Talk:One of Us (2017 film)

"Vaguely related"

Hi, just wondering what the rationale is behind the revert. It is unclear from the edit summary. Chubbles (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted the entire See also section I added, and your summary was in part: "Remove laundry list of vaguely conceptually-related topics. These do not appear to have a direct relation to the miniseries" So my summary was disputing your contention that they are just "vaguely" related. My additions were organizations and books dealing with the topic of this documentary, leaving and recovering from repressive religious communities, plus a docudrama about leaving the very same community. They all seem relevant to anyone reading this particular article. RobP (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess this highlights, for me, a larger problem with "see also" sections - I don't think they should be places to dump links for anything that's conceptually related but which doesn't fit into the prose text of the article. That's exactly what the list appears to be - a laundry list of things related to the topic of leaving religious communities. The MOS has little guidance about what should or should not be included in such sections, but they often, as in this case, appear to be gently POV-pushing in their choices. Chubbles (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. Even you. You are making that clear by your word choices. Calling 'See also' a "places to dump links" has the connotation that the choices are not thought out. A "laundry list" (I looked this one up to be sure) means "a long or exhaustive list", where my addition here was neither long nor exhaustive. I could certainly find more appropriate links. In any case, I do not see it as "POV-pushing" if the list contents reflect the POV/content of the article itself. For example Carl Sagan has List of peace activists in the list. One could say that this is there pushing an ant-war POV, but as Sagan was arrested as such a protester, to me it seems appropriate to be there. In the case of thsi documentary article, the point of the film is clearly the harm done by repressive religions groups, and the difficulty people encounter leaving them. Thus, I think every one of the items in my list are applicable here. RobP (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The key here, to reducing the POV (in both cases), would be to find sources that relate the works to this one, and integrate them into the reception history of the work. That would eliminate the issue of selectively choosing things that "seem appropriate to be there" - they would be deemed appropriate through having been related by independent reliable witnesses. Chubbles (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The See also section throughout WP is inconsistently used and so is clearly a very gray area for appropriate contents. I gave to blame WP management for this. RobP (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So, Unorthodox is, I think, reasonably close to tightly related (though I'm not sure they address the same sect within Hasidic Judaism), but I'd like to advocate for the rest of the list to get scrapped. (I still think the best plan would be to find a critic who discusses the two of them in tandem, but alas.) The number of creative works about leaving insular religious sects is no doubt legion (you've got the Amish, the Mennonites, the Old Believers, some wag would no doubt add the People's Temple...), and would be better suited to a list or category (which could then be placed in a "see also" section!). Chubbles (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let’s leave the See also with just the documentary then. I’ll make the edit. RobP (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)