Talk:Joe Berlinger

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Berlinger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edits of this day[edit]

The edits of today are carefully laid out in the edit summaries. The fact that there are significant portions of the material that are unsourced, should be clear, and so no defense of that article tag will be made. (The section tags appear, as per usual, to indicate which sections are problematic, as suggested by the article tags, so that future editors do not need to re-perform the review work already performed, but can instead hone in on the sections needing attention. The inline tags appear in cases where, within paragraphs and even sentences, some material was found to be sourced, and other material found not to appear in the sources appearing in those paragraphs/sentences. That is, they appear to differentiate sound content from as-yet-unverified material.

Regarding the NPOV tag:

The article as a whole is not good in this regard, glossing over any negatives, and overemphasizing positives. Various aspects of this filmmakers work have been problematic as viewed by critics, the courts, and knowledgable individuals, esp. the work on the Chevron case (Crude, 2009), and the Whitey Bulger piece (Whitey, 2014). E.g., see citations Itzkoff, Dave (2010-05-06) and Cullen, Kevin (2014-05-26), whose content is sampled, but whose complete reporting is not reflected.
As critically, two remaining paragraphs in the Paradise Lost section, appear to be complete editorializing, without any connection to the limited sourcing that appeared [Itzkoff, Dave (2012-01-06)], sourcing that was removed after finding that essentially none of the content or tone of Itzkoff (source) was reproduced in the WP article text (2 paragraphs). Specifically, the string words appearing— "DNA experts," "genetic", "physical evidence", "stepfather," "shoelace," "hogtie" "incompetence," "strange man", "blood", "bath/restroom" etc.—are simply not in this source, leaving this content unsourced, and clearly violating WP:VERIFY and otherwise clearly presenting (at least to this ear) a non-neutral POV (violating WP:NPOV as well).

These are the reasons, that despite hours of work—including the removal or downgrading of some tags originally placed—the article stands with these specific remaining tags (i.e., because the issues discovered could not, in one session, all be resolved). Cheers. Le Prof. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the tags but some of the off-film claims can be supported, like bringing attention to the actual case (referring to Paradise Lost). Outside of that, they are unsupported claims because if we are dealing with an actual court case, what has been presented in the trials is clear.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]