Talk:Cowspiracy: Difference between revisions

Film: Documentary / American Stub‑class

This article 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 articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

These edits are problematic.

The first addition is simply nonsensical: "The film explores the impact and sustainibility (sic) of animal agriculture on the environment, and investigates the policies of environmental organizations on this issue, making an appleal (sic) to a more plant-based diet.

Sustainability is part of the impact. The phrase "impact and sustainability" is similar to "fruits and apples".

In addition to being unclear as to who is making the appeal (the film or the environmental organizations?), the phrase suggests that the appeal is being made to the diet, rather than appealing to viewers. No one would ask a diet to do anything.

The second part of the edit is a list of claims from the film selected by the editor. The apparent attempt of this inclusion is to present some of the film's arguments. This, however, is an encyclopedia article about the film, not a study/discussion guide for the film. Arguments the film makes are content of the film. At most, we present a brief neutral summary of the film's content to instruct readers what the film is about. In as brief an article as this, a laundry list of claims, selected by one editor, is inappropriate. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the cast from IMBD and apparently that changed the status from "not notable" to "this article is within the scope of WikiProject Film." I also removed the tag for "nature documentary" as I don't think that's what it is. Did I misunderstand the tag? ChristineBaker1 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChristineBaker1 WP:Notability refers to the extent to which the subject of an article is covered by any publisher other than the one chiefly interested in the subject of the article. It is usually easy to find self-published sources about a topic. IMDB, for example, is considered self-published because the production company overseeing the film writes content on that website without anyone doing editorial oversight. In this case, the sources which establish notability are those which are written by people who were not paid by the production company; that might include reviewers or journalists who write about those things. Are you able to find and cite any such sources like those? If you can find 1-2 of those, then you can remove the notability problem tag from the article.

It is fine to use IMDB for the cast, but that source does not establish notability. Wikipedia does not cover all movies, but only those movies which are reviewed by someone other than the movie's own promoters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry I guess I was confused, thought the notability tag had been removed. There are countless reviews, but just adding the cast and the links took hours. Finding articles that actually fact check AND are "acceptable" for WP is the hard part. ChristineBaker1 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be either renamed or removed. This film is a documentary, it does not have a "cast," something that is fairly obvious when you consider the fact that everyone on the Cast list is listed as "playing" themselves. I'm actually wondering if this list is supposed to be an attempt at vandalism by someone who disagrees with this film by basically saying that everyone in the film is an actor. –Nahald (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to have the section in some form, but the name is unfortunate. Suggestions?

(Incidentally, please try to assume good faith. The editor who added the section is, from what I can tell, sympathetic to the film's intent.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have a section on this page where some of the claims from this movie are contrasted with scientific sources (published articles)? Many people probably want to know a bit about how reliable the information in this documentary is, when they go to this wikipedia page.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]