Talk:The Hunting Ground/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The first paragraph of the article says "The film was released on February 27, 2015,[2] and was subsequently broadcast on CNN.[3]" 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 Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."

You are "strongly discouraged" from editing Wikipedia, 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. User:Anonymous5454 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. User:Anonymous5454 (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[e] 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. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am putting up a whole section on this, but wanted to point out-I do not see a link to Emily Yoffe's article on the problems with the film - it is a very detailed article and I would say, if anything is to be linked it ought to be. The article mentions it, but I do not see a link.

Recent coverage

Lots of coverage of the controversy in the Hollywood Reporter. [1][2]. Also, there are apparently now two cuts of the documentary, the "CNN cut" and the original version. Article needs an update. John Nagle (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

possible conflicht if interest in the press

• http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-hunting-ground-crew-caught-editing-wikipedia-to-make-facts-conform-to-film/article/2576792

--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you will find that story is already addressed under the "Controversy" section, "Reports of inappropriate Wikipedia edits" subsection. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd move that this section be removed as the Washington Reporter is an extremely conservative publication with the intent of discrediting the film by way of attacking one of the crew members who posted here. One article from a small, extremely one-sided publication doesn't warrant inclusion. Anonymous5454 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at the discussion of that article directly above this section, and the consensus to include it. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusations… section has only one low-quality source

The "Accusations..." section recently added has only one source, which is from a columnist (not a reporter) from an opinion-oriented publication. Since this section directly involves me, I'm asking others to take a look, and consider if it meets Wikipedia's standards. Maybe relevant, is that the author has written several such pieces about the film, without a clear disclosure of her own COI -- both in that she is a Florida State alum, and in getting her work covered in Wikipedia. I don't believe her coverage of my activities is accurate or helpful; I hope other Wikipedia editors will take a look. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

1) The author is not editing Wikipedia and is not required to make CoI disclosures. 2) Being an alumni of a certain university is a fairly distant relationship to claim a CoI over. 3) "Getting her work covered in Wikipedia" would only be a CoI if she added her work to Wikipedia. 4) You claim what she wrote is inaccurate? In what way? She provided links to Wikipedia supporting her contentions. (While we can't use Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article, using an independent source that looked at Wikipedia and wrote and article based on what they saw, is permitted. If it were not, it would be impossible for Wikipedia to have ANY articles that addressed Wikipedia itself.) Carl Henderson (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You say "I don't believe her coverage of my activities is accurate or helpful", but give no explanation as to why, beyond misunderstanding COI and impugning her motives. I'd need more from you to take your claims seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.245.76 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the Wikipedia-related section. The only source it cites is the one Washington Examiner article. In addition to that having a spotty history as being a reliable source for anything other than its own opinion, it's WP:UNDUE to include a section about the article it criticizes because of its criticism. If a bunch of other sources pick up the Wikipedia angle, I wouldn't have any objection to restoring, however. I have not done sufficient digging to have an opinion about any of the claims therein, though we should obviously be looking into them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

While I did not create that (now-deleted) section, I did do significant editing on it (fixing references, rewriting some possibly copyvio-level similar phrasing, trying to edit for clarity, and attempting to add context about Wikipedia rules on CoI). I will look for other RS reporting on the issue and restore/expand that section if such exist. I don't know if there is an official policy on such, but I do think it is important for avoid even the appearance of a cover-up in conflict of interest editing, and would like to suggest we err on the side of inclusion in such cases. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Tallahassee Democrat is a reliable source. http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2015/11/20/hunting-ground-crew-member-alters-wikipedia-pages-conform-film/76102516/ It's been around since 1905 and was owned by Knight and Gannett. --Nbauman (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I restored this based on the Gannett pick-up of the article, although I agree with its original deletion, which I should have done myself when I added the CNN airdate link. It looks like there may be more activity around this article as the airdate approached, so we all need to remain vigilant. AyaK (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor edits. I also added a sentence stating "Such edits can violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules" (with source) and added two other sources to paragraph. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll just say for the record that I don't have an objection to it being restored given the additional sources. I feel conflicted about the idea that avoiding perception of a cover-up should affect content or otherwise play a role in editorial judgment, though I do get the importance of being clear about COI-related rules in a public-facing example (ensuring others don't think Wikipedia can be manipulated to advance personal interests). Anyway, thanks for finding additional sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. As far as I know "avoiding even the appearance of a cover-up" is not a rule; it's just my opinion and best advice. I did notice when searching for RS reports on the issue that the story had started showing up on many blogs, including a report excerpting the original Washington Examiner article on the very popular Instapundit, titled "It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Coverup". Carl Henderson (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Edwardpatrickalva says that the source is a columnist from an opinion-oriented publication. To clarify, opinion pieces are reliable sources under Wikipedia WP:RS:

WP:BIASED "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

--Nbauman (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

An unqualified statement that "opinion pieces are reliable sources under Wikipedia WP:RS" is misleading. That something could be considered reliable in some cases does not mean it is always reliable. WP:RS is contextual, not binary. It's certainly true that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject", but the opinion piece is only reliable for that author's opinion on a subject, and it does not itself establish the significance of that perspective such that its publication alone demands inclusion on Wikipedia. It's sort of moot at this point, though, since other sources have picked it up and I don't think anybody is strongly objecting to its inclusion aside from Alva right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that opinion pieces can be WP:RSs. Saying that a source is an opinion piece is not a sufficient reason to reject a source from WP. --Nbauman (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point. They can be RS. This isn't an argument about rejecting the source from Wikipedia, it's about rejecting the content that source was used as sole justification for. For most subjects, opinion pieces are only reliable for the opinions of the author. They do not establish the significance of that opinion, however. But again, since it's no longer just the one source, I don't think anybody is arguing for that anymore. If you want to debate it further, I'd suggest WP:RSN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed to see that this section exists at all, let alone the fact that it has been expanded to such a ridiculous length. The articles used to generate this section are from far-right tabloids and small online gossip rags published with the intent of discrediting the film, and are obviously biased and not worthy of inclusion. Additionally, the way that one article from one of these biased tabloids has been used (that is, over and over again at the end of sentences to make it seem as if there are several sources being cited despite the fact that the information is all coming from the same article, CLEAR WP:UNDUE) is way out of bounds. Anonymous5454 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous5454 wrote: “expanded to such a ridiculous length”. The “Reports of inappropriate Wikipedia edits” section is 100 words including the title. That is hardly a ridiculous length.

Anonymous5454 wrote: “from far-right tabloids”. First, I strongly disagree with your implied assertion that conservative or right-of-center news sources are somehow inherently automatically biased and unworthy of being cited in Wikipedia. Second, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was picked up by three other sources—two physical newspapers (Tallahassee Democrat & Palm Beach Post) and an online-only site (Independent Journal Review). Finally, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was factually correct, and is easily verifiable by looking at the links included in that story to Wikipedia history logs (which I assume the reporters for those other sources cited did when writing their articles).

Anonymous5454 wrote: “small online gossip rags published with the intent of discrediting the film”. This is hyperbole. Three of the cited sources are real world print newspapers (Washington Examiner, Tallahassee Democrat, Palm Beach Post), and while the Washington Examiner does tend to be conservative, none have a reputation as “gossip rags”. And all of the sources cited predate the film by years or even decades, and can't conceivably have been published for the purpose of “discrediting the film”. If you are saying the articles themselves were published for the purpose of “discrediting the film”, I would say that they are more discrediting to Wikipedia, a situation that we only exacerbate if we hide the evidence of misuse of the encyclopedia.

Anonymous5454 wrote: “obviously biased” is a matter of opinion. It is a natural human tendency to see sources of news we agree with as being less biased than those we disagree with. As for ”not worthy of inclusion” I would point you to the preceding discussion that determined that this section was appropriate. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what one editor thinks?

The Rambling Man removed the following from the "Reports of inappropriate Wikipedia edits" section:

As of November 24th, 2015, Jimmy Wales was considering proposals for tightening existing rules on such edits in order to try to avoid similar conflicts of interest in the future.

While I am generally in sympathy with the removal of that sentence—as Wikipedia has not taken any sort of systemic action based on alleged COI edits to The Hunting Ground. However, I do want to point out that Jimmy Wales's opinion counts for much more than "what one editor thinks". Carl Henderson (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. Jimmy Wales is not speaking as an editor but rather as a public figure here. Tim069 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's nothing to do with Jimmy Wales, the way Wikipedia works is governed by consensus. Moreover, it's somewhat trivial and crystal balling to add this kind of conjecture. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence needed to go. If something comes of Jimmy Wales remarks—because of this incident—then we may want to revisit it. Carl Henderson (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References

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 Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships."

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia 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.)[n 1]

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.[3] 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.[4][5]

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)

Yes, the COI editor should stop. This is at AN/I now. Edit requests can be made on the talk page by a COI editor. See WP:COI. John Nagle (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually looked at the very few edits Alva made here? There is no violation. They declared their COI, edited carefully, and were collaborative. No problem so far, and the same for the Jameis Winston article. A COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies, then judge based on those infractions. While it's wisest for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus. If Alva had edit warred and shown ownership behavior, it would be another matter entirely, but he didn't. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing "See also" Section

I am removing the recently added "See Also" section directing readers to an article on Rolling Stone's now discredited A Rape on Campus article. Presenting that article along in a "See Also" section seems to me to imply that The Hunting Ground has been similarly discredited. That's not the case. While reasonable objections have been raised to some of the content of the film, the situations are in no way comparable. If other editors object, I welcome your reasoning and am in no way adverse to being reverted. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't discredit it but it is part of the overall 'conversation' ongoing for the last year and is completely relevant. 108.115.70.91 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and I see you have reverted my removal of that "See Also" section. Let's see what sort of consensus we can reach here among the various editors. I would suggest that a "See Also" section that had additional items other than a single instance of a discredited media allegation of rape, might work. Especially, if the items were presented without additional editorial comment. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems relevant. I edited the section, though. Other links might be appropriate. By the way, "seems to me to imply that The Hunting Ground has been similarly discredited. That's not the case." means you're editing out of your own opinion. I read the article, and that's what the controversy section is about. You declaring a side that contradicts the article is irrelevant to actual editing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Other links will definitely work, no "might" about it. I agree with Carl Henderson, adding just the one link as if it pertains to this article does imply that an opinion is fact, and that this film has been similarly discredited, when according to reliable sources it has not. I'm not sure what the Rolling Stone rape on campus story article has to do with the this article, except it 'seems relevant' without explanation. I will leave it, but I've added links which are also relevant. Ongepotchket (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why people feel the need to express opinions here and with links somehow, but the new links do fit, so whatever works. DreamGuy (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The current link to "A Rape on Campus" in the "See Also" section now contains the following text next to the link "Allegations, controversies, and the full retraction of a Rolling Stone gang rape story." I wanted to say again that I really don't the implied comparison in Wikipedia's "voice". I would be a lot more comfortable it there was just a typical See Also link that was a link with no commentary. Carl Henderson (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So why is the Rolling Stone article link necessary? There have been multiple cases of campus rape or alleged campus rape with their own Wikipedia articles, so why pick the most shamelessly false one to put into the See also section. Seems like POV pushing to imply the film is false. Brustopher (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The article reflects prominence in proportion to the coverage of reliable sources. If there's a more widely reported campus rape story I've missed it. 166.172.63.163 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Anonymous5454, I've reverted your recent changes [3]. They were significant and not discussed. I don't necessarily disagree with all of them but I'd like to open the discussion first. Could you outline your justifications for the removals/additions here? D.Creish (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Anonymous5454's talk page and saw that he is indefinitely topic-banned from "Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles." If The Hunting Ground article qualifies as Lady Gaga-related article, his edits here may be in violation of that ban. As this article was featured on a 28 February 2015 DIY about Lady Gaga (... that Lady Gaga recorded the song "Till It Happens to You" for the 2015 film The Hunting Ground?"), I believe that his edits here could very likely be seen as a violation. Whether or not his edits do violate that ban, I continue to think those edits are inappropriate for the reasons I outlined in my response in the "Accusations… section has only one low-quality source" section above. Carl Henderson (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the ANI:

User Anonymous5454 (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [15], [16], [17], [18]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [19], [20], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling....

That sounds an awful lot like what he was doing in the discussion here with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Hunting_Ground#Untitled The issue involved WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I thought the entry should include a short summary of Emily Yoffe's criticisms in Slate; Anonymous5454 cut it down to a single sentence which didn't explain the issues, and added a rebuttal of equal length that didn't address the issues [4] I didn't want to fight about it with Anonymous5454 at the time, because he was doing to me what he was doing to the other editors that he was topic-banned for. It's unpleasant to spend a lot of time trying to explain something to another editor, and have him dismiss it all by essentially saying, "I don't agree." Now that I see he's been banned for his interactions with others, I'm more confident in concluding that it is worth fighting about. I think it would improve the article to add my summary of Yoffe's article again, which has been cited even more in WP:RSs since that time. Any comments? --Nbauman (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My only concern about adding more about the Emily Yoffe Slate article is that the Controversy section seems to be coming to dominate the article. While the film is controversial and the article is highly referenced, I want to be sure we are not giving undue weight to the critics, too. A possible solution could be to look at beefing up the general content of the article at the same time you put some of the deleted Yoffe stuff back in. I'd also like to hear from other editors, too. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

To address the pretty tiresome and inflammatory criticisms laid out above predicated upon an example of my editing behavior from nearly three years ago, I'd like to point out that the articles that Nbauman and Carl Henderson are using to justify their massive additions to the page's "controversy" section are from far-right websites who's information shouldn't be included in the article at all given the fact that they promote a particularly biased view of the documentary. Hell, one of the articles that's cited several times flat out calls the documentary "one-sided", presenting a clear bias. It's not your job to "explain the issues" presented in one article. You're supposed to present the general idea that they put forth in a brief sentence. Certain articles don't get to dominate wikipedia pages because they present several points. There is a massive problem with WP:UNDUE in the article the way it currently stands, as the vocal minority of critics of this film have been given a massive bully-pulpit in the form of the "controversy" section as every one of their points have been addressed extensively, a courtesy not extended to the much larger amount of praise this film has received. I was previously under the impression that an article only tangentially related to Lady Gaga would therefore not be considered to be included in my topic ban, but I don't want to violate it so I'm going to stop my edits here. This aside, I'd just point out that Carl Henderson and Nbauman have added thousands of characters of information to this page without being challenged and without presenting a clear reason for why their edits are justified. As they are introducing new information to the page, the responsibility falls on their shoulders to justify it, something they've not done (nor have their justified the use of far-right tabloids, publications clearly not fit for this website). The article should be reverted back to the way it was before their extensive additions were included until they do so. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous5454, I addressed most of your points in a section above, but as is often the case with Wikipedia talk pages, things have gotten a bit disorganized, so I will repeat them here:

Anonymous5454 wrote: “expanded to such a ridiculous length”. The “Reports of inappropriate Wikipedia edits” section is 100 words including the title. That is hardly a ridiculous length.

Anonymous5454 wrote: “from far-right tabloids”. First, I strongly disagree with your implied assertion that conservative or right-of-center news sources are somehow inherently automatically biased and unworthy of being cited in Wikipedia. Second, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was picked up by three other sources—two physical newspapers (Tallahassee Democrat & Palm Beach Post) and an online-only site (Independent Journal Review). Finally, the initial story in the Washington Examiner was factually correct, and is easily verifiable by looking at the links included in that story to Wikipedia history logs (which I assume the reporters for those other sources cited did when writing their articles).

Anonymous5454 wrote: “small online gossip rags published with the intent of discrediting the film”. This is hyperbole. Three of the cited sources are real world print newspapers (Washington Examiner, Tallahassee Democrat, Palm Beach Post), and while the Washington Examiner does tend to be conservative, none have a reputation as “gossip rags”. And all of the sources cited predate the film by years or even decades, and can't conceivably have been published for the purpose of “discrediting the film”. If you are saying the articles themselves were published for the purpose of “discrediting the film”, I would say that they are more discrediting to Wikipedia, a situation that we only exacerbate if we hide the evidence of misuse of the encyclopedia.

Anonymous5454 wrote: “obviously biased” is a matter of opinion. It is a natural human tendency to see sources of news we agree with as being less biased than those we disagree with. As for ”not worthy of inclusion” I would point you to the preceding discussion that determined that this section was appropriate.

In addition, your most recent post above raises several other issues that I would like to respond to:

Anonymous5454 wrote: "address the pretty tiresome and inflammatory criticisms laid out above predicated upon an example of my editing behavior from nearly three years ago". The imposed on ANI were not imposed "nearly three years" ago, but were initiated on 12 March 2014—approximately 20 months ago, and are still in place according to the list at WP:RESTRICT.

Anonymous5454 wrote: " Carl Henderson and Nbauman have added thousands of characters of information to this page without being challenged and without presenting a clear reason for why their edits are justified". All of my edits have been well sourced, and many have been discussed here at the talk page. I've also added neutral and positive information about the The Hunting Ground, as well as correcting or removing some cases of outsourced or inaccurate information critical of the film. Additionally, in the comment posted immediately above your latest post here, I expressed concerns about undue weight saying, "the Controversy section seems to be coming to dominate the article. While the film is controversial and the article is highly referenced, I want to be sure we are not giving undue weight to the critics, too".

Anonymous5454 wrote: "Hell, one of the articles that's cited several times flat out calls the documentary "one-sided", presenting a clear bias". If a source having a opinion were a valid reason that information from that source should not be included, then all of the positive reviews and comments from articles praising the film should also be removed. That would leave us with... well nothing. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Slate (magazine) is a "far-right website"? Slate is clearly a WP:RS. Slate conducts fact-checking, its editors are established professionals, Yoffe is all about fact-checking, and it has been cited repeatedly by other WP:RSs, and by law professors. Unless anyone seriously doubts that, I need say no more about it.

I think my discussion with Anonymous5454 above shows that I've tried to engage him in a rational discussion, and develop an article following WP guidelines, but he has consistently engaged in tendentious editing and seized ownership of the article. I'm not surprised that WP admins came to the same conclusion and he was topic banned. I think I've discussed it as much as can reasonably be expected from any WP editor, or any fair-minded person. My comments stand and I doubt that I will have any more to say to him.

I'm going to revert his deletions of my summary of Emily Yoffe's article. It violates WP:NPOV and many other WP policies to ignore the criticisms of what is, among other things, an attack movie on an individual. --Nbauman (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said Slate was a far-right magazine; I said that the others used (National Review particularly) were well-known far-right news outlets. Additionally, none of my edits violated WP:NPOV simply because I removed non-reliable information from sources widely considered to be far-right, as well as the one critic of the film (the Slate article) as it represents a WP:FRINGE opinion. I'm confused as to why you've taken my edits so personally and have attempted to attack me personally. I'd also like to point out that you made your own bias clear here; you flat out admitted that you consider the film to be an "attack movie on an individual". That inelegant description makes it relatively clear that you have personal issues with this film and have pushed for these edits as a result of these issues, demonstrating actual WP:NPOV. As I said before, all of this very clearly shows that you are 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, but I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you about it as you don't seem willing to justify any of your edits on this talk page but are more than willing to revert mine and claim that I'm not justifying my own; it's obvious that this is a pointless debate. Good luck with this article. Please refrain from attacking my character in the future, and if you feel the need to do so, at least find something more substantive than a topic ban that was implemented two years ago. Anonymous5454 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Placement and wording of Variety "worst of the year" review

I removed the following sentence from the Controvery/Charges of inaccuracy section, "When Variety asked film critics for their choices for the best and worst films of 2015, film critic Ella Taylor named The Hunting Ground as one of the worst films of 2015 and accused the film makers of using shoddy journalism.[43]" and added "In a rare negative review, Variety film critic, Ella Taylor, named The Hunting Ground as one of the worst films of 2015 and accused the film makers of using shoddy journalism.[33]" to the end of the Reception/Critical paragraph about bad reviews. D.Creish reverted my change, with the comment "rv editorializing and better where it was".

I disagree with D.Creish's reversion, and think that a sentence about a bad review belongs in the section with the other reviews, rather than in the Controvery/Charges of inaccuracy section. Nor do I think it is editorializing to open my sentence with "In a rare negative review" as that paragraph had already established that the film had a 92% positive rating among critics. So in the interests of BRD, I'm starting a discussion here. Comments? Carl Henderson (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not providing a fuller explanation.

Re: editorializing Even assuming the 92% number is accurate and relevant, that’s 1 in 11. If every 11th car is a Lamborghini, Lamborghinis are not rare. Or a more analogous (binary) example: if 1 out of 11 residents are non-citizens, non-citizens are not rare.

What about "In an uncommon negative review" instead of a "In a rare negative review"?Carl Henderson (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: placement The “shoddy journalism” criticism is the fundamental one. The critic rates the movie poorly because of (what she views as) shoddy journalism, rather than the “shoddy journalism” being a consequence of a poorly-made movie. This was my reasoning. D.Creish (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All of the other sources cited in the Controvery/Charges of inaccuracy are news articles or op-ed pieces; there are no other reviews referenced in that section. The Ella Taylor sentence is out of place and would make more sense grouped with the rest of the reviews. Additionally, the Variety piece doesn't list the film as "worst of the year" but instead, under the "empty prestige" category. (Each critic was allowed to pick one "worst" and one "empty prestige" film for the article.)

I would suggest this alternate wording:

In an uncommon negative review Variety film critic, Ella Taylor accused The Hunting Ground of "shoddy journalism" and called it a a "loaded piece of agitprop that plays fast and loose with statistics and our sympathy with victims of campus sexual assault".[43] Carl Henderson (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carl Henderson: After some thinking I agree with you: this goes better in the Critical section. I like your updated wording as well. I might change the "uncommon" language - maybe "one of the few negatives reviews..." but I don't think the difference is significant and I wouldn't object to your wording. D.Creish (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I will make that change. How about this language: "While most reviews were positive, Variety film critic, Ella Taylor accused The Hunting Ground of "shoddy journalism" and called it a a "loaded piece of agitprop that plays fast and loose with statistics and our sympathy with victims of campus sexual assault"? Let me know if you don't think that works. Carl Henderson (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Even better. My involvement here has delayed your improvement of the article by a week. I don't know why my initial judgement was off but I'll avoid this article until I do. I apologize and thank you for your patience. D.Creish (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all! Your involvement helped, and the article is better for it. If you had not raised issues with that sentence (which I did not write) I never would have noticed that it inaccurately referred to THG as the critic's "worst of the year" pick. So it all ended with a more accurate article. So thank you, too! Carl Henderson (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new edits

With the renewed interest in the film and its Wikipedia article many months ago, I stepped away. I was pleased to see many improvements to the article. There are, however, a few lingering inaccuracies, missing sources (that do exist), and relevant facts that have not been added. I have added comments to a recent copy of the article in a Google Doc, which I think is an easier format for review than adding each suggestion here on the talk page. I would appreciate if other editors would be willing to review my comments there. I believe they are all pretty straightforward, but am open to comments. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Edwardpatrickalva: I disagree with expecting other editors to review proposed changes on Google Docs. That document is not part of the history of this talk page. Please propose your proposed changes, one by one, on this talk page, to maximize opportunities for collaborative editing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. Here are several specific suggestions to get started:

1. The second paragraph of the lead section says "citation needed." Here are two: http://www.vogue.com/2210627/college-sexual-assault-harassment-annie-e-clark-andrea-pino/ (which right now is "ref name=Vogue" elsewhere in the article) and Sneed, Tierney (February 27, 2015). "'The Hunting Ground' Subjects Defend Title IX Campaign".
2. At the end of the Reception/Critical section, add: In March 2016, the film also received an MTV Movie Award nomination for Best Documentary.
3. While I am not aware of an independent source stating it, the vomiting video clip identified in the "Charges of inaccuracy" section appeared only in the Sundance version of the film, not the final release. The film itself may be consulted to confirm. What is the best thing to do with such an item? Should it remain in the article? Is it an important point to include?
4. Is it typical for a Wikipedia article to include awards that were not won? I do not recall seeing something like "but it failed to make the final list of five nominees announced on January 14, 2016" in other Wikipedia articles.

-Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Cullen328, any thoughts on this? OK to make these changes? -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad D.Creish Carl Henderson BullRangifer Nbauman Rhododendrites Nagle -- could one of you take a look at the suggestions above? -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if nominations for awards are worth mentioning. Is that MTV award one awarded based on online voting? The reference titled "'The Hunting Ground' Among PGA Documentary Film Nominees". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 23, 2015" is mis-titled. The article is actually titled "Producers Guild Nominees: Complete List". It's not a article about the film; the film gets a one-line entry in a list. That should be fixed. Other references now need to be checked. The film did win the PGA's Stanley Kramer award, which is significant and already in the article. John Nagle (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Good observation on the PGA award, Nagle. I found where the Kilday/Hollywood Reporter article was added, and it looks like there's a straightforward explanation; when Carl Henderson added it last year, that title and URL were accurate. Presumably, the Hollywood Reporter made a change since then.

According to MTV Movie Awards, "nominees are decided by producers and executives at MTV." The awards appear to be notable by Wikipedia standards, and there are a number of examples of nominations for these awards being mentioned in Wikipedia articles -- sometimes without the independent reporting (Elle) that exists in this case. (The final awards are determined by online vote.)

I believe nominations that earn independent media coverage are worth including. Certainly, some awards are more notable than others; when independent media mentions a certain nomination, that validates its importance. My earlier question was about whether emphasizing that this film did not earn a nomination, after being shortlisted, is appropriate. The shortlisting was reported in several outlets including the NY Times and PBS. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. It looks like the original PGA link [5] was changed to a redirect at the Hollywood Reporter once they had the full list. The Wikipedia reference should be to the archive link. Other than that, awards look reasonable. Anything that made the shortlist for a major award is probably worth a mention. Nominations are always a problem. We had a big headache some years ago in a bio article for someone who gets himself nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize each year, never wins it, and publicizes the nomination. John Nagle (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the links Edwardpatrickalva provided for the second paragraph and as they support the claim of that paragraph, so I added those as references. I also added the line about the MTV Movie Awards nomination, using his suggested Elle reference, as I concur that the MTV Movie Awards are notable. Finally, I added an archive link to the original article in the Hollywood Reporter citation.

In reference to Edwardpatrickalva's question about the "but it failed to make the final list of five nominees announced on January 14, 2016" line: I wrote it that way because most lists of Oscar contenders for a year, only list the five final nominees (except for Best Picture, where there are now ten). If I had not included that line, confusion and the appearance of inaccuracy could have resulted should someone have clicked on the adjacent wikilink to "Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature" and not seen The Hunting Ground listed as a nominee.

As for the removal of the On Harvard Time parody vomit scene incorrectly included on the Sundance cut but removed for the final release cut of The Hunting Ground, I would agree that such a correction should be noted, but I can't find a reliable source citation for it. If anyone knows of one, it would help improve the article. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nagle and Carl Henderson for working through those. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Further requests for accuracy/completeness

I appreciate the recent efforts of Cullen328, Nagle, and Carl Henderson. There are still some significant problems with the article; some important pieces are mischaracterized or just plain wrong. The news discourse around the film has been complex, so I'm not surprised to see these issues remain, and I don't doubt that the errors exist due to good faith efforts; but Wikipedia's info on the film still contains inaccuracies and significant omissions. Here are some further requests, which in my view will address all remaining significant problems: -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

A simple addition:

The film was also released on Netflix in March 2016. [6] [7] [8] [9]

-Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lead section, "Critics of the film...", details the issues critics raised, but does not detail the rebuttal. Since this is a summary of what comes below, I suggest removing the second of the three sentences; state that there was criticism and rebuttal in the lead, and leave the specifics of both to the section below. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Charges of inaccuracy

The Emily Yoffe piece was strongly rebutted in Jezebel. Suggest adding this, as the second sentence: Jezebel writer Anna Merlan subsequently reported omissions and inaccuracies in Yoffe's piece.

The Crimson mention says "excerpts," but should say "an excerpt." On the excerpt itself, to address Carl Henderson's point above -- perhaps this could simply specify that the first cut of the movie was criticized, even if we can't find sourcing (apart from the film itself) that explicitly notes that the scene was removed.

The Jesse Singal piece cited here was updated after publication with a significant response we sent in, which is not acknowledged in the Wikipedia article. Here's the issue: as Singal says, the Lisak research has indeed been criticized. But the (one) statistic we cited is consistent not only with Lisak’s research, but also with the study that Singal references that critiques Lisak’s study. In other words, the statistic that "Less than 8% of men in college commit more than 90% of sexual assaults", from Lisak's peer reviewed paper, is consistent with the only two studies that exist about repeat offenders on college campuses. Given the update now shown at the bottom of Singal's article, I propose modifying the last sentence of the paragraph, and adding another sentence, as follows:

Writing for New York, Jesse Singal criticized the film's use of one statistic from a controversial research paper by Dr. David Lisak, stating that the paper's claims were inaccurate. New York later updated the article with a response from the filmmakers. The filmmakers stated that the specific statistic used in the film was accurate, and was supported by the only two peer reviewed studies on the subject.

Harvard Law School

The first two paragraphs concern widely covered communication of a group of professors, and our response; that is legitimate. The third paragraph, on Jeannie Suk, however, brings the discourse down to the level of a single critic, and her commentary is only very tenuously connected to the film. The first footnote is to an advocacy organization's blog; and the New Yorker piece cited extends to a comparison with an individual not mentioned in the film. I suggest removing the third paragraph, though the final sentence (on Janet Halley) is not as problematic. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Reports of COI

The final section focuses heavily on the perspective of a single opinion columnist. I believe the results of the discussion about my actions show that her characterization was based on a flawed understanding of Wikipedia, and an incomplete review of my various disclosures. I don't think the coverage of this point is fair or accurate, but due to my direct involvement I will leave it to others to consider the specifics. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new section

Under the "Reception" heading, I'd like to suggest a short new section noting the extensive, and well-documented, impact of the film on college campuses. This is a significant impact of the film, and I think editors should also consider adding a one sentence mention in the lead section. Here's a draft; if this is accepted, I'd be happy to fill in the reference details:

=== Colleges and universities === The film has shown at over 700 campus and community screenings. Since the film's release, at least one university (the University of Delaware) has instituted sexual assault policy reforms. The president of Fairbanks University in Alaska apologized for sexual assaults on his campus and cited the contribution of The Hunting Ground to raising awareness.

The Hunting Ground has screened in more than a dozen universities in the United Kingdom, including University of Oxford and University of Cambridge. In Australia, the film has sparked “The Hunting Ground Australia Project,” a nationwide campaign which brought the film to 23 universities of the 39 total universities nationally and has resulted in the implementation of new policies and training across the country.

-Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Kamilah Willingham reportedly offered false evidende to the police, Sofie Karasek is not mentioned at all in this article

The article mentions two people featured in the film, but really Kamilah Willingham is much more prominentnly featured - or was - than these two. It was reported she had offered the cops a condom and stated it was from the attack = not on a fellow student I think the article ahs that wrong = but on Willingham's friend - but the DNA testing done much later showed it had Willingham's DNA, and that of some unidentified man - not the guy she accused. If that is true, it ought to be pointed out. 1. She was the main character featured in the promotions for the film. 2. She actually offered false evidence to the police.

As for Sofie Karasek - she sued UC Berkerley and lost - and per the court documents online, her complaint was, after getting into bed with some guy on a Democrat Club field trip = I guess they were in one room to save some money - the guy massaged her -with all her clothes on - and she claims she was 'frozen" with fear and so did no object - there were three other women in the room - what was the guy going to do, kill all of them so they would not testify against him? Karasek has been presented as a "Survivor" for this - Joe Biden, who apparently can not do any original research (search for Joe Biden and plagiarism to get that little dig) made a point of giving Karasek the creepy stare - two inches from her face - and telling her how courageous she was - f0r being paralyzed because some camp follower loser tries to make a clumsy move?

I think these points need to be made in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A466:DBD6:41DC:DB9 (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything to indicate anyone objects to me putting more info on Kamilah Willingham in the article, so I am inclined to try to edit.

Again, to be clear, these are the points:

Kamilah Willingham and Sofie Karasek are prominent in the movie, apparently.

Willingham reportedly claimed a used condom had been used by the man she accused of assaulting her friend when the friend was drunk - but testing showed the condom had Willingham's DNA, and the DNA Of some unknown man - not the man Willingham accused nor the friend who was allegedly assaulted.

As for Karasek - her lawsuit against UC Berkeley indicated she was massaged with all her clothes on in a room with at least two other women present I believe the film did not accurately portray this - I think it has Karasek complaining the school did not take her seriously, but does not explain the alleged misconduct fell short of a violent or forceful assault.

So, if there are no objections I will put that in the "Content" section.

Size of Controversy section

As I said earlier, I'm a bit concerned that the "Controversy" section is growing to dominate the article. However, in spite of my concerns, I added more to it this afternoon (while removing a paragraph that I thought was only tangentially related to the article).

My current thoughts are:

• 1) the controversy over the film is a huge part of the story of the film, and should be reflected here,
• 2) currently, the Controversy section breaks down to 530 words about issues raised by opponents of the film and 229 words devoted (just under half) to the filmmaker's responses, so even in that section, multiple sides of the issue are represented, and
• 3) the best way to avoid even an appearance of undue weight is to beef up the rest of the article, rather than minimizing the controversy surrounding the film. (I did my bit for that today by adding a sentence about "The Hunting Ground" making the "Best Documentary Feature" shortlist.)

What do the rest of you think? Carl Henderson (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically, there should be no need fir a Controversy section in any article since NPOV says we should talk about it throughout the article. I don't know if that'll really work with this article, though. Responses make a good section. The lead, however, should reflect the whole article. The lead is very much not about the Controversy section. A fair lead nees to mention it, especially since so many people just read the lead. DreamGuy (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I took a crack at capturing the main points in the lede.Mattnad (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I did a rewrite of your lead paragraph sentences on the controversy. I tried to make it more in the active voice, and be more specific. I hope reads better now. See what you think. I also added some content to the "Content" section to expand on what the film covers, and to help balance out controversy section, so that it does not seem overwhelm the rest of the article.Carl Henderson (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks.Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the controversy regarding Kamilah Willingham is somewhat understated - the lead of the article says the movie concentrates on two women without much discussion of the Kamilah Willingham case - and there is NO mention I can find of Sofie Karasek who is going on tour in a sense, as one of the people featured in the movie. Her case should be discussed because new information is coming out seeming to indicate the level of her "assault" is much lower than it's been implied it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD0:6E50:A433:5DB1:3266:7D65 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sofie Karasek is not mentioned in this article it seems. But she has been touted as one of the stars of the film. She got to talk with Joe Biden and such - but her lawsuit against UC Berkeley seems to reveal that her claim of being "assaulted" was overblown. I believe this should be mentioned in the film - this article's emphasis on the other two women who as far as I can tell were NOT discredited is not really a neutral point of view - if half the women you featured in your documentary are discredited, that needs to be mentioned in a review of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:A466:DBD6:41DC:DB9 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts.

This revert didn't really have much of an explanation beyond a lack of discussion, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see which parts are objected to and why. Point-by-point:

• "what its creators say" is MOS:ALLEGED; nothing in the article casts doubt on the broad existence of such problems, even if they dispute the specifics.
• implies -> states is just straightforward WP:SAY, and I presume uncontroversial.
• The reception section should lead with a broad summary, which we have a good source for; no reason was given for removing it.
• Per WP:CSECTION, controversy sections are generally a bad way to organize information in an article; a "response" section is more neutral.
• Likewise, to avoid WP:UNDUE focus on specific views, we also have to include dissents from them (eg. Bailey disagreeing with Yoffe); there's no reason why Yoffe's opinions should be given so much weight and Bailey's entirely omitted.
• The Wikipedia section is entirely WP:UNDUE. Most of the sources cited there are blogs, WP:NEWSBLOGs, or WP:BIASED (eg. the Examiner), making them inappropriate to devote an entire section to.
• The section on The Weinstein Company is entirely WP:SYNTH - none of the sources connect Weinstein's sexual assault allegations with this topic.

The lead changes I can understand objections to and are less important, but the rest seem straightforward, especially removing Weinstein and the WP:SAY issues. I'd at least need some explanation for eg. including a paragraph on Weinstein's sexual assault in particular beyond "last good version", because to me that looks like unequivocal WP:SYNTH - implying that his wrongdoing has something to do with this film would require a source making that connection explicitly, not separate sources relating him to it and then saying he's guilty of wrongdoing. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Thanks for the response. The main concern was too much of a swift at once, although "POV revamp" was probably too much since the version you left still had information what the critics say as inaccuracies. The "one in five are raped on campus" statistics are controversial and CNN has featured a critical view on them. The Tallahassee Democrat seems like a decent source for the Wikipedia interference, but it's true that it should be given relatively little weight in the article. You are right to remove the Weinstein Company stuff. --Pudeo (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'll think about how to reword the stuff on the Wikipedia interference to trim it down to just what the Tallahassee Democrat says; you're right that it's probably a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)