Talk:180 (2011 American film)

Comments by Lampstand49 (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Further refining Talk page layout Discuss, Refine & Sign further edits to Article here following Wikipedia guidelines--Lampstand49 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Success
Consider an update to amount of views online, when views surpass 1 million. Give that date, as well.

Reviews
I recommend adding my review of the film quoted below:

Recent revert
I recently changed "slammed" to "criticized" in the article, per WP:SAY, but I was reverted. Why is "slammed" necessary here? &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 01:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tentatively reverted, since it seems clear to me that slammed contravenes WP:W2W. If there are any objections, feel free to revert me and discuss. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, "criticized" is a fairer word here. Zegron (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to Page Deletion
This page was requested to be deleted on the following grounds:
 * 1) YouTube views of the video were not considered significant,
 * 2) It was not considered by terms of Wikipedia to be notable, and
 * 3) It was considered to be propaganda in that it was seen through the lens of spreading a cause.

Stopthatastronaut (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)stopthatastronaut Personal opinion: YouTube views alone say nothing about notability per se. In this specific case, a movie seemingly deliberately designed to stir controversy, so view numbers should be taken with a pinch of salt. In this case, numerous sites criticizing or panning the movie linked to the youtube page(s) and therefore inflated the statistics with what could be described as disdain. As an example I would cite this post at Pharyngula, a blog often noted for its volume of traffic. This to me suggests that in terms of notability, the movie is a provincial squabble and not culturally notable.

To offer a rebuttal it should be mentioned that:
 * 1) The YouTube views have reached have reached 2,999,208 views as of 5-25-2012 22:55 PST. 500,000 views were recorded during the first week
 * 2) This video was mentioned by many different news sources, not the least of which include Huffington Post and even brought up controversy among the Anti-Defamation League and quite a few atheist blogs and message boards. Richard Dawkins himself directly opposed the film.
 * 3) If it does seem like propaganda, then it should be modified, not deleted.

216.128.98.212 (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)TJWhit


 * 1) The number of views, regardless of what they are, are clearly not "viral" and in no way meet the criterial for being vial. An actual viral video will do 1 million hits in a day or two. This one has been out 3 months and has not hit 3 million. The Youtube user FreddieW releases videos every few weeks and each and every one break 2+ million views in less than 48 hours. None of his views warrant a wikipedia entry. FredieW does't even have a wikipedia entry.
 * 2) Thousands of Self-produced / self-promoted independent films are made every year and many with far more success than this so called "documentary" and they don't warrant a page on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Many things are mentioned in the media, message boards, by prominent people, and other sources and 99% of them do not warrant nor have a Wikipedia entry.

To be notable an entry must:
 * 1) Have "Significant coverage" from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Lifenews.com" & "chrstianpost.com" are neither reliable nor independent. What little coverage there is does not qualify as "Significant coverage".
 * 2)  What little coverage exists can't by any means be called independent. Lifenews and Christian post have dogs in this hunt and therefore are biased and knee deep in this.
 * 3) Wikipedia requires multiple sources to keep neutral point of view. This "movie" lacks that to such a degree, there is no possible way to write a neutral POV article on it.

180 fails on all requirement of notability and should be deleted.

Jwissick (t)  (c)  09:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Clearly not viral" according to whom? Only you. Significant coverage: Haaretz, Florida Independent, Christianity Today, HuffPo, ADL. The only bias here is yours. 67.233.243.176 (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By *any* standard. A viral video is not just the total number of view, but those views must be accumulated in a *very* short period of time. A few small notices in a few outlets and a couple of press releases does not a notable event make. The fact remains that 180 was touted to be a huge "viral" video and it fell flat on it's face so quietly that no one noticed.  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  06:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "By *any* standard." Name a few. "those views must be accumulated in a *very* short period of time" Define "a *very* short period of time." A day? Why not two? Why not a week or more? And how many views are necessary? Who has judged what the ultimate cut-off points for time and views at which a video cannot be considered viral? "A few small notices in a few outlets and a couple of press releases does not a notable event make." Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and entire history disagree. "it fell flat on it's face so quietly that no one noticed" Like everything else you've said, that's nothing more than your biased opinion and is completely meaningless to this article. Why don't you put this up for AfD and we'll immediately see you get your ass handed to you. 67.233.241.79 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect, "Independent of the subject", "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." not your definition, "from reliable sources that are independent of the SUBJECT." (Quote emphasis mine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zegron (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I call shenanigans and bad faith. Jwissick is a long-time critic of Ray Comfort and this nomination is just an extension of that. There is absolutely no merit to this nomination and it should be canceled immediately. 67.233.243.176 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to actually address the points Jwissick made.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. I called them "bad faith." Jwissick's history of edits regarding Ray Comfort (ALL of which were reverted) are clear enough on this issue. 67.233.243.176 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not addressing his points, and frankly it is out of line. Civility, including AGF, is one of the five pillars, and your comments verge on a personal attack. Please keep things civil, and on-topic. That being said, Jwissick, I strongly suspect this article would survive an AfD. I agree the current sourcing is minimal, but I'm not sure it's minimal enough for deletion. You're welcome to take it there, but I don't believe it's a strong candidate.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit history is relevant, not a personal attack. The only personal attack going on here is Jwissick once again attacking Ray Comfort. 67.233.243.176 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit history is not relevant on an article talk page, no. If you have an issue with an editor, take it to their talk, WP:RFC/U, or a noticeboard. You're entitled to your opinion, but as an experienced editor I'm telling you that your comments here are out of line. Please stop.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "experience" doesn't change the fact that this proposed AfD nomination was made by someone with a known agenda against Ray Comfort and anything associated with him and with a history of bad edits regarding Ray Comfort. Such an argument would be considered legitimate if it were being made against, say, Orly Taitz editing Barack Obama's page. 67.233.243.176 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The documentary film 180 was selected for incorporation into the collection of [| documentary.net], which features only "curated top documentary films." According to the curators:


 * 1) "Only the best films get selected by us to guarantee quality content. Our docs educate, entertain, inform, teach, shock, explain. You get deeper insights, you increase your knowledge and maybe you gain some new perspectives."
 * 2) "We only feature documentaries both perfect in filmmaking and technical aspects."

Currently the documentary.net collection includes only 500 films, which vary from "multi-million dollar projects to Academy Awards winners or Palme d’Or in Cannes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbmccarty (talk • contribs) 05:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And what percentage of those videos on that site have wiki entries? A quick review shows that that % is rather low. If they don't meet notability guidelines, then a self-promoted "documentary" that is *completely ignored* by the main stream media certainly doesn't. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  06:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does the percentage matter? Many of them have Wikipedia articles. Kony 2012, David Guetta - Nothing But The Beat, Life In A Day, etc. That a low percentage (according to your original research) of the films listed have articles is absolutely meaningless when it comes to establishing whether or not a film is notable enough for an article. As far as 180 being "*completely ignored*" by the media, you seem to be either blind, misinformed or lying. Given your well-known criticism, stalking, and harassment of Ray Comfort, I suspect the third option. 67.233.241.79 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be assured that I am AGF regarding this article until it is proven otherwise. But, there needs to be clearer statement of Wikipedia rules on Notability, rather than someone just stating an opinion on whether or not a source is acceptable or isn't acceptable. We know blogs aren't (generally) WP:SPS, we know that original research (WP:NOR) and personal opinion don't count (when dealing with FACTS) WP:USERG, because Wikipedia says they don't. Websites that aren't blogs, like the ADL (Anti Defamation League), Huffington Post, Haaretz (founded in 1918 Haaretz is considered Israel's most influential daily newspaper) and even The Christian Post are websites with significant readership and influence into society in general and even more influence in the sections of society that they target (context). Its common sense these sites are notable. They meet the tests:
 * 1) "Reliable" - These are sites run by established organizations with editorial teams and have editorial integrity. WP:NEWSORG & WP:GNG
 * 2) "Independent of the subject" - none of the the sites I listed are affiliated with the 180Movie or its producers.
 * 3) "Sources" - These are secondary sources, not promotional releases from the makers of the film
 * 4) "Significant coverage" - The articles "address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." WP:GNG Also the movie is the focus of each article, it isn't some minor aside in the bulk of a larger article. Example

I will seek further input from other experienced editors to best address this page.

Zegron (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Two media entries and one press release is not "significant coverage". Jwissick  (t)  (c)  07:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember, "significant coverage" is just a guideline and there certainly are exceptions to it. This would be one of those exceptions. 67.233.241.33 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2012
I wish to edit the 180 movie page, because of new information regarding the number of views it has, it has 3 million views as of May 16 2012

Musiciangirl591 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2012
I would like the infobox image to use this image. http://www.180movie.com/banner/180banner_200x200.png it is a free image that filmmakers give out to people that wish to discuss the film that is the topic of the discussion on this page. The image comes from the filmmaker's main website. http://www.heartchanger.com/banners.php I picked this image as it is free and permissible to be published online by anyone. I cannot edit semiprotected docs yet, that is why I am making this edit request. Thank you. - Zegron (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Zegron (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Said image is from a site that has no clear copyright policy. Image is also a promotional image that doesn't meet NPoV. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. The website -- heartchanger.com -- is owned and operated by Living Waters, and here is their copyright policy:
 * 6. Copyright
 * You may not post, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. Without limiting the foregoing, if you believe that your work has been copied and posted on the Service in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please provide our Copyright Agent with the following information: an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest; a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed; a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Website; your address, telephone number, and email address; a written statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
 * That page of 180 images clearly gives prior written consent for them to be freely used. 67.233.241.79 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have written permission from Living Waters to use the photo. It seemed to make sense to go to the source for permission to use the image since its representative of the film itself (like using an image of a book cover or dvd cover). I could edit the image to remove the website address so it seems less promotional. But otherwise there is no valid objection according to Wikipedia Community Standards if I remove the website address. Zegron (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the edited for NPOV version of the image for the infobox. Please can an auto-approved editor replace File:180 Changing the Heart of a Nation dvd.jpg with the file here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/zegron/180banner_200x200.png

Thank you, Zegron (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Turns out I've done enough edits to be able to do it myself. I have updated the image. It is properly sourced and I have written permission from the owner of the copyright to use it here. Zegron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Edit request 21 May 2012
Please remove the "notability" banner/tag. The user who originally added it has apparently not decided to adequately back-up his issue with this article. The article has three major, neutral sources backing it: -- Haaretz, Florida Independent and HuffPo -- so the tag is wrong. 67.233.241.140 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lack of notability still stands. 3 million hits in 7 months is hardly anything. There are literally hundreds of other videos on YT that have more hits in that same time and the vast majority of them do not warrant a wiki page. The fact remains that 180 is not notable by any standard. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  07:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your basis for determining notability is flawed. "3 million hits in 7 months is hardly anything" is nothing more than POV -- you have no objective, neutral standard on which to based such a statement. YOU are trying to be the one to determine that it is "hardly anything" based solely on your personal vendetta against Ray Comfort. The only place 180 is "not notable by any standard" is in between your ears. You are failing spectacularly at making your case against the film's notability because of the fact that you are basing this on nothing than your personal opinion. My edit request stands. 67.233.241.33 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a video of a police officer in Ohio poorly handling a stop involving a citizen with a CCW license. It was posted in July 2011 and hasn't broken 1 million views yet, but the video has been described by several neutral sources as having gone viral. Clearly, 3 million hits in 7 months is far, far better than that. Of course, that's beside the point. If reliable sources are describing the video as "viral," then it is viral and notable. JayHubie (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 24 May 2012 -- add new source
"Movie comparing abortion to the Holocaust shown to Wagoner students"

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Movie-comparing-abortion-to-the-Holocaust-shown/QXe8XbPZ3EmGI_ETKKtGsA.cspx

67.233.241.33 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit September 1 2012
Found "...in order to place interviewees on the spot" to be an opinion of motive rather than unbiased fact stating. I found the rest of the information informative enough for readers to make their own decision regarding the motives/tactics of the filmmakers.

My apologies for initially posting this request under the wrong section


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed and what it needs to be changed to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2013
Follow "anti-abortion" with parenthetical "(pro-life)"

Drbobvan (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure what purpose this serves, since the word "anti-abortion" in the opening sentence of this article is already wikilinked to the same target that pro-life redirects to. I also have a personal aversion to the euphemisms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Ordinarily I would have left this edit request open for someone else to respond to and close, but your account became autoconfirmed after you made the above post, so you should be able to make the edit yourself if you so wish. I will not revert it if you do. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I propose that the term "anti-abortion" be replaced by the term "pro-life" as adhering more closely to WP:NPOV policy. Elizium23 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable secondary sources calling this a pro-life film: Huffington Post Christian Post BreatheCast Standard Newswire Elizium23 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "pro life" has a number of problems. It is a political term, most predominantly used in the US. There has generally been consensus elsewhere to follow the conventions of the associated press, in order to avoid unnecessarily politicizing issues (we are an encyclopedia, after all), to maintain a disinterested tone, and to avoid systematic, US-centric, bias. That's the reason that pro life redirects to Anti-abortion movement. This film is undoubtedly against abortion. I don't see a need to turn our description of that fact into a US-centric political rally. We can simply describe it impartially by saying that the film is against abortion.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet it is not impartial, it is a pejorative term that is not used by members of the movement, but rather by their foes to cast a negative light on them. It fails WP:NPOV policy on the face of it. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh? How is anti-abortion a pejorative term? It's not even a "term" at all, it's a description. And how could it possibly cast a negative light on this film? The film's whole purpose is to campaign against abortion. It is anti abortion as a point of fact.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet an abundance of reliable secondary sources describe this film as "pro-life". Do we or do we not follow reliable secondary sources here on Wikipedia? Elizium23 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you not read what I wrote? You haven't responded to anything I've said. We regularly avoid describing groups by the terms they prefer, such as with white supremacists, and in this case, so too with pro-life and pro-choice. Those labels are appropriate when describing phenomena in US politics, but are not appropriate in a global, non-political context.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the addition of Category:Films about abortion because the article is already in this category. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)