| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unplanned article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Trying to put in the correct edit summary, and I keep accidentally tapping Submit. So:
- Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a rare "A+" grade, while PostTrak reported 80% of filmgoers gave it a positive score, with 65% saying they would definitely recommend it.
The issue here is that this is basically a primary sourced way of saying what we already have in the article: it preaches to the choir, and the choir love it. These are basically primary sourced opinion polling. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- We could replace "filmgoers" with a more specific-sounding term like "attendees". -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 21:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Especially for a film like this, but I don't know why we would ever include audience polls alongside real criticism/reception information. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter are reliable secondary sources. Audience reception is a standard component of film articles; see
MOS:FILM and featured film articles like
Alien vs. Predator (film),
American Beauty (1999 film),
Atlantis: The Lost Empire,
Baby Driver, etc. JzG proposed removing that sentence in January 2020 (
here) but other editors supported inclusion.
gnu
57 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would support changing the language in that section of the style guideline, though, to be clear that it's not always a "should" (not that a subject-specific MOS page doesn't always have plenty of exceptions to begin with). "Message" films (I'd include most documentaries, as well as propaganda, etc.) aren't going to get the same kind of audience response as the mainstream genre films you just listed. Or should I say what it is what we take away from that audience poll means something very different. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- PostTrak and Cinemascore ratings should be included. You can also include context to explain that these scores only mean that the target audience that wanted to see it enough to go to the opening weekend screenings seemed to like it but there is no real reason to exclude these scores that have been reported by a reliable source like Deadline Hollywood. You could try to establish a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the guidelines but it would be better to include the scores with a proper explanation and some context. --
109.79.172.203 (
talk) 12:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- User JzG removed the scores in this edit (diff) apparently without any consensus. I would recommend reverting that change. (Another editor added the Cinemascore grade to the Box office section, but the Posttrak score was not restored. I would recommend reverting that change too.) -- 109.79.172.203 ( talk) 12:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- PostTrak and Cinemascore ratings should be included. You can also include context to explain that these scores only mean that the target audience that wanted to see it enough to go to the opening weekend screenings seemed to like it but there is no real reason to exclude these scores that have been reported by a reliable source like Deadline Hollywood. You could try to establish a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the guidelines but it would be better to include the scores with a proper explanation and some context. --
109.79.172.203 (
talk) 12:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would support changing the language in that section of the style guideline, though, to be clear that it's not always a "should" (not that a subject-specific MOS page doesn't always have plenty of exceptions to begin with). "Message" films (I'd include most documentaries, as well as propaganda, etc.) aren't going to get the same kind of audience response as the mainstream genre films you just listed. Or should I say what it is what we take away from that audience poll means something very different. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried to verify the content about the Ottawa chapter criticizing conservative politicians attending the screening since there's a better source needed tag, but apart from the tweet that's already cited and this [1] which directly mentions the aforementioned tweet. I'm not sure if that source is considered good enough, but maybe? Maybe I'm not looking in the right places or what's remaining on the Internet is mostly dead links at this point, but it doesn't really seem like reliable, secondary sources cared about the Ottawa chapter's reaction that much? I did find this, though [2] – it's a news article about Liberal and Conservative politicians reactions to the screening of the movie, since MP Brad Trost attended the first one in Ottawa and called it an "incredible film". But that's not directly related to the Ottawa chapter of Planned Parenthood. It's also hard to find content (apart from the cited tweet) that explicitly verifies that four Members of Parliament attended the screenings, but people seem to agree that Trost at least did in what I have found. [3] Clovermoss (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions he's a "conspiracy theorist". That doesn't have any relevance to the creation of the Unplanned film (also the "source" cited was 2 years after the movie came out). 2600:8800:881D:5600:95FE:E378:E9D:4F3C ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article shows multiple sources saying its propaganda but no sources saying its accurate. So this article in my opinion is political propaganda, pro abortion slanted clearly. How about present both sides and let everyone decide foe them self?? 2600:4041:6598:5800:31:AB84:BBDB:5429 ( talk) 22:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We would need reliable sources saying that it is accurate in order to change the article.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 22:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed numerous recent edits from Ageofultron. One of them is this [4] I don't think characterizing the content removed as propaganda is accurate. I think that content is relevant to the section it's in – the accuracy of the portrayal. I agree that the quote is long but maybe that could be replaced with a briefer one? Or some paraphrased content that summarizes it? Or even just stay as-is? I don't think removing the content wholesale is the best way to go Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Current page prioritizes low-quality sources, including tabloids such as the Toronto Sun. The current page, as it stands, reads like a political hit piece against the film, as opposed to a encyclopedic article. Compare the tone of this article with
Black Adam (film); this film received better critical reviews, yet you would never know it. Compare the final sentence of the lead opening in both articles, this one only mentions criticism, while Black Adam states that it received mixed reviews. This page's opening should reflect both positive and negative reception of the film, not just negative as it currently is. -
Ageofultron 05:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You're comparing totally different types of films, a popular, uncontroversial, entertainment film with a fringe, very controversial, propaganda film. Sensible mainstream sources will naturally tear it apart, hence the negativity, which we are supposed to document. Don't engage in whitewashing again. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to ping other editors who've edited this talk page before to see what other people's opinions are: Rhododendrites, Genericusername57, JzG, and ScottishFinnishRadish. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Clear POV problems in that edit. Appears to add qualifiers and/or remove content sourced to decent-to-high quality sources and add decent-to-lower quality sources which treat it more positively. Wikipedia cares about the reliability of the source more than the politics (except insofar as partisanship leads them to get the facts wrong/mislead). Swapping in POV language like "abortion rights" → "pro-abortion access" is a pretty big red flag, too. Not saying the existing language can't be improved, but these don't seem like an improvement. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 19:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- My instinct was to restore to previous versions and ask the editor in question to get consensus on the talk page first because these seemed like controversial changes to me, but I'm not super familiar with how DS/CT might change what my typical course of action would be. I'd figured I'd bring this up first while I tried to figure that out by reading that stuff again.
Clovermoss🍀
(talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- DS wouldn't affect the ability of someone to follow WP:BRD AFAIK. Some affect whether you can make a second revert, but I don't think even that applies here (best practice to avoid >1 revert of the same material anyway, though, except in special circumstances). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- My instinct was to restore to previous versions and ask the editor in question to get consensus on the talk page first because these seemed like controversial changes to me, but I'm not super familiar with how DS/CT might change what my typical course of action would be. I'd figured I'd bring this up first while I tried to figure that out by reading that stuff again.
Clovermoss🍀
(talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the rollback of these changes. Reality-based sources look liberal to extremists, but that's not how NPOV works. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- As someone else who also worked on this article, thank you for rolling back those changes, Clovermoss. The quote is in my opinion quite helpful and should remain. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Texas articles
- Low-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unplanned article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
|
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Trying to put in the correct edit summary, and I keep accidentally tapping Submit. So:
- Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a rare "A+" grade, while PostTrak reported 80% of filmgoers gave it a positive score, with 65% saying they would definitely recommend it.
The issue here is that this is basically a primary sourced way of saying what we already have in the article: it preaches to the choir, and the choir love it. These are basically primary sourced opinion polling. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- We could replace "filmgoers" with a more specific-sounding term like "attendees". -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 21:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Especially for a film like this, but I don't know why we would ever include audience polls alongside real criticism/reception information. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deadline Hollywood and The Hollywood Reporter are reliable secondary sources. Audience reception is a standard component of film articles; see
MOS:FILM and featured film articles like
Alien vs. Predator (film),
American Beauty (1999 film),
Atlantis: The Lost Empire,
Baby Driver, etc. JzG proposed removing that sentence in January 2020 (
here) but other editors supported inclusion.
gnu
57 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would support changing the language in that section of the style guideline, though, to be clear that it's not always a "should" (not that a subject-specific MOS page doesn't always have plenty of exceptions to begin with). "Message" films (I'd include most documentaries, as well as propaganda, etc.) aren't going to get the same kind of audience response as the mainstream genre films you just listed. Or should I say what it is what we take away from that audience poll means something very different. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- PostTrak and Cinemascore ratings should be included. You can also include context to explain that these scores only mean that the target audience that wanted to see it enough to go to the opening weekend screenings seemed to like it but there is no real reason to exclude these scores that have been reported by a reliable source like Deadline Hollywood. You could try to establish a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the guidelines but it would be better to include the scores with a proper explanation and some context. --
109.79.172.203 (
talk) 12:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- User JzG removed the scores in this edit (diff) apparently without any consensus. I would recommend reverting that change. (Another editor added the Cinemascore grade to the Box office section, but the Posttrak score was not restored. I would recommend reverting that change too.) -- 109.79.172.203 ( talk) 12:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- PostTrak and Cinemascore ratings should be included. You can also include context to explain that these scores only mean that the target audience that wanted to see it enough to go to the opening weekend screenings seemed to like it but there is no real reason to exclude these scores that have been reported by a reliable source like Deadline Hollywood. You could try to establish a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the guidelines but it would be better to include the scores with a proper explanation and some context. --
109.79.172.203 (
talk) 12:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would support changing the language in that section of the style guideline, though, to be clear that it's not always a "should" (not that a subject-specific MOS page doesn't always have plenty of exceptions to begin with). "Message" films (I'd include most documentaries, as well as propaganda, etc.) aren't going to get the same kind of audience response as the mainstream genre films you just listed. Or should I say what it is what we take away from that audience poll means something very different. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried to verify the content about the Ottawa chapter criticizing conservative politicians attending the screening since there's a better source needed tag, but apart from the tweet that's already cited and this [1] which directly mentions the aforementioned tweet. I'm not sure if that source is considered good enough, but maybe? Maybe I'm not looking in the right places or what's remaining on the Internet is mostly dead links at this point, but it doesn't really seem like reliable, secondary sources cared about the Ottawa chapter's reaction that much? I did find this, though [2] – it's a news article about Liberal and Conservative politicians reactions to the screening of the movie, since MP Brad Trost attended the first one in Ottawa and called it an "incredible film". But that's not directly related to the Ottawa chapter of Planned Parenthood. It's also hard to find content (apart from the cited tweet) that explicitly verifies that four Members of Parliament attended the screenings, but people seem to agree that Trost at least did in what I have found. [3] Clovermoss (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The article mentions he's a "conspiracy theorist". That doesn't have any relevance to the creation of the Unplanned film (also the "source" cited was 2 years after the movie came out). 2600:8800:881D:5600:95FE:E378:E9D:4F3C ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article shows multiple sources saying its propaganda but no sources saying its accurate. So this article in my opinion is political propaganda, pro abortion slanted clearly. How about present both sides and let everyone decide foe them self?? 2600:4041:6598:5800:31:AB84:BBDB:5429 ( talk) 22:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We would need reliable sources saying that it is accurate in order to change the article.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 22:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed numerous recent edits from Ageofultron. One of them is this [4] I don't think characterizing the content removed as propaganda is accurate. I think that content is relevant to the section it's in – the accuracy of the portrayal. I agree that the quote is long but maybe that could be replaced with a briefer one? Or some paraphrased content that summarizes it? Or even just stay as-is? I don't think removing the content wholesale is the best way to go Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Current page prioritizes low-quality sources, including tabloids such as the Toronto Sun. The current page, as it stands, reads like a political hit piece against the film, as opposed to a encyclopedic article. Compare the tone of this article with
Black Adam (film); this film received better critical reviews, yet you would never know it. Compare the final sentence of the lead opening in both articles, this one only mentions criticism, while Black Adam states that it received mixed reviews. This page's opening should reflect both positive and negative reception of the film, not just negative as it currently is. -
Ageofultron 05:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You're comparing totally different types of films, a popular, uncontroversial, entertainment film with a fringe, very controversial, propaganda film. Sensible mainstream sources will naturally tear it apart, hence the negativity, which we are supposed to document. Don't engage in whitewashing again. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to ping other editors who've edited this talk page before to see what other people's opinions are: Rhododendrites, Genericusername57, JzG, and ScottishFinnishRadish. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Clear POV problems in that edit. Appears to add qualifiers and/or remove content sourced to decent-to-high quality sources and add decent-to-lower quality sources which treat it more positively. Wikipedia cares about the reliability of the source more than the politics (except insofar as partisanship leads them to get the facts wrong/mislead). Swapping in POV language like "abortion rights" → "pro-abortion access" is a pretty big red flag, too. Not saying the existing language can't be improved, but these don't seem like an improvement. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 19:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- My instinct was to restore to previous versions and ask the editor in question to get consensus on the talk page first because these seemed like controversial changes to me, but I'm not super familiar with how DS/CT might change what my typical course of action would be. I'd figured I'd bring this up first while I tried to figure that out by reading that stuff again.
Clovermoss🍀
(talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- DS wouldn't affect the ability of someone to follow WP:BRD AFAIK. Some affect whether you can make a second revert, but I don't think even that applies here (best practice to avoid >1 revert of the same material anyway, though, except in special circumstances). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- My instinct was to restore to previous versions and ask the editor in question to get consensus on the talk page first because these seemed like controversial changes to me, but I'm not super familiar with how DS/CT might change what my typical course of action would be. I'd figured I'd bring this up first while I tried to figure that out by reading that stuff again.
Clovermoss🍀
(talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the rollback of these changes. Reality-based sources look liberal to extremists, but that's not how NPOV works. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- As someone else who also worked on this article, thank you for rolling back those changes, Clovermoss. The quote is in my opinion quite helpful and should remain. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Texas articles
- Low-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles