Talk:Ellie Moon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removal of tags[edit]

Hey, Alinamackie! I see you removed these tags I just placed. Let's discuss. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok Alinamackie (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Toronto, Canada and this is a well-known artist, I've seen two of her plays, don't vandalise by claiming it's self published and tagging it that way Alinamackie (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alinamackie: This is the place to discuss why you think the tags are not needed, rather than in-text on the article itself. Please don't remove the tags until it's resolved. Note that reliable sources are needed to support claims on Wikipedia; personal experience or knowledge is not sufficient to satisfy verifiability requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my mistake - the sources are all being flagged as not reliable and this is not true. I work in Canadian theatre, these are reputable sources Alinamackie (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't get much more reliable than the official web page of the film festival, or the theatre company, or the publisher. The person tagging those are unreliable is trolling this page. Alinamackie (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee is not trolling, she is trying to ensure the page aligns with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, which require independent reliable sources. Please focus on trying to improve the referencing rather than edit warring over the tags and accusing Valereee of bad faith. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding - how much much independent and reliable could a source be than the official major institution's webpage? Reviews are more reliable than that, as a source? Alinamackie (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if the assertion of the wiki page is that a film is available on these platforms and the sources are the page with the film available on it, how would that be missing a source? I'd love to better understand Alinamackie (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are multiple bits of policy we need to address. I'd suggest that you read to start off with WP:independent and WP:RS. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
removing factual information with reliable sources does fit the definition of vandalism I see Alinamackie (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that aren't wp:independent aren't kosher her except for noncontroversial facts. Read that link, too. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read about independent publishers now - I do believe it is in bad faith to imagine that a film festival isn't independent, or a theatre magazine, or a national newspaper, or amazon, or audible, I could go on Alinamackie (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A film festival where the film was shown is an affiliated, and therefore not independent, source. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's factually inaccurate - do you not understand the concept of independent film? Alinamackie (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concept of an independent reliable source. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and then for example, the last line in the career section - we have the audible page and the publisher's page. How are those not independent of the artist who narrated the audiobook? Alinamackie (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't lol. What sources do you accept for TV and film credits if not IMDB and not links to the actual films on platforms like Amazon and Apple? Alinamackie (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We accept things like the globe and mail. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Audible and the publisher are selling the product. Not independent. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
right but all we are asserting is that the product exists and Moon played the role specified in it. She doesn't have any affiliation with audible or the publisher. So the audiobook would need to be reviewed in the globe and mail? This seems in bad faith. Alinamackie (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the simple fact the product exists doesn't mean it's noteworthy for inclusion. As I wrote in many, many edit summaries and bsn explanations, we need to see someone else discussing it in some independent rs. Valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've now accused me of bad faith multiple times. Please read WP:ABF and WP:AGF. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. Alinamackie (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then you understand that making such accusations baselessly -- in this case, with two experienced editors telling you it's not bad faith -- is wp:disruptive editing? Valereee (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no - I don't agree. I think it isn't baseless, I'm afraid. I'm sorry to offend you. But I think it is reaching to say that that proving that someone starred in a film that went to one of the most major film festivals in the country isn't enough, because we must prove why that was notable in their career? Alinamackie (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We must show why it's worth discussing in this article. It's definitely worth mentioning if even one independent RS discusses it at length. But not everything she's ever done that has been mentioned in a blog or interview or a supplied bio is worth mentioning. She literally could say she walks her dog twice a day. Unless it's been discussed in independent RS, we consider it trivia. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, you can disagree with my explanation of baseless accusations of bad faith, but I really strongly advise you to stop. I tend to be hard to offend, but other admins may be less lenient. Valereee (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"based on" is wrong[edit]

The source cited doesn't say or support this. It says "begins with", and says that reading out "Moon’s interview transcripts" and some reënactments of encounters during interviews "make up its content". Riley 2019, p. 17 says "in the wake of" and provides a similar description of the actual contents of the play. The book's own blurb at Talonbooks says "in the wake of", too. Even Houpt 2016 says "borne of" in the body of the article (and probably also did in the original headline before some editor tried to make it catchy, or wanted to avoid the word "borne", given that the URL says "asking-for-it-is-a-sly-intelligent-play-borne-out-of-the-ghomeshi-trial"). We could serve readers a lot better by using these 3 sources to give a description of what the play actually comprises.

The play is based upon the interviews, according to all of these sources. "the play is built from interviews", says Houpt 2016 directly. Its relationship to the sexual harrassment charges is not that of a basis, more of a context. We don't even really have inspiration, as Nestruck 2017 says that the inspiration was a sexual incident with someone that Moon was dating. This is supported by Houpt 2016, which says that "Moon was spurred to investigate the issue […], after the Ghomeshi news broke, […] a violent experience with a former boyfriend […]".

So it's after the sexual misconduct allegations, inspired by an incident in the author's own past, and based on interviews.

Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Riley, Jessica (Spring 2019). "Canadian Drama in the New Millennium: Inherited and Evolving Dramaturgies" (PDF). Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies. 30 (1). Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelbe: 13–22.
  • Nestruck, J. Kelly (2017-10-11). "Review: Asking For It candidly explores consent in the wake of the Ghomeshi scandal". The Globe And Mail.
  • Houpt, Simon (2016-07-22). "Ghomeshi trial inspired this sly, intelligent play". The Globe And Mail.

Unclear what is being done to this page[edit]

I'm not clear why certain things have been removed or altered on this page. I am familiar with the work of the subject of this page. I understand from the 'talk' that some editors do not consider festival sites or book publisher sites to be either reliable or significant sources. I am not sure I understand that. If a book is published by Penguin, a major publisher, is that a reliable site that indicates itself the importance of the work? If giving the site of a film festival as a source is inadequate, is it sufficient to provide reference to a major reviewing publication such as Hollywood News or Screen Daily which refers to the film screening at the particular festival? If not I don't see what sources could be used. And yes, I saw the play "Asking For It" and it is not about Ghomeshi. It makes a brief reference to him at the opening - but that's it. That is clear in all the reviews. AMCream (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AMCream, if you are not the subject of this article, you are not doing her a favor with all this sockpuppetry to try to make sure this article and Adult Adoption are uniformly positive. Like, literally people will assume you are her and will think she's an egotistical twit who doesn't actually understand anything about Wikipedia.
No, being published by Penguin does not mean a work is important if no one is talking about it. Being covered by a press release or the site of a festival does not mean appearing at that festival makes a film notable. Hollywood News appears to be a crowdsourced blog, so not reliable. And I'd already changed the language about Ghomeshi to 'inspired by'. Next? Think fast, you're likely to be blocked for sockpuppetry soon. Valereee (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere I have replied - but I will repeat some of what I said there. No one expects uniformly positive commentary but you seem to have selected the negative comments and ignored the positive in the reviews you cite. Hollywood News is a recognised source of reviews and is included in the Rotten Tomatoes list of credible review sources (and as you may know they don't include many review sources). If the film is selected by festivals such as Glasgow and Whistler that is itself a significant thing - but yes even more so when the reviews are so positive, which they were. As I mentioned elsewhere Talonbooks is an important publisher - particularly of Canadian plays - and in a quick search of Wikipedia it appears to be cited 100s of times. This is true of many of the references you discounted and excluded. And no I am not Ellie Moon. AMCream (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If a book is published by Penguin, a major publisher, is that a reliable site that indicates itself the importance of the work?" No, it does not. That needs to be established by secondary sources. Everything, really, needs to be established by secondary sources. Talon Books is a publisher; their posting something on a book they published, that's neither here nor there, and it is not a site that can be used to say something about a book or a publisher. Plus, publishers sell books. We shouldn't link to sites that sell books, because they have a vested interest in selling the book. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (March 2024)[edit]

ongoing Valereee (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ellie_Moon&oldid=1214602753"