Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Edit warring

VictorD7 has resumed edit warring in violation of policy, which says, "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." I have requested full protection of the page but it may be necessary to file an edit warring report. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said on WP:RFPP, I really don't know how to proceed in this situation. If I leave it in, he claims there's "consensus" to include it because no one is taking it out, and if I take it out, then I'm "edit warring". When I previously stopped trying to remove the material, he has claimed that my refusal to edit war meant that there was "consensus" to keep the material, despite it being the subject of heated discussion on talk by numerous parties. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." I support inclusion of the material but can wait until the conclusion of the RfM. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, you just edit warred by immediately reverting both my tweaks to different parts of your unilateral reversions of long standing material, and you've been rewriting most of the article with a never ending string of larger, mostly undiscussed alterations, so be very careful about making threats. You don't own this page. Regarding the Shapiro quote, Gamaliel initiated the edit war when he tried to remove long standing material through repeated reverts against opposition by multiple editors. And no, the segment was consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS precisely because it went unchallenged for a month. Contrary to Gamaliel's claim of "heated discussion", I checked and found ZERO mentions of the Shapiro quote in talk page posting during that time. The segment isn't "contentious matters related to living people" as defined by policy. The phrase "living people" in the above quote predictably links to BLP policy, and WP:BLPGROUP it states that "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons". No individuals are mentioned in the segment. If BLP doesn't apply to specific companies, in what universe does it apply to a general political opinion about an entire profession? BLP could be abused as an excuse to remove any quote in the article; there's no legitimate basis for singling out Shapiro. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is gamesmanship, pure and simple. Instead of using the talk page to achieve consensus, you claim consensus because nobody wanted to edit war with you for an arbitrary period of time despite widespread opposition to this material on the talk page and multiple noticeboards. This is controversial material that multiple parties object to and you want to keep it in the article through sheer stubbornness. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There's gamesmanship involved here alright, but not by me. Despite your attempt to pretend that I'm the only one opposing you, most editors involved here want to keep the segment. I wasn't even the first to point out the established consensus here, Obsidi was ([1], [2]). During the month it stood unchallenged, neither you nor anyone else mentioned the segment on the talk page. Then you and another editor suddenly start edit warring to remove it, despite opposition by multiple editors. The only reason it vanished for a while was because the keep side stopped edit warring while the latest RFC was ongoing, and for a while when page protection just happened to come down after you had removed it, which doesn't prejudice the discussion and is most certainly not a consensus for removal. You have tried to change the page to your liking through sheer stubbornness; there has never been a consensus for removal at any point. VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus for inclusion. Controversial material should be discussed on the talk page before you edit war to include it despite multiple objections. We achieve consensus through talk page discussion, not gamesmanship. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you reverted yourself to restore the segment, and it remained unreverted and unmentioned on the talk page for the following month, WP:EDITCONSENSUS disagrees with you on whether there was a consensus for inclusion. It's not like you weren't around. About the same time the segment was restored you added neutrality tags. You failed to address your own tags on the talk page until I prodded you, and when you replied you only complained about Toto being included in the pro critic section. No mention of Shapiro's quote in the other section. The material didn't become "controversial" again until dunk suddenly removed it weeks later, and you pitched in to help him edit war. Controversial deletions should be discussed on the talk page before you edit war to implement them over objections by multiple editors. We achieve consensus through talk page discussion and uncontested editing, not repeated reverts until the other side gets sick and stops. VictorD7 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I was unwilling to continue an edit war where we were both reverting three times a day, you get to claim "consensus" despite the fact that there continue to be unresolved objections months later? Ridiculous. If you were not trying to use this to your advantage and the situation were reversed, you would be loudly proclaiming how absurd and offensive it was. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep leaving out the part where you failed to complain about or even mention Shapiro on the talk page in the weeks after you restored the segment. That no one else did either was telling, and established the consensus for inclusion. And no, when the situation has been reversed I have discussed my objections here, including by creating talk page sections that my NPOV tags (when I posted them) linked to. I'm always willing to discuss disputes in good faith. VictorD7 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Victor, my concern is that persistent attempts to restore the material creates animosity and makes it harder to reach a consensus. I am fine with including the Shapiro quote and have even tried to expand the article so that quote would be marginal in relation, but I have not tried to put the quote back in. I do not agree with the WP:BLPGROUP argument, but it has some traction with an independent assessment at WP:BLP/N (and one that I do not agree with). This being the case, I'm fine with waiting until later. The RfC has not been very productive since it has been dominated by already-involved editors going back and forth endlessly. New editors should have been engaged in discussion since everyone else is entrenched and being circuitous. We'll see how the RfM goes; hopefully it will be more precise in assessing arguments and counter-arguments. However, continuing to edit in the debated passage is edit warring, as I quoted above from the policy page. This is you alone over the same passage:

1. diff (January 19)
2. diff (January 18)
3. diff (December 29)
4. diff (December 29)
5. diff (December 27; resumed after page protection expired)
6. diff (December 12)
7. diff (December 12)
8. diff (December 12)
9. diff (December 9)
10. diff (December 9; resumed after page protection expired)
11. diff (December 5)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Me alone, again. Interesting. Here are examples of Gamaliel alone edit warring over the same passage.

1. diff (January 19)

2. diff (December 29)

3. diff (December 29)

4. diff (December 12)

5. diff (December 12)

6. diff (December 10)

7. diff (December 10)

8. diff (December 9)

9. diff (December 5)

10. diff (December 5)

11. diff (December 4)

12. diff (December 3)

13. diff (November 6)

14. diff (November 6)

"13" was when he self reverted, restoring the segment, which led to a month of stability as the material stood unchallenged, and an implied consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS since no one complained about or mentioned it on the talk page during that span. Your own reverts in recent weeks are far too numerous to list, some of them constituting edit warring. One person's edit warring isn't a defense for another's, but you singling me out in this call out section given the clear evidence above is disruptive bad behavior on your part. I'm adding perspective for the record. Just be careful about swinging that plank in your eye around. You're welcome. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Victor, each time the article was no longer page protected, you initiated edit warring. The latest case is when it looked like the RfC was no longer underway and the RfM was being set up, you initiated edit warring yet again. Gamaliel has engaged in edit warring, but you persist in initiating it to keep the debated passage in the article while the debate is ongoing, even though WP:NOCONSENSUS is a concern (that you and I do not agree with). Policy says, "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." The only edit warring that has taken place here is in regard to the Shapiro quote, and you and Gamaliel are complicit. I really would like to see the RfM through without this contentious editing. The RfM is "a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process", so after that, if it is in, it is in; if it is out, it is out. Can we not do without this passage and make our policy- and guideline-based case at the RfM? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection does not endorse or establish a prejudice in favor of the article version at that time. It's supposed to provide a cooling off period during which the dispute can hopefully be resolved. Since the dispute wasn't resolved, I reject your premise as to its importance, and I was restoring the segment per the most recent consensus. WP:NOCONSENSUS doesn't apply as it's based on BLP, which doesn't apply to subjective general political opinions about an entire profession, as I've shown. The mere fact that someone invokes a policy like BLP (or SYNTH, or the other frivolously, often seemingly random policies dropped here as rotating excuses for deletion) in an edit summary doesn't mean everyone else has to sit back and let long standing material be removed. Otherwise almost anything on Wikipedia could be deleted by a determined minority or individual. The policy citation has to be reasonable. That doesn't mean we can't still discuss the matter at the RfM and elsewhere, though I'm not sure why you're assuming a clear resolution. For the record, edit warring having nothing to do with the Shapiro quote has also occurred here, including your recent multiple reversions to your preferred versions mentioned in part below (e.g. [3], [4], [5]), though I appreciate that you're now working with me on that. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, it takes two to edit war. How about you stop reverting Victor's edits?--TMD Talk Page. 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I quoted from WP:EDITWAR, "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Victor made two separate edits, and I reverted each one with an explanation. I revised the wording further in one exchange, and I agreed with his proposed wording in the other exchange. These reverts of mine do not come anywhere close to the edit warring over the Shapiro passage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're forgetting your initial posts, which were reverts of long standing material, but I agree that afterwards you've been working with me on the issue in the below section. Per TMD's comment, however, you shouldn't have singled me out in your op here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is remarkably churlish of you to complain about my edit warring, then to use the fact that I ceased edit warring as a pretext to claim a nonexistent consensus. I have no idea how to register my continuing objection to this material without edit warring in light of the fact that any time I stop edit warring you claim I am consenting to this inappropriate material. No sane and honest reading of WP:NOCONSENSUS would allow for this sort of gamesmanship. I will not continue to edit war, but for the record my objection to this material stands until I post otherwise on this talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Every time you toss out this straw man I'll swat it away. You didn't just cease edit warring. You restored the segment and then proceeded to not talk about it at all for the next month. Neither did anyone else. I even gave you an opportunity to raise Shapiro if you wanted to by nudging you into commenting on the tag you added, and your only complaint was about Toto. Any sane and honest person would conclude that's consensus for Shapiro, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I no longer have your youthful stamina and I am unable to respond to every one of your many, many comments made over the last six months, nor does WP:EDITCONSENSUS require me to do so to maintain my objection to the material. Gamaliel (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Guess you missed the part where I just said you were still responding, just not about the Shapiro quote you had restored to the article (which no one complained about). VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Is our encyclopedia turning into a tabloid filled with Wikipedia:Attack pages and WP:COATRACKS as a result of partisan opinion winning over WP:PAG? What happened to balance? Where is NPOV? Why am I not seeing more common sense discussions relating to this article instead of argumentum ad hominum? I can actually answer the last question - it happens when an argument lacks substantive rationale. For Pete's sake, people - just look at the Reception section and tell me why you think it doesn't fail miserably with regards to NPOV, BALANCE, UNDUE. It's an embarrassment. Atsme☯^Consult 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. The relevant policies and guidelines have been discussed throughout this talk page. In regard to the "Critical reception" section, the consensus as reported by mainstream sources is that the film has been panned by professional film critics. As WP:DUE explains, "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. 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." In film articles, critically acclaimed films will reference positive reviews in much more detail than negative reviews, and panned films will reference negative reviews in much more detail than positive reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What about a draft article?

Similar to what was done quite successfully at the highly controversial Gamergate Controversy page, I'm suggesting creating a draft article to allow discussion and improvement, without disturbing the main article. I just wanted to see if you would be warm to this idea before going ahead. HalfHat 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not think this is necessary. The debate has largely focused on referencing the Shapiro passage. I think we can still use the talk page to make progress on other elements, such as your comment about the reviews above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section "Proposed legislation", I propose a re-write to the following:

Present version:

Alan Hays, a Republican member of the Florida State Senate, saw America in theaters in July 2014 and subsequently announced his intent to propose state legislation to require middle school and high school students in Florida's public school system to see the film. Hays said, "I've looked at history books and talked to history teachers and the message the students are getting is very different from what is in the movie. It's dishonest and insulting. The students need to see the truth without political favoritism." Hays said he would not object if America was paired with a liberal film and that he would requisition copies of America from charitable groups for schools to avoid burdening Florida's taxpayers. In November 2014, Hays filed a bill in the state senate to require seeing the documentary. The Tampa Bay Times said Hays "received heavy criticism that he was foisting propaganda on children". Hays asked Neil Combee, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives, to support his bill. After Combee watched the documentary and discussed it, he agreed to file a companion bill. Combee filed the House bill in the following December, and the Times said the companion bill increased the likelihood of the legislation being adopted. The proposed bill requires all of Florida's eighth and eleventh graders to watch America. The bill includes an option for parents to opt their children out of the film screening. While D'Souza did not comment on the legislation, the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way criticized it for supporting a political documentary and as a cinematic selection by legislators rather than educators.

Hays plans to host a screening of America: Imagine the World Without Her for his legislative colleagues on February 11, 2015. Southwest Florida's television station WINK-TV reported that critics said the legislation was "propaganda and ignorant". The head of Collier County's local Libertarian Party, Jared Grifoni, did not contest the content but the attempted requirement, "We should be working to get rid of political and social engineering in schools regardless which side of the aisle is pushing it. This is the right side of the aisle pushing their agenda on students while accusing the left of the same thing."

Proposed version:

Alan Hays, a Republican member of the Florida State Senate, saw America and in November 2014 filed a bill to require that state middle and high school students see the film in schools. Hays said, "I've looked at history books and talked to history teachers and the message the students are getting is very different from what is in the movie...The students need to see the truth without political favoritism." Hays said he would not object if America was paired with a liberal film and that he would requisition copies of America from charitable groups to avoid burdening taxpayers. The Tampa Bay Times said Hays "received heavy criticism that he was foisting propaganda on children". Hays asked Neil Combee, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives, to support his bill, which Combee did by filing a companion bill in December. According to the Times, the companion bill increased the likelihood of the legislation being adopted. The legislation includes an option for parents to opt their children out of the film screening. While D'Souza did not comment on the bills, the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way criticized it for supporting a political documentary and as a cinematic selection by legislators rather than educators.

Southwest Florida's television station WINK-TV reported that critics said the legislation was "propaganda and ignorant". The head of Collier County's local Libertarian Party, Jared Grifoni, did not contest the content but criticized the attempted requirement, saying "We should be working to get rid of political and social engineering in schools regardless which side of the aisle is pushing it. This is the right side of the aisle pushing their agenda on students while accusing the left of the same thing."

References

Rationale: improved syntax, shortening, avoids WP:CRYSTAL (for the proposed screening). – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you could cut more. For example, how important is the Libertarian response? Why was the bill filled, what is the current status, and what is the major criticism is what should be here.Casprings (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In my sandbox, I put in the drafts so the comparison can be seen. First, I think we should keep the bit about watching the documentary twice -- once in middle school (eighth grade) and and once in high school (eleventh grade). Also, it's not WP:CRYSTAL to say that Hays plans to screen the documentary. It's like saying a distributor plans to release a film, which is wholly acceptable. Maybe it is not clear enough here, but he wants to screen the documentary to improve passage of legislation, which I think is relevant to note here. To reply to Casprings about the Libertarian Party perspective, it is a local party whose perspective a news outlet mentioned. If there are more, from the Republican and Democratic Parties, they can be included too. The copy-editing itself is fine by me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• too long Suggesting in lieu of long versions:

Alan Hays, a Republican member of the Florida State Senate, filed a bill to require that it be shown to middle and high school students. Neil Combee, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives, filed a companion bill. The legislation includes an option for parents to have their children not see the film. People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, criticized it as a cinematic selection by legislators rather than educators. Critics said the legislation was "propaganda and ignorant".

Although we would be better off reporting the specific critics holding those opinions. One paragraph is surely enough here. Collect (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We can add a summary paragraph at the top if more direct wording is needed, but I think the level of detail is otherwise appropriate and can follow that summary. Wikipedia is beneficial in pooling together otherwise-scattered detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request disabled, while discussion continues. You might like to make the changes to Draft:America: Imagine the World Without Her and reactivate once you have agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The reception section seems far longer than needed.

Is there any reason this needs a spiralling wall of text to cover the reception? From what I've seen, reception sections usually cover a couple of reviewers, a rotten tomatoes score and box office performance, and not a whole lot more. It's also a horribly written quote farm full of redundant points. HalfHat 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC) fixed at 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Halfhat, developed film articles sample more than just two reviews. We can reduce the sampling here, though, but keep in mind that the section also contains a minority view in the review from Breitbart.com. Per WP:DUE, "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it," so we do need to keep "sufficient detail" to offset the minority view. I would advocate for definitely keeping Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Los Angeles Times since they are circulated in print. Maybe among the other reviews we can determine which commentators have reviewed other films before, to ensure that they do it routinely, rather than as a one-off. As for the quote farming, well, I was probably applying WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV a bit strongly. We can paraphrase some quotes after we figure out what reviews to keep. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Couple was the wrong word, sorry. I'll respond properly in a bit. I've got to go now. IRL stuff. HalfHat 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the main issue is the number of quotes. It needs paraphrased. Look at the aggregaters, and summerize the main key points. HalfHat 21:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to paraphrase what I can in a more straightforward manner when the page protection expires. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

On that I agree. But, this is something that has been hotly disputed. If we are going to cut down, the first thing might be to get a general agreement about what the different viewpoints are and how much text is needed to represent each. I think the text representing mainstream reviewers should be about the same as the rotten tomatoes percentages. But how much weight do you give to political comments about the movie?Casprings (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tap the breaks on making significant, unilateral changes for a while, Erik. The admin warning stating "if reverting resumes without unambiguous consensus upon unprotection, blocks will be forthcoming" applies to everyone, so let's get further changes ironed out here first. VictorD7 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideally in the pro critic section we would just cover the aggregations, perhaps a brief summary statement, and maybe a couple of quotes chosen to represent the negative sentiment followed by one to represent the positive sentiment. In my opinion the view that we can only include a positive quote if we have five paragraphs of mostly redundant negative quotations is misguided. Our mandate is to cover the various salient points of view, and clearly the positive reception to a film is a significant view worth covering. There's nothing in policy mandating that we precisely allocate character space to each view in a mathematical proportion based on our evaluation of each side's weight. Leading off with the aggregations, summary statement, and having more negative than positive quotes (2 or 3 to 1) easily avoids getting anywhere near a false equivalence, while clearly describing both sides in a concise manner. The Political commentary section could be reduced to a couple of liberal quotes and a couple of conservative ones, or we could shorten the pro critics' section without dramatically altering the Political commentator section, since political punditry is a separate category, and Erik has taken a good first step toward arranging the political commentary in a logical, thematic structure. VictorD7 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are frequently used to determine the proper weight given in sampling reviews; a panned film article's critical reception section will mainly sample negative reviews. Considering that the Breitbart.com review is not under either aggregator, it is especially marginal, so a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio is giving that review far too much weight. Right now we have seven reviews, all purposely from Metacritic (out of 11 available there), which is a reasonable number. We can paraphrase the existing reviews to be more straightforward, but we should not be giving Breitbart.com undue weight here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

But nowhere in what you quoted does it state that DUE weight requires that weight be represented in mathematically precise proportions. A two or three to one ratio is more than adequate to avoid UNDUE, especially when combined with the aggregation scores and/or a summary statement making the majority view extra clear. Also, the quotes themselves make it crystal clear how the negative and positive views differ. We don't need five full paragraphs of mostly redundant material. Maintaining full, neutral coverage doesn't mean we have to write a bad article. And the Rotten Tomatoes aggregation (which we're allowed to use but aren't bound by or restricted to by any means) included two other positive reviews. Toto's review (he's a more noteworthy critic) received coverage elsewhere in the media, to the extent that even matters here. With the positive reception currently only represented by one quote, there's no redundancy on that side and it should definitely not be the target of any scale down/paraphrase effort. If it was then we wouldn't be faithfully covering all sides of the reception. VictorD7 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)