This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edwardpatrickalva (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 27 July 2015 (→Suggested additions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:25, 27 July 2015 by Edwardpatrickalva (talk | contribs) (→Suggested additions: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Film: Documentary / American Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | 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:
|  |
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)
- 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)
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)
Suggested additions
There has been recent discussion about critical commentary on the film. I believe the following are also worthy of mention:
- Entertainment Weekly praised the film for its strong emotional impact. New York Magazine advised parents to watch it before sending their children to college. A columnist for the Journal of Philanthropy predicted that, more than any other Sundance film in 2015, the film had the potential to impact activism and social policy.
- Greenblatt, Leah (February 25, 2015). "The Hunting Ground: EW review". Entertainment Weekly.
- Edelstein, David (February 23, 2015). "College-Rape Documentary The Hunting Ground Plays Like a Horror Movie". New York magazine.
- Stehle, Vincent (February 4, 2015). "Film on Campus Rape Could Take Philanthropy Activism to a New Level".
In addition, the film has been noted as a catalyst for public policy efforts at both the national and state levels. Here is some draft text reflecting that:
- On February 26, 2015, one day before the theatrical release of the film, a bipartisan group of twelve U.S. Senators, accompanied by the film’s lead subjects, Annie Clark and Andrea Pino, reintroduced the Campus Accountability and Safety Act. The act, originally introduced in July 2014, would require universities to adopt standard practices for weighing sexual charges, and to survey students on the prevalence of assault.
- Sanchez, Hanna (March 7, 2015). "Bipartisan Bill to Regulate How Colleges, Universities Handle Sexual Assault Cases". iSchoolGuide.
- Friedman, Dan (March 2, 2015). "Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand joins filmmakers of 'The Hunting Ground' to fight college campus rape". New York Daily News.
And:
- New York governor Andrew Cuomo presented the film at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts on June 2, 2015 to promote, and help pass, new legislation to address sexual assault at New York institutions of higher learning. At the screening, Cuomo called the movie "an extraordinary documentary that really publicized this issue…and show how institutions were slow to respond."
- "Video, Photos & Transcript: Governor Cuomo Signs "Enough Is Enough" Legislation". New York Office of the Governor. July 7, 2015.
- "All NY Colleges to Adopt 'Yes Means Yes' Sex Assault Policy". Reuters. New York Times. July 8, 2015.
In light of my connection to the film (see above), I’m suggesting these here on the talk page for consideration. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Categories: