Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:27, 8 September 2012

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Cinema Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force. Film: American This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Linked thread

Lead section

Can the lead be crafted to comply with NPOV as far as the wording goes? --Mollskman (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add the material about the groups alledged political ties under reception or maybe a new section about politics, ect. --Mollskman (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was neutral before editors started inserted cruft about OPSEC's politics. People need to remember this article is about the film, not the organization that created it. Belchfire-TALK 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're rewriting history here. The text about OPSEC's Republican ties have been in there for more than a week, including edits by yourself, before it was reverted by IP. That implies there was consensus for it to be there, and removing it is clearly not in consensus.

But that's not really the point. We're talking about a film that's part of a political ad campaign released in the middle of a US Presidential election. The partisan background of the group is at least as relevant as the military background. If we're going to start the lede talking about how some of them are former Spec Ops then it seems quite POV to omit the (clearly relevant and cited) fact that some of them are affiliated with the Republican party. Glaucus (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's only been in the article for a week, I'm not sure there is really any "consensus" either way to include or exclude the political ties. I agree, however, that the political background of the group is at least as relevant as the military background given that the video is being purposely marketed in swing states during the culminating months of the 2012 presidential election. We should probably either include both the political and military backgrounds, or exclude both, depending on what a consensus of editors think is best. However, any material added needs to closely adhere to what reliable sources say about the political/military backgrounds/ties, so that we're not engaging in OR or synthesis. What do others think? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no "implied consensus", that's just nonsense. And besides, consensus can change. The problem we run into here is that some editors try to introduce political POV in such a way as to impugn OPSEC's credibility, which is clearly non-neutral. The career background info is neutral and factual, and ties directly to the content of the film, so it's easier to make a case for it's inclusion. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the content of reliable independent sources should determine content. If such sources make credible note of political affiliations of the film's makers or participants, then that's acceptable content for this article about the film. Of course, all editors should refrain from inserting personal opinions, personal inferences, and original research. RCraig09 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Material concerning the political affiliations of the film's producers should go in the article about the film's producers, don't you think? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Belchfire-TALK 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If reliable independent sources talk about political affiliations of the filmmakers in relation to the film, then such affiliations are proper content both for the article about the filmmakers and the article about the film. RCraig09 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is... if you're trying to make a political statement of some sort about the film's content. But if you just want to write a neutral encyclopedia article describing the film, it isn't necessary at all. Belchfire-TALK 20:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to form a special exception to the general Misplaced Pages principle of including material from reliable independent sources, and specifically censor content relating to the filmmakers' possible bias—that very exception-forming and censoring would itself constitute non-neutral politically-motivated editing. Many articles have sections titled "Critiques" or "Criticisms" or "Negative response" (or equivalent names) in which such material can be objectively presented, preferably writing specific attribution of the source into the article text so that readers are alerted. Granted: such critiques would have to be widespread in the media to be properly included in the lead paragraph(s): see WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview "Nuff said. Good evening. RCraig09 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Keeping the contents of an article relevant to the article's subject is not "censorship". Reliable sourcing is the threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee. We have an article about the film's creators, that's where information about their politics should go. Belchfire-TALK 21:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that reliable sourcing isn't the only requirement; however I never stated that it was. To reiterate: The premise of my statements was and is: "If reliable independent sources talk about political affiliations of the filmmakers in relation to the film..." Such content is "relevant" to (and includable in) both articles. No Misplaced Pages policy or guideline prevents the same content from being in more than one article. RCraig09 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

McRaven in NYTimes August 15 Article

Belchfire has removed a piece that discusses what McRaven said about Obama's role and edit-warred to keep it that way. This reference seems relevant to me, and it's well-sourced, so I'm not clear on what the issue is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree in principle with StillStanding's comment and AzureCitizen's edit summary. StillStanding was not being "disruptive" as Belchfire accused. The NYTimes article is definitely about the film, and in principle anything in this reliable independent source, including McRaven's prior quotation, is presumptively a reasonable candidate for inclusion in this article about the film. However, I think this paragraph's content needs to be adjusted and refined to include perspective and a more balanced description of the NYTimes article's content. I propose the following: RCraig09 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text:

In an article about the film in the "Politics" section of The New York Times, Scott Shane wrote that OPSEC described itself as nonpartisan but that some of its leaders have been involved in Republican campaigns and Tea Party groups. Specifically, Shane wrote that the film's featured former SEAL members include one whose Facebook page identifies him as a spokesman for the Tea Party Express and several Republican campaigns, and that OPSEC’s president ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010. Shane noted asserted that the film, "in an effort to portray Mr. Obama as a braggart taking credit for the accomplishments of special forces and intelligence operatives," edited out Obama's crediting the "tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals" from his announcement of bin Laden's killing; in this regard Shane quoted Admiral William H. McRaven as having said that Obama "shouldered the burden" for this operation, "made the hard decisions," and was "instrumental in the planning process." Shane further wrote that OPSEC's president acknowledged Republican ties of some members but said that “as many or more (of the film's participants) are apolitical. ... This issue is more than just politics.”

(Preceding text is proposed by RCraig09 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC).) Proposal revised by RCraig09 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC).

I can live with this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly okay with taking it in this direction too. There might be some minor tweaking necessary regarding the editing of the video footage (that it was from the night of the announcement, and the commentary specifically referred to the "editing out" of Obama giving credit), but no big deal. How does Belchfire feel about this edit? Belchfire, do you want to comment before we implement something like the above? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made minor revisions to the above proposal, per AzureCitizen's suggestion, and more in line with exact language of NYTimes reference. RCraig09 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done, that's exactly what I had in mind. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good. I'd change the second sentence from "Shane wrote" to "Shane pointed out" or "Shane noted". These are undisputed facts, not interpretation, so no need to hedge on the source. Glaucus (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone can say Shane's statements are 'undisputed,' so I favor keeping the present (careful) wording. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

These are facts, not opinions: " one whose Facebook page identifies him as a spokesman for the Tea Party Express and several Republican campaigns, and that OPSEC’s president ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010". Moreover, they seems to be fairly uncontroversial facts. At least one source has OPSEC acknowledging them. So, unless these facts are in dispute by reliable sources, they are indisputed. Hedging on them makes it sound like there's a controversy over the facts when there is not. Glaucus (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted the paragraph into the article without wording changes, because: ● "Shane wrote..." is not 'hedging' but is neutral and factual--especially important in a controversial article like this. ● Asserting something is "undisputed" would require complete knowledge of all references, which is not possible. ● Even if one source says OPSEC acknowledges the facts, other sources beyond your personal knowledge might contradict, condition or limit. ● Generally, it's not the place of Misplaced Pages editors to state what is "fact" since Misplaced Pages is founded on a fair representation of all reliable independent sources, not on editors' conclusions or editors' WP:synthesis. ● If you think the point is important, it would be more appropriate to add a phrase along the lines of: "Shane wrote, and OPSEC president (or whoever) acknowleged, that ..." so that the sources, not Misplaced Pages editors, determine article content. RCraig09 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the proposed paragraph has been here for four days, gaining general consensus, I think it's fair for incorporation into the article at this time. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Belchfire's repeated removal of content related to Admiral McRaven's pre-film-release comments (regardless of whether it formally constitutes edit warring). Belchfire's edit summary—"if McRaven wasn't commenting on the film, saying that his views are relevant is original research"—reflects a misunderstanding of WP:Original research. In fact what Misplaced Pages OR policy forbids is analysis or synthesis by Misplaced Pages editors from being introduced into Misplaced Pages articles. In this NYTimes 2012-08-15 article, which is specifically about the film, it is the NYTimes author Shane and not a Misplaced Pages editor who analyzes and synthesizes; therefore the paragraph that Belchfire improperly deleted, including Shane's content fairly presented, is properly includable. RCraig09 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• McRaven's was talking about Obama's role in ordering the hit on bin Laden, not the film. What editors are trying to do here is use what McRaven said to rebut OPSEC's message, even though McRaven was talking about something entirely different when he was speaking. That's original research, period. It's quite obvious, and I'm not misunderstanding anything. Belchfire-TALK 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What you do not yet understand is that it is the NYTimes author Shane who rebuts part of the film's message, in a reference about the film. No original research is being committed by Misplaced Pages editors in the paragraph you've been deleting. RCraig09 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it relevant; it just illustrates the differences between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. The NYT is free to make certain editorial leaps of logic that don't work here. You're still doing OR by trying to say it's relevant just because some hack at NYT thinks it's relevant. Belchfire-TALK 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

McRaven in CNN Sept 6 Article

By chance this morning, I also happened to come across this, which states that Admiral McRaven recently sent an email to all USSOCOM SF and SEAL personnel in the aftermath of OPSEC's activities and the recent book released by a former SEAL. Should this information be incorporated as well? See quote below. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

McRaven is aiming squarely at a group of former SEALs actively opposing President Barack Obama. The admiral is referring to the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, which has sponsored a Web video featuring former special forces officers accusing the president of taking too much credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and allowing classified information about the raid to become public. While McRaven said former SEALs have the right to express their opinions, he wants any link to the active duty force to be kept out of it. "By attaching a special operations moniker or a unit or service name to a political agenda, those individuals have now violated the most basic of our military principles," McRaven said in his e-mail message to the troops.

I never meant to become very involved in this article, but here's my impression: This 2012-09-06 CNN article isn't specifically about the film (though OPSEC and the film are among several issues mentioned); the CNN article is about "A battle for the conscience"—what SEALs should and should not be doing or disclosing in general. In any event, exercise care to avoid Misplaced Pages editor WP:synthesis if you're inserting it into this article. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nyt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference ObamaSpeech20110501 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Redirect-Class United States pages
• Low-importance United States articles
• Redirect-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Redirect-Class American cinema pages
• NA-importance American cinema pages
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Redirect-Class film pages
• WikiProject Film articles