Talk:Conviction (2010 film)

Split out real-life case

The "Aftermath" section of this article discusses events not in the movie, which should be moved to the article about the actual case. But there isn't one, so I've tagged this article for splitting. (If the case was notable enough for a movie to be made about it, then it should be notable enough for Wikipedia, right?) The other article could be titled Kenneth Waters or Betty Anne Waters, depending on where its primary thrust is; currently the latter title redirects to this article while the former does not exist. --208.76.104.144 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is too short to split up and the 'aftermath' section is relevant for a film that is based on a true story. But it would be useful for anyone interested to start a new article on the real story. Politis (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there could be many articles. One on Anne, one on Kenneth trial/case. A key part of the movie focused on a police conspiracy not mentioned in this article. If there is to be only one article it should be on the murder case and there could be a section referring to this movie..Mantion (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

With the release of the film, I am sure the true life story is now notable and should be split into a separate wiki page, probably just one, under Betty Ann Waters (but does not really matter which as long appropriate redirects). The reason I would suggest this, is that the film will not be a 100% accurate portrayal, and if the story is notable, it should be described separately. Anther alternative is to move the true life story into the Innocence Project as a notable section there. Cheers Lethaniol 23:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the real-life story should be split out. Here is a reference for Betty Anne's story [1] and here is a reference for Kenny's story - including sordid details of how the police withheld evidence that proved he was innocent [2]. I would suggest that the new article be titled Kenneth Waters case.--Gautier lebon (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you guys understand how Wikipedia works; you don't need to split out an article thats barely longer than a stub. If those people merit articles then you create new ones for them. You don't need to split out information from a small article which contains a few sentences about a person.

What you would do is look for multiple reliable sources (the more, the better) and see if those articles could meet the notability requirements. Once you've digested those, if you aren't a veteran editor you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation or you can request the article. AaronY (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With due respect, I think that I do understand how Wikipedia works. And what I meant by "split out" was indeed to create a new article for Betty Ann, whose story seems to me to be meet the notability requirement. The article on Betty Ann can summarize Ken's story: I don't think that there should be a separate article on Ken.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Difference Between Real Life and the Movie

The movie has some elements that are not mentioned here, such as the existance of a crooked female police officer that "framed" him. People will want to know what is accurate and what is "dramatic license". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What's with the edit war on the type of film?

TheOldJacobite - you and the IP User are well over the WP:3RR but there's nothing in the summaries or the talk page that explains what the issue is over the type of film. I see you are part of the film project, is this a style issue? EBY (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no edit war, as far as I am concerned. At the Filmproject, the consensus is to leave out the nationality unless there is any controversy or complexity to the film's country of origin. The IP was reverted weeks back, but continues to change IPs and readd the unnecessary information. I don't know whether it has ever been explained to him why the edits are not needed, but what I see is a dedicated anon. disrupting the article for unknown reasons. That has to be stopped. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war. There is no vandalism taking place here; it is possible the IP editor thinks you are disruptive by removing edits that he thinks are valid. I'm not seeing the problem with labeling this film as American, though. The film databases seem to identify this film's home country as the United States, and legal drama seems like an appropriate sub-genre to link to, based on the reviews I sampled. We would only exclude the nationality if there is controversy. I think it is a clear-cut case here that this film is primarily American. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This contradicts other statements made by members of the filmproject, that where the film's nationality is unambiguous, there is no need to state it in the lede since it is already listed in the infobox. That the only time we would need to list it is if there is more than one country involved and no clear nationality can be determined. This is the basis upon which I have been editing for months, believing it to be accurate. And, if the IP's edits and motivations were so faultless, why keep changing IPs, and why did he never once explain what he was doing or ask why he was being reverted? I should have explained my reverts, certainly, but what I saw was disruption with no clear purpose. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your summary here puts some light on what is happening. So why not split the difference and keep in "Legal drama" and drop the nationality? Both of you seem invested. EBY (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite, I think you have the situation flipped around. MOS:FILM#Lead section says, " If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I'm not aware of any WP:FILM member saying not to include the nationality at all if it's straightforward. They're saying to include the nationality when it's straightforward. See this by Betty Logan, for example. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If I am in error, as it seems clear I am, it was an innocent mistake, and I apologize for the confusion. I already restored "legal drama," which does seem accurate. As for the nationality, I am clearly mistaken, but I am at a loss to figure out how I got this turned around. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am glad this was sorted out amicably. Do we still need the semi protection, then? TheOldJacobite, also please observe the WP:3RR, which you were over in Reservation Road as well. EBY was right in pointing things out, so thanks! Please do the needful of restoring the nations back in lead section; also in future when in doubt checkout the Featured articles in the category, keep it simple, righteous wars are bad for health! On my part, I admit my oversight as well, of seeing your edits as belonging to the IP user, thus protecting the article, things got really turned around yesterday. Phew...I am OK at being pointed out as wrong... So I am taking a WP:BREATHER.. --Ekabhishek^talk 02:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The real case should be described in a separate article

https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kenny-waters/ Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Or at least mentioned here. He is deceased so BLP does not technically apply but the same principles should. See Talk:Kenny Waters#Kenny Waters was a real person which links to the same innocenceproject page, which I discovered independently.

The information in the real case is certainly encyclopedic, particularly if the film is. It should be somewhere in Wikipedia, and easily found by people who get to Kenny Waters by whatever means. Andrewa (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)