Talk:Sex in a Cold Climate

Synthesis

Reverted this edit. Humphreys does not contrast the McAleese Report with Sex in a Cold Climate. Suggesting he does so - "Joe Humphreys writes that contrary to the documentary" - is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS; Humphreys wrote "A striking feature of the McAleese report is the number of women who spoke positively about the nuns, and strongly rejected allegations of physical abuse" in an article about The Magdalene Sisters, not an article about Sex in a Cold Climate. The documentary gets mentioned further on, yes, but it is not the subject of the article, or the comments.

Even if it could be included, omitting the next sentence - "Against this, the vast majority reported psychological abuse." - would be a clear breach of WP:NPOV. Likewise, omitting the explanation "Criticism from the women may have been tempered by the fact that half were living in nursing homes under the care of religious orders." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And this edit, doing the same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And again. This is the fourth time this WP:SYNTHESIS has been added. Can you please stop?! If you're reverted, it would be an idea to follow the WP:BRD process. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Fifth time... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Quoting a trusted source from the Irish Times is not a case of violating WP: NPOV. No, it is not the fifth time. My last edit was different from previous edits and tried to meet your comments in the middle. The whole Irish Times article is about the nature of laundries. The doc Sex in a cold climate is about the laundries. It is customary for film and documentary critics to consider whether a message conveyed in a doc is matching reality. So in this manner yes Joe Humphries wider claims are relevant to the article. It is notable that only did you remove my contribution of Joe Humphries quotes about the wider laundries but you also tried to downplay his comments replacing quotes with paraphrasing. You deleted the keyword critical from 'critical short coming'. On what planet is paraphrasing considered more neutral than quoting? Aerchasúr (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Your contribution is pure WP:SYNTHESIS, which is why it was removed. The quote you're using from Joe Humphreys is not about Sex in a Cold Climate. It is about the M<Aleese Report - which was published 15 years after Sex in a Cold Climate was released! The two are entirely separate issues and attempting to use a source to conflate the two is - well, a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS. Even if the synthesis problem didn't exist, there is the neutrality problem, outlined in the second paragraph above. You can't just cherrypick the bits that suit your agenda and leave out the bits that don't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)