This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.79.177.91 (talk) at 16:51, 8 September 2019 (→Trump era). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:51, 8 September 2019 by 109.79.177.91 (talk) (→Trump era)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Idiocracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Idiocracy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Salon article - reliable?
A search through the archives over at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard shows that Salon (website) is considered a reliable source, and the fact that an editor doesn't agree with the points raised falls into the WP:IDONTLIKEIT category. Rather if the points are contested - find a source that backs up your theory, rather than just removing it because you don't like it.
Yes, it is an opinion put forward in an article, but so Etan Cohen and David Berry's - the article in this case even uses the term "opinion" when referring to the latter. Sorry that the source isn't to your liking, but that's life. Please discuss here, rather than edit-warring to try and get your way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. The source is reliable and the stated opinion is valid as an opinion, whether we agree with it or not. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- The source can be referenced with in-text attribution. However, per MOS:ACCUSED, I would suggest avoiding "accused". Furthermore, it would help to reference similar commentary about eugenics and classism. Regarding eugenics, it appears that Gizmodo and Vice have also written about this aspect of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the discussion above, it wasn't "an editor", it was three editors. And just because Salon is a reliable source, a free pass isn't created for every op-ed piece to be included. Your local newspaper is most likely a reliable source, but a letter to the editor or "guest opinion" doesn't become reliable simply because they print it. Claiming reliability simply because of where it was printed is overly simplistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I only count two editors, one of whose rationale for removal included use of the phrase "Fuck your Nevertheless. Fuck you all, leftist cunts" - powerful argument indeed.
- To compare Adam Johnson to a letter to the editor or "guest opinion" is inaccurate - Johnson has written over 20 articles for Salon, and as Salon has editorial control over content and has been praised by other online media - "Salon.com Wins Credibility Online With Intelligent and Stylish Content" - in this case it seems reasonable to assume that if it's printed, it's reliable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was referring to something else when I mentioned that is was more than one editor. And yes, I would consider this an op-ed piece. It was originally published at Alternet and it's written in the first person. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- No one is trying to write, "The film supports eugenics," full stop. It is an opinionated statement, and there is in-text attribution that substantiates the quote. As I mentioned, two other sources have similar comments and can also be included (also with in-text attribution). Erik (talk | contrib) 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I read the article as warning and an indictment of the left particularly this:
- If you're referring to the discussion above, it wasn't "an editor", it was three editors. And just because Salon is a reliable source, a free pass isn't created for every op-ed piece to be included. Your local newspaper is most likely a reliable source, but a letter to the editor or "guest opinion" doesn't become reliable simply because they print it. Claiming reliability simply because of where it was printed is overly simplistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
| “ | wielding "Idiocracy" as a kind of political shorthand for a new, and therefore meaningful, shift in our political climate is both inaccurate and politically toxic for the left. | ” |
- I edited the text slightly and moved the article so that it was with the other Trump Era Commentary and not in the Critical response section. -- 109.76.195.16 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Marlon Brawndo
CEO of Brawndo was named Marlon Brawndo but it wasn't properly includded in the end credits. Maybe this could go in the cast section or Production section. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Trump era
Please note, previous Trump related discussion has been archived. -- 109.79.177.91 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The topic of Idiocracy has come up in the news quite often during the era of Trump. There were multiple sources and this was added but removed from the Commentary section. It might need some review and improvement but I don't think it should have been
- WP:BRD. It was a bold move to delete it but deleted content doesn't get discussed so I've reverted and I'm asking for discussion. Too many sources and a paragraph of text were deleted without discussion. -- 109.76.195.16 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Political Bias
The section of Commentary seems to state in a factual manner that Trump's policies mirror ineffective and unintellectual themes of Idiocracy, rather than clarifying that that is what the article in question is making claim to. I believe this needs to be reworded to accurately reflect it is an opinion, not factual, in order to follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality. Tradeojax6 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say it is pretty cautiously worded already "others expressed opinions". I edited the bit about the Salon.com article to make it more neutral since the author of that article was warning the left against making simplistic comparisons that would alienate people, so that should be providing a counterpoint but perhaps it needs to rephrased again to make it clearer. Maybe the article should explain that Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame (and incidentally Dwayne Johnson is not).
- I can understand that because the section includes many left wing opinions it might seem biased but I do think it is accurately presenting those left wing opinions in a fair way.
- What if any specific changes to the wording would you suggest? -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class science fiction articles
- Low-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- C-Class Comedy articles
- Mid-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists