
|
|
|
|
::: In an uncommon negative review Variety film critic, ] accused ''The Hunting Ground'' of "shoddy journalism" and called it a a "loaded piece of agitprop that plays fast and loose with statistics and our sympathy with victims of campus sexual assault". ] (]) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: {{reply|Carl Henderson}} After some thinking I agree with you: this goes better in the ''Critical'' section. I like your updated wording as well. I might change the "uncommon" language - maybe "one of the few negatives reviews..." but I don't think the difference is significant and I wouldn't object to your wording. ] (]) 02:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}
