Talk:Promised Land (2012 film)

Controversy
Please don't kill the controversy section without some NPOV reason. This movie _has_ attracted controversy, both for a weird plot twist and for it's funding sources. Perhaps some comments can be added that the plot twist is mostly speculative at this point (I very much doubt it, but perhaps the scoop is inaccurate), and perhaps the funding from the United Arab Emirates can be put into perspective (do they fund lots of movies? I don't think so, but I could be wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.18.59 (talk • contribs) 01:24, September 29, 2012


 * Could we get a more reputable source? the CNBC article references back to the heritage foundation article which is clearly biased. Besides this company they call a finacer is credited under cinematography on the IMDB. I'm not sure the controversy is justified nor wiki worthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.21.110.129 (talk • contribs) 13:48, October 1, 2012‎


 * First things first, we need to change the section heading from "Controversy" to something else per WP:STRUCTURE. We should also follow WP:RSOPINION, such as indicating that The Heritage Foundation made the statement about the UAE connection. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've revised the "Controversy" section to be two separate sections with neutral headings. I also attributed the statements made and tried to keep a neutral tone. If you have any concerns about this content, we can discuss here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * " Besides this company they call a finacer is credited under cinematography on the IMDB." Imagenation Abu Dhabi FZ is listed as a production company. Production companies typically contribute to the funding of the movie. Why can't basic facts be reported on this page? Very few movies are co-produced (i.e. financed) by Imagenation Abu Dhabi FZ, this is one of them.

" If you have any concerns about this content, we can discuss here." Fine, let's discuss. Why is the reference to "Armstrong County Promised Land Pride" removed. This is a group of landowners, with a non-anonymous spokesperson, who claim that they were lied to re: the content of the film. They have organized in response to the film to oppose the deception. Why does it violate NPOV to refer to them? Most movies don't have "locals opposed to the movie" organizations. This one does. Seems worthy of say, 10 or 15 words and a link to their FB page. Are you trying to cover up the controversy or present NPOV account of the controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.219.46 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Facebook is not a reliable source. The guidelines say, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Basically, it would be worth reporting on this group of landowners if their protest is reported by newspapers. Do you know if the protest has been covered anywhere? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FB isn't a reliable source of information re:the existence of the group? You don't believe the group exists until some reporter says they exist? It would seem reasonable to report on the existence of a FB page, or of someone's views that are posted on a FB page. Do you believe that Mike Knapp's page http://www.facebook.com/mike.knapp.90?fref=ts is a fabrication as well, or that Mike Knapp doesn't exist? (Knapp is their spokesperson). He certainly looks real to me, that is a pretty elaborate fraud if he doesn't exist. Elsewhere in wikipedia there are references to FB pages and twitter feeds, but I suppose those are OK since they don't offend your editorial bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.219.46 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Facebook is not a reliable source. If it is being referenced elsewhere, it should be replaced by a reliable source. I certainly don't reference it, and my peers who work on film articles know not to use it. Same goes for Twitter feeds. WP:SPS is a relevant section of the policy. WP:WEIGHT is also worth a look to determine if the viewpoint can be reported. I'm happy to help implement coverage of the protest, but currently, the page is the protest itself. It needs to be noted by a secondary source. I've seen various small-scale protests about different films that do not get reported elsewhere. The ones that get attention from reliable sources are the ones covered in Wikipedia articles. The film has yet to come out, so there has not been that much coverage about the film in general. When the release date gets closer, and the protest continues, then perhaps some coverage will emerge that we can assess for inclusion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I can live with that. Those same standards would then argue for including the controversy surrounding Abu Dhabi Media. Will you help protect this page from the inevitable attacks wishing to remove the Abu Dhabi Media funding controversy? (And there is no doubt they have assisted with funding - that is what production companies do).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.219.46 (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will keep this article on my watchlist. I can protect it against vandalism, but if it is a content dispute, then we would follow the policy of resolving disputes. I am just one editor, after all. I would say that the financing topic would be more of a mainstay if there was additional coverage, such as responses to the Heritage Foundation's report. That's also likely to happen closer to the film's release date. Please be aware that if the topic does evolve, per WP:STRUCTURE, we should keep a neutral section heading and apply this guideline, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Please let me know if you have any questions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, CNBC reported on the Facebook group. I've included mention in the article body and have referenced CNBC. Hope that works! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Expansion
Today, I expanded the article significantly as seen here. I created a "Synopsis" section that details the film's premise. I also expanded the "Production" section significantly to trace its development history from Krasinski's idea to filming in multiple locations across Pennsylvania. In this section I mention Focus Features and Participant Media, but I did not find any references to the Abu Dhabi company. It may have been a late partner. Hopefully future coverage will clarify how that company got involved.

I also changed the "Real-world context" section into "Fracking as film topic" and traced the origins of the fracking debate to last April. I've tried to follow WP:NPOV, especially WP:STRUCTURE, in referencing the different viewpoints as it relates to the film. I strongly recommend leaving the science to the article hydraulic fracking because this film article is not the place to get into these specifics. That is why I included a link to the science article for readers. The section "Film financing" has more limited coverage than the section about fracking, so I was not able to expand further. Finally, I added a "Release" section at the end, where it can serve as a launch pad for covering its theatrical run, the critical reception, etc. Please let me know if you have any comments, particularly about the film's topics of debate. Thanks. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes
Regarding these changes, I reverted some of them. First of all, it appears that the article from The Progressive has been referenced across multiple Wikipedia articles, including this one. However, it was inserted in the lead section where a citation was not needed, and the review was referenced in the "Release" section when there are still many more reviews, especially of the mainstream sort, that can be included. I also restored the phrase "that would be cast in a negative light" because this appears an attempt at whitewashing what the citation said. In addition, I think the assessment of Wall Street Journal's coverage is not neutral and not needed for the passage about the industry reacting to the film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg
This article from Bloomberg has a lot of different quotes. I've included what I thought would fit this Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure how we can include additional quotes. Just wanted to note that here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow The Money
To anyone out there with patience, time and research experience: Take a look at who ACTUALLY funded this picture, rather than the one cited on official releases. Then ask yourself whether deception by environmental supporters is any less unethical than the deceptions of big oil.

167.187.101.240 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Lafayette, Louisiana
There are as many lighthouses in or near Lafayette, Louisiana, as there are in Nebraska. None. 68.229.131.61 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)