Talk:Kamala Lopez

Restored film controversy paragraph

The fact that A Single Woman author and star criticizes the film is significant and verifiable. Why remove it? This page continues to read like a fan site.Webberkenny (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can help answer your question, but why do you think it requires administrative help? I've replaced your request for adminhelp with the standard help me tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That fact seems more relevant for the film's article than for this one but in both cases a {{helpme}} tag is not needed. If you disagree with other editors on the way an article is written, please use dispute resolution instead. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Sorry about using the wrong tag. I think it's significant that the director and author/star of the film are at odds. It turns out, they're cousins, though (interestingly) Lopez denies it. Simpson has said that she gave Lopez the project out of familial love and trust and that it was appropriated and exploited by Lopez. I intend to research and cite this part of the story, but I think the springboard for that section needs to be the paragraph in question.Webberkenny (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

The above post is demonstrative of a thoroughly personal and inappropriate agenda. This is an earnest plea that you cease this course of action and withdraw from editing this article. I have posted my concerns on the Dispute resolution noticeboard JHScribe (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph in question, and replied at the DRN thread. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people is quite clear that inflammatory material such as this should not be included. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

update

• - Lopez relationship with her cousin, Jeanmarie Simpson

This page needs serious moderation by an unbiased administrator. I believe the site's creator is either Lopez herself or her husband. Please see Mr. Stradivarius' talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius) for more details.Webberkenny (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that an unbiased administrator should be involved. webberkenney continues to post irrelevant info Mr. Stradivarius already addressed by stating:

"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."

I again implore the fan of Simpson to offer any other CREDIBLY REFERENCED facts, either positive or negative, about Lopez as this is about Lopez not Simpson or the film except in the context of Lopez. Simpson's opinions are already documented as Mr. Stradivarius recommended and as webberkenney diligently provided.

JHScribe (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I will contact Jeanmarie Simpson through her website contact form. I'm sure she will shed some light on this.Josiewarvelle (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeanmarie messaged me here and said she wants her page removed and wants no part of this. The article on her has been nominated for deletion.Josiewarvelle (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Film review sited

weeberkenney: The review on which you have placed so much weight is balanced with criticism and praise. As a matter of fact, Ms. Simpson is praised so choosing the single quote is both deceiving as well as harmful to your other praise for Simpson. The other review linked to the same page is far more complimentary of the movie with no criticisms:

"Cutting-edge filmmaking techniques coupled with the contributions of virtuoso artists such as Joni Mitchell, Patricia Arquette, Karen Black, Peter Coyote, Mimi Kennedy, Margot Kidder, Elizabeth Peña and Cindy Sheehan, elevates A Single Woman to transcend traditional biography."Review

There is also a wonderful comment in the Talkback section:

"Jeanmarie SimpsonFeb 24th, 2009 - 18:30:21

Thank you for that honest and sensitive critique. I hope we all share your enthusiasm for Jeannette Rankin's message of justice and peace being infinitely disseminated."

I would rather avoid this back and forth but I will not relent. JHScribe (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are revealing yourself to be either woefully naive, or deeply dishonest. That "review" is a quote from the synopsis on the film's website.Webberkenny (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm confused. Why is there a "thanks" from Simpson in the talkback? But thanks for pointing me to the website where the link to a Bust Magazine article by Molly Simms states the film "...won raves after official screenings for the U.S. Congress, the Smithsonian and the U.N.".

But that's not the point. Both of these opinions do not meet the guideline Mr. Stradivarius set:

"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her (Lopez's) biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."

Either add a balanced view of the criticism or relent as the film does not merit this much attention. If it did, then the statement by Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal might be relevant -

“The world doesn’t need many of the biographical films that come my way, but this looks to be an exception. Jeanette Rankin is an extraordinary subject, and the prospect of a film that honors the sweep of her life is instantly intriguing.” [1]

...or Patricia Foulkrod, Producer/Director of The Ground Truth -

This is one of those rare gems – a film about a character in history, filled with passion and energy ... an amazing glimpse at our first elected woman to Congress, who had the courage to stand up and say no to war ... another war, and, yet, Kamala Lopez’s film mirrors so well our own struggles with this current war and saying no...and those who did not say no and went to war." [2]

Perhaps the ruling of an outside administrator (again) might be helpful?

JHScribe (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Question for administrator

This article is being vandalized and edited by someone close to the subject. 75.142.235.82 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

--75.142.235.82 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like nothing more then an editorial difference --Guerillero | My Talk 05:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious, if you look at the history. The subjects birth date, etc. should not be removed. The encyclopedic form has repeatedly been reduced in favor of resume/fan site material.75.142.235.82 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)