Talk:All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story

Removed plot per WP:BLP

I've removed the entire unsourced plot per WP:BLP. Since this movie uses real life names and portrays the actions of a real life person the content must accurate and must be sourced. Movies take liberties with story lines and we cannot have a subjective plot summary that represents a real life person and their actions unless it is is 100% accurate and reliably sourced.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm not sure that your use of WP:BLP applies in this case, and I will alert WP:Film to this matter. When it comes to the plot material for film articles, all we need to do, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, is relay the plot summary (meaning how the plot was relayed in the film) accurately. And per that guideline, such sections usually do not need to be sourced; this is because the film serves as the source. And if we do source the material, it is supposed to be sourced based on what happened in the film or on one of the creator's interpretation of a matter. There are various Wikipedia film articles with plot sections about living people, including biopics. What you have proposed with your removal of the plot section is perhaps something that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries and WP:FILMPLOT will need to consider when it comes to plot sections based on living people. So I will also alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Alerted here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think BLP concerns really apply. We are describing the plot summary of a film based on a real-life incident, not asserting actual facts about a living person. Even if there are factual inaccuracies in the film, we would still convey those factual inaccuracies as part of an accurate description of the plot. That would possibly necessitate a "factual inaccuracies" section, but it is irrelevant as far as describing the plot goes. As for sourcing the plot summary, it is a convention to source it to the film itself (see Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations), which is cited by the infobox i.e. the film serves as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for the synopsis. This in itself is not a problem, provided an editor just sticks to summarising and doesn't add their own interpretation: watching a film and summarising its contents is no different to reading a book or an article and summarising its contents, which is basically how we build Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are specific problematic areas with the plot that seem unsourceable to the film itself, such as character motivations, those can be cited to reliable sources. Otherwise, I would think that the film itself as a primary source would be sufficient. We're merely recounting the plot points of a TV film here, not reporting what actually happened in the real world. In this article, readers should be able to find out what happens in the film, not what happened for real. If they wish to know about the real events, they can click on one of the appropriate links. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. My concern here is that movies and films that are based on true stories take liberties with those stories. They fictionalize them to some degree. Some films are fictionalized more than others. When a film portrays events in the life of a living person and uses the names of living people in the film then it is easy for the WP reader to think that every aspect of the film's story line is accurate and true. This creates a problem for a living person especially when that plot summary is the subjective evaluation of (in some cases) a single viewer/WP editor. I'm aware that MOS does not require sources for plot summaries but I disagree with that guideline and this is one example of why. If 10 people watch a movie and they each give a plot summary they will all be different. They will vary in accuracy, weight etc. because they are subjective. I understand this not the place to debate an MOS guideline but I think this is a topic worthy of some community consideration in this particular case. Thank you for your comments and for alerting the appropriate projects. As always I will honor the community consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've placed a post at BLPN asking interested parties to join this discussion. Thanks again, everyone, for your participation and your thoughtful and intelligent commentary. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

• Just weighing in here- I'd say that a film synopsis should be included but that we should absolutely include a "factual inaccuracies" section that notes what has been changed, exaggerated, and/or is completely fictional in the film. It's normal to have a synopsis, although I do say that we should have as short a synopsis as possible. I think that 500-700 words is the ideal, so it's entirely possible to create a synopsis section that can gloss over or otherwise omit these inaccuracies. Also, if any of the people involved with the film have commented on the film's inaccuracies, that can also help with the inaccuracy section as well. Another alternative is to include these criticisms in the reception section. The thing to remember here is that since this is a film, it doesn't fall under BLP rules as far as I've seen because it's not a "real life" type of scenario. It's based on a true story, but films on real events are themselves seen as "fictional" because it's the norm for them to take liberties with the story in question. Plus if we were to write the synopsis exactly as it happened IRL, then we're guilty of making an inaccurate synopsis ourselves. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to show The Stalking of Laurie Show as an example of how an article can touch upon the subject of inaccuracies in a film of this nature. It's a stub, but it does address the topic in the reception section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Although'... I do have to say this: the article is currently completely unsourced and deletion is always an option in this scenario if we cannot find enough coverage to merit an entry. Redirecting it to Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Popular_culture is also an option. I'll see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was tempted to mention in my initial post above that the film might not pass the WP:Notability guideline. But, surely, there are WP:Secondary sources out there about this film, on Google Books or elsewhere, even if there is a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue. Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've found enough sourcing to assert notability for the film, so that's not an issue anymore. Now it's just the synopsis. Ultimately I say that we should re-add it, edit it for length, and then make a fictional inaccuracy section for the article and source it with any of the various RS that are out there about the real life specifics about the case. The thing to remember here is that this is a fictionalized depiction of a real life event and as such, doesn't really fall under BLP. Also it appears that Letourneau fully participated with the film and doesn't seem to have complained about it any (nor has her spouse), so I don't see where they're going to be trying to get it taken down any time soon. We do have to worry about BLP issues, but I don't see where this is one such scenario and I don't see where the people who would be harmed by any potential summaries have protested the film in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 has made some very intelligent suggestions that would separate the movie from RL and would allay my concerns and provide fair treatment for the living person. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)