Talk:Joe Berlinger

Edits of this day
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)


 * 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)