Talk:The Dove Foundation

Untitled
The verifiability of the comments of Rolfe may be controversial. But his address is listed in the financial forms on the organization's web site, and his phone number is in the phone book. So anyone can call him up. When I called him he was quite forthright about how the system operates. Ccrrccrr 03:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A commment to support noteability: at least four Wikipedia articles on particular films include the Dove Foundation rating of the film. Ccrrccrr 12:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits and restored some deleted material. The most recent edits had been by respresentative of Dove, and my goal was to restore NPV. I'd also like to repeat the request that Vectro made that changes that might be controversial be discussed on this page.

The changes I made: 1) Restored the mention of the telemarketing controvery to the introduction. It had been deleted without justification.  If there is a justification for deleting that, it should be discussed here before deletion.

2) For the section that had been title "Controvery" and had been changed to "National Opinion Poll", I attempted to find a neutral compromise title. Since the description of the operation as a poll is part of the controversy, I didn't think that was a neutral title.  Is "Call Center Operations" good, or should we good back to "Controvery", since that's a standard section title on Wikipedia to flag a section of this nature?

3) Moved the link to the FAQ to the end of that section. The ideal here would be to start with a neutral description of the operation, and then describe and link to the various opinions of the operation.

4) I changed the wording a little bit in the survey results to try to retain a NPV. I belive the results stated there were previously word-for-word identical to the listing on the Dove site.  This is problematic for many reasons, including copyright and NPV.  I'm not sure I've changed them enough to resolve all those problems--it might be better to simply have the link  there. Ccrrccrr 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The changes I made: 1) deleted the word "agressive" in telemarketing, since it is NPV and not statisticlly valid, since nearly 4.5 million people have willingly particpated in the call.

2) added a heading for "Natonal Opinion Poll," since that is the matter of discussion referred to in the "Call Center" section. This also helps clarify the fact that the poll results reflect responses from both the phone call and an online questionaire.

3) bracked Ccrrccrr's editorial comments in the survey results, since they do violate Dove's copyright, since they are not part of the report, but rather an assumption on Ccrrccrr's part. --Dick@Dove 00:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that editing of the statements in the survey results section was a violation of Dove's copyright, then there is no question that including that material here was inappropriate. Thus, I deleted it. See number three of the Five Pillars. No big loss, as there's still a link to that content on your website where nobody unauthorized can edit it. Also note that some of the content you attributed to me was not mine.

I'm still uncomfortable with a heading "National Opinion Poll", as if the operation were really designed to function as a valid poll, it would be run quite differently.

The fact that 4.5 million people have participated does nothing to show that it is not aggressive.

--Ccrrccrr 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Official POV
I think official comments from the Dove Foundation should be an important part of this article, but they must be done as part of a neutral point of view. The best way to do that is through attribution and contrast, e.g., "Although many have criticised the Foundation for its automated calling program, the foundation itself maintains that it is designed to measure the attitudes of Americans", etc.


 * I like this approach.Ccrrccrr 13:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have several specific comments on recent changes. Everyone, feel free to respond individually. You can indent your remarks (to make the flow of conversation clear) by preceeding them with a ':'. Vectro 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Poll, Telemarketing, or Call Center?
The opinion poll and call center operations are one and the same, and should not have separate sections. Perhaps we can add the opinion poll link as a reference, like so:

Call Center Operations
The organization conducts a survey by telephone and internet, which has generated controvery for several reasons: Firstly, the methodology and results of its survey findings are accused of strong sampling bias, as call recipients are only invited to participate in the survey if their answers to initial screening questions show they generally agree with the Foundation's positions Secondly, they have been found guilty of using the telephone survey as a ruse to sidestep the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act and help a partner sell products.

Comments? Vectro 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that integrating these makes sense. A phrase like you proposed above, "The Foundation itself maintains...", could easily go in here.Ccrrccrr 13:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Millions of families"
Although the poll does not, in fact, demonstrate that "millions of families would like to see more wholesome movies, without explicit portrayals of sex, violence and profanity" (because of its lack of statistical validity), I think there is room for an official take on the calling program in this article. I suggest something like the following: "Although the survey results may not be statistically valid, many respondants do indicate that they would like to see more wholesome movies, without explicit portrayals of sex, violence and profanity." Comments? Vectro 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Official survey results
We can use the official survey result text under fair use. If we do that, however, the fair use explanation must be clearly noted as a comment in the article source (which I failed to do), and the original text preserved and clearly demarced. I think that adding the official survey results, preceeded by a note about the survey's reliability, can improve the article. Comments? Vectro 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that this is short enough to meet the criteria (see specifically this paragraph WP:Fair_Use). But we could put it up and then request review by the experts, as suggested on the fair use page.Ccrrccrr 13:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Dick, any thoughts? Vectro 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

12 times more R than G
This tidbit may or may not be true, but it doesn't really belong in this article. I could see adding it under the "quotes" section, but it probably really belongs (properly attributed) in Motion Picture Rating System. I should point out that the current US rating regime has only been around since 1968, so if this quote is added in a factual context to any article, it should probably be verified. Vectro 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dovefoundation.gif
Image:Dovefoundation.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to FFFF
The word "affiliation" does not accurately describe the association between Dove and Feature Films for Families. When one organization hires another, there is no membership or "branch" relationship implied. It's like hiring an accountant to do your taxes. You wouldn't say that you're "affiliated" with that accountant. The word "association" is more accurate. Finz7 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (I moved the above comment here and added the section title hoping to help keep things findable here.)Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether the relationship between two entities who conspire to break a law is better described by "affiliation" or by "association", but I'm happy to leave it as "association". I think it would be of interest to have some source cited that describes the relationship as Dove hiring FFFF.  Finz7, if you have a reference for that it might be of interest. From my reading of the press on the lawsuit it doesn't sound like the relationship was that simple. Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Phone survey ended in 07?
I just got a "survey" call from Feature Films For Families. Dunno if it's still being done by the Dove Foundation, but the FFFF "survey" is still going on in the US. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)