Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 17 November 2015

Film: Documentary / American Start‑class

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.

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)

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 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 WP:FRINGE 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 WP:UNDUE. 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 WP:FRINGE 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. Reece Leonard (talk) 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 WP:BALANCE 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. WP:UNDUE 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:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/01/central-allegation-in-rape-film-the-hunt Central Allegation in The Hunting Ground Collapses Under Scrutiny
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
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
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?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415269/filmmakers-omit-inconvenient-facts-about-campus-rape-allegation The Cinematic Railroading of Jameis Winston
Yoffe's article got a significant amount of coverage in WP:RSs. 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.
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 WP:NPOV. You can't write those your opinions and interpretations in WP's voice. WP:5P2 "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 WP:NPOV.
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. WP:EDITCONSENSUS "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."
I read the guidelines and they don't support your claims. In fact they say the opposite, as I've described here. --Nbauman (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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. Reece Leonard (talk) 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). -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your editing clearly violates WP:COI: "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. --Nbauman (talk)

• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class Documentary films articles
• Documentary films task force articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles