Talk:The Hunting Ground: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:13, 9 July 2015 editRenamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk \| contribs)1,781 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:47, 10 July 2015 edit undoNbauman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,296 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:::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)		:::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)		{{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)

Revision as of 05:47, 10 July 2015

Film: Documentary / American Start‑class

	Film portal This 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

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:

Did you know... that Lady Gaga recorded the song "Till It Happens to You" for the 2015 film The Hunting Ground?

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:A281:562:D0DF:DD85:5A37:117B (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I work for the film's director, Kirby Dick. 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 this edit introduced the error; I suggest adjusting it to say, "a New York Times piece announced the film would be subsequently broadcast on CNN." -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 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. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If you work for the director, then your editing would be a violation of WP:COI: "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 WP:NPOV, 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. --Nbauman (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:UNDUE, as it's larger than the entire rest of the critical reception section. It should be drastically shortened. Reece Leonard (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE that you believe it violates? I see a lot in WP:UNDUE that favors keeping it in.

For example, WP:BALANCE: "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 WP:NOTJOURNAL 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 WP:UNDUE. If you disagree, cite the text of WP:UNDUE that supports your position. --Nbauman (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories: