Talk:Poverty Inc. (Gary Null film): Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Schematica (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Schematica (talk | contribs) m Indent |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*Why was this removed? "Poverty Inc. won a $100,00 cash prize in the 2015 [[Templeton Freedom Awards]], presented by the [[Atlas Network]]." It's well-sourced, accurate and verifiable. I'm not sure how it's considered an NPOV violation to include an award won, but it's somehow ''not'' considered an NPOV violation to wholesale delete a positive review and an award won from the film. What happened to [[WP:BALASPS]]? [[User:Safehaven86|Safehaven86]] ([[User talk:Safehaven86|talk]]) 03:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
*Why was this removed? "Poverty Inc. won a $100,00 cash prize in the 2015 [[Templeton Freedom Awards]], presented by the [[Atlas Network]]." It's well-sourced, accurate and verifiable. I'm not sure how it's considered an NPOV violation to include an award won, but it's somehow ''not'' considered an NPOV violation to wholesale delete a positive review and an award won from the film. What happened to [[WP:BALASPS]]? [[User:Safehaven86|Safehaven86]] ([[User talk:Safehaven86|talk]]) 03:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Safehaven: I don't agree with the revert of your edits and I've restored them. There's no reason to delete the number of reliable sources you added. [[User:Schematica| |
::Safehaven: I don't agree with the revert of your edits and I've restored them. There's no reason to delete the number of reliable sources you added. [[User:Schematica|Schematics]] ([[User talk:Schematica|talk]]) 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:39, 24 December 2015
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recent versions
I recently made a number of edits to the page, which were reverted with an edit summary of "gross violations of WP:NPOV." Could the reverting editor please elaborate on the perceived violations of NPOV? I'm quite confused by the mass reversions. I think my edits improved and expanded the article and added sourcing, context, and balance.
Specifically:
- Why was this review and citation from Variety completely deleted from the article? Certainly this Variety review is as reliable or as relevant as the Village Voice and Los Angeles Times reviews currently in the article. What policy basis is there for completely deleting this citation?
- Why was this deleted? It is well-sourced, to MLive via the Grand Rapids Tribune, and it appears to provide important context to the film: "The film was made by the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank which promotes free enterprise within the framework of Christian theology." Source
- The New York Times [1] (and all of the other sources currently in this article) refer to the film as a "documentary." Why can't we? Isn't Wikipedia based on what the reliable sources say?
- This sentence: "The film has been largely ignored by mainstream media, with few reviews" appears to be WP:OR, or at least an editorial opinion. How does this account for the positive Variety review mentioned above?
- The synopsis of the film that I added to the lead comes from this source. I've literally never seen the Wikipedia article on a film give a lead synopsis based on review of the movie, rather than on what the movie is generally agreed to be about. I would argue my version is much more helpful to a reader and indicative of what the movie is actually about, rather than one random sentence from a cherry-picked review.
- Why was this removed? "Poverty Inc. won a $100,00 cash prize in the 2015 Templeton Freedom Awards, presented by the Atlas Network." It's well-sourced, accurate and verifiable. I'm not sure how it's considered an NPOV violation to include an award won, but it's somehow not considered an NPOV violation to wholesale delete a positive review and an award won from the film. What happened to WP:BALASPS? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Safehaven: I don't agree with the revert of your edits and I've restored them. There's no reason to delete the number of reliable sources you added. Schematics (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories:
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- Start-Class Skepticism articles
- Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Start-Class Economics articles
- Unknown-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles