Jump to content

Talk:Dominion (2018 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has become incredibly biased due to bad-faith editing

[edit]

This article has become incredibly biased due to potential bad-faith editing. For example, the term "documentary film" was replaced with "anti-farming film", which is clearly biased language, and also inaccurate since the film is pro plant farming. On top of that, all praise of this film has been removed, with the argument being put that the sources are biased, but a quote from the industry council, quoted by Queensland Country Life, is still included in the article. And the official website has been removed, because the youtube link includes the film, even though the youtube link is login-walled Jesse Flynn (pseudonym) (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind talk pages are no place for personal attacks.
For what you do describe about edits, the term anti-farming comes directly from the news source. It's no secret that these groups are anti-livestock farming, and the focus of the movie is further explained in the body with the additional sources. As for "praise" we follow WP:NPOV, so we follow what independent sources have to say primarily. The parts of the reception section that were removed were from advocacy sites like Plant-Based News[1] that wouldn't really be appropriate here. Those parts just had the lowest quality sourcing. Generally we're going to stick to what more neutral sources have to say about reception. The industry spokesperson is however mentioned in a few sources, so there is a WP:DUE inclusion there.
As for Youtube, Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle to direct people to advocacy websites or show people where to watch a movie. Anyone can still click the link and log in to view it though. KoA (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA Although I haven't looked through the article/edits in detail, I think the ideal position is somewhere between the past state of the article and your edits. I'm not sure "anti-farming" is the best description to use in the very first sentence. Many documentaries have a position or advocate for something. Bowling for Columbine, for example, is still described as a documentary rather than an "anti-gun" film in the lead. In terms of source neutrality, I don't think pro-farming/meat sources are good either. Sources like Queensland Country Life are not going to be neutral on this topic. Sam Walton (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be citing sources from the meat industry, nor vegan advocacy websites. Both are biased. We need reviews written by academics or scientists. The Australian Meat Industry Council should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked around there are not any good reviews of Dominion. One website I found "UK Film Review" might not pass WP:RS [2] so I doubt we can use it. Only beef magazines or vegan websites have reviewed the film which are not neutral. The best thing to do would be to remove the "reception" section because there is no neutral coverage. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the overall problem I had too looking for reviews. As for the Australian Meat Industry Council, I would say leave it out too if it only was simply sourced to them. That other sources reported on it independently as WP:DUE though is why it wasn't removed. That said, I'd be in favor of pruning it down so it doesn't take up as much space or excessively quoting. Just the first sentence or even paraphrasing that would be better than the current version. That would actually make it easier to stubify the article since I don't think sections aren't absolutely needed either if it's pruned down further.
On a side note, I would be careful about re-adding the term documentary as too broad. Sources outright described it as an anti-farming video, and it's better to have a bit more description about it rather than be too general. That and it gets really tricky in topics like these because there's often the question of if it's truly a documentary reflecting reality or closer to propaganda from these groups. That's why I was sticking closer to what sources described it as more directly. KoA (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Seaspiracy it is a good article as it contains reception from academics, environmentalists and scientists. Dominion seems to have gone unnoticed. I agree it's probably best to cut down the article and stubify it. This is one of those articles that passes notability but will never be a great article. I see a couple of news website picked up on it but not much else. I have not read over all of the sources on the article currently I will take a look. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab and some stubbing. Not sure if the funding sources are really needed either. It seems like the main thing to focus is what exactly the film is about and some of the underlying campaigning it's being used for (one source touched on that a little).
I've seen good reviews of similar ag-related videos on this subject (or on GMOs) from scientists, so that's what I was looking for first before anything to make things easier on us. WP:PARITY can apply here though where the bar is lower for sourcing critiques, so that's why I'm cautious about removing the mention outright of criticism even if it's not ideal. At least the reduced version is less corporate-speak. It'd be better to have someone completely independent making such statements, but the current state seems ok at least for the amount of reporting by news. KoA (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confusing this documentary (a graphic documentary about factory farming) with What The Health (a film promoting fringe theories about the health impacts of meat)? Person568 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not, can you please explain how WP:PARITY is relevant, and what this has to do with science and GMOs? Again, Dominion is a graphic documentary that showcases how animals are treated in factory farms. In my opinion there's nothing even to dispute 194.223.31.222 (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vegan advocacy group films (or other similar output) can often get into WP:FRINGE territory on depictions of norms related to livestock, so that's why I mentioned caution about that. There are similar videos on the anti-GMO front that fall into somewhat similar pitfalls, which is why I mentioned them. This particular video hasn't drawn too much academic attention, so there's not a lot to say on that front here, but it's just a background issue to keep aware of for now. Since Delforce appears to be based out of the Melbourne area, it's possible there may be more local commentary on the film from university scientists there, but I haven't seen anything yet like Pysch. Guy mentioned above. KoA (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australia's publically-funded media broadcaster) considers Chris Delforce a reputable source, see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-27/pork-industry-carbon-dioxide-stunning-hidden-cameras-730/102094548.
Which part of the film even needs accademic attention? Do you need proof that it's not CGI? 194.223.31.222 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned anti-farming in my reply to Psych. Guy as it was straight from the source, but as for Queensland County Life, I mostly left it as an existing source. That said, it's a general ag./farm news source, and we generally consider those reliable in ag. related subjects on-wiki (they're apt to ask for interviews from us university folks even if we have something counter to industry to say). If it were from advocacy or trade groups like Beef Magazine, then I would be more cautious as you describe. KoA (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle to direct people to advocacy websites
What? Even http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#External_links includes a link to the (absolutely disgusting and shameful) official website. Jesse Flynn (pseudonym) (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there are a few WP:SPAs showing up here now like with this edit claiming the source's characterization is ridiculous while adding a tag. Just a reminder that this film is frequently prefaced as a vegan film, described as anti-farming, etc. in sources. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute it's a vegan advocacy film and that it's used as part of the group's opposition to livestock farming, especially coming from sources.
I mentioned earlier that "documentary" has issues being too vague, and we get into POV issues with the term, though that's part of a larger issue with recent discussion of the term in a broader scale where the preference is to avoid worrying about whether to call something controversial a documentary. Instead, it's more informative for readers (and easier) to just add more description on what kind of film it is (i.e., vegan activist group advocating against livestock farming) followed by the sentences that give details of what is in the film itself like we currently have. Nothing is hidden and described pretty even-handedly in this version honestly. The NYT piece is pretty explicit on what the film claims, and the sole academic mention I could find mentions that the film is known for using shock tactics. It's not clear what the issue is here with the factual tag. Even with that aside, I'm not sure the term documentary is really adding anything, even if we did something like vegan anti-livestock farming documentary. KoA (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I am able to contribute to the discussion page again, I wanted to apologize for using the word "ridiculous" which was a bit inflammatory. I also wanted to clarify that while my account is new, I am hoping to contribute beyond this topic in the future, so I think the SPA characterization is a bit unfair.
@Samwalton9 did a great job at summarizing most of the issues I had with describing this movie as a "vegan anti-livestock farming" film. Every source that I can find describes this movie foremost as a documentary, only touching on its themes later in the synopsis. More broadly, I had three strong issues with the language of your first sentence:
  1. "Vegan anti-livestock farming film" is cumbersome and not concise
  2. Movies cannot be vegan. Veganism is a diet, and a vegan refers to a person that consumes a vegan diet. The adjective in itself is not an appropriate characterization of a film
  3. "Anti-livestock farming" was too broad a characterization to be accurate in my opinion. There is an important distinction between traditional pastoralism and modern factory farming - "livestock farming" encompasses both. If you really want to say you are being true to the source of the film itself then you need to say "anti-modern livestock farming", but again, that is an extremely cumbersome way to introduce the article and unnecessary at that. You can touch on the movie's themes of being against modern livestock farming later.
Stonerock10 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stonerock, first please be careful about personal opinion. We go by what sources say or actively say they disagree on for descriptions. I haven't seen any disagreement in sources echoing your comments.
Sources directly described it as a vegan film, including vegan news sources we typically wouldn't use here[3]. As for anti-livestock farming, that is also directly from sources (or rather anti-farming that later specifies they are against livestock farming). The main focus of the vegan groups behind videos like this is typically ending livestock production as a whole and this one does not seem to be making the distinctions you are. That is in part why it is a vegan advocacy film as opposed to solely animal welfare. KoA (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't want to pay attention attention to grammar or make any stylistic considerations, and make this decision purely based off of how external sources introduce the movie, then I have not found a single source that introduces the film as an "anti-livestock farming" film, and none of the sources used in the article introduce it as such. The New York Times, Queensland Country Life, The Sydney Morning Herald, Chuffed, and Indiegogo all simply call it a documentary, with some of the sources using the phrase "Vegan documentary". The sources that describe it as a vegan documentary are mostly websites that are centered around veganism and animal rights activism, which is why I presume they describe it as such, so while grammatically it does not make sense you could at least make the argument that some sources introduced it that way. As I said earlier though, not a single source used the language "anti-livestock farming film". Stonerock10 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about putting in "anti-livestock farming" in quotes, we're talking about just saying anti-livestock farming as part of other text. The difference there is that we are expected to do minimal paraphrasing on what sources say, and that's addressed further down in more detail. When sources do preface what type of film it is, it's all some variation of vegan, anti (livestock) farming, animal rights, etc. saying basically the same thing. Bringing up a concern that the exact verbatim text isn't in a source is very arbitrary and not helpful when the term anti-farming is directly quotable in sources with further clarification of what that means as well. Sources really aren't split on the description here.
If we were following that strict interpretation though, then there would be no problem with the text here simply saying it is a vegan anti-farming film as all of that is directly sourced. The first sentence tells reader what type of film it is and then goes into more detail that it is about livestock, which vegan already implies. In all honestly, we already had sources that addressed what you bring up as concerns here, so it's still not clear any of those issues could be a valid concern in terms of weighing WP:CONSENSUS. KoA (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at reworking the article based on reliable sources, including trimming some content that was not well sourced. I think the article has ended up in a good place. I found multiple sources - including the New York Times - which refer to it simply as a 'documentary', so I've reverted that too. Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that those edits ignored what was already mentioned in my most recent comment. Overall, we had already discussed stubifying the article rather than expanding, but I'll take a deeper look at the additions later.
For now though, the key thing I'm noticing is:
  1. The sourced language on vegan and anti-livestock farming was removed with no explanation. I understand that some editors haven't liked the language, but we haven't had any WP:PAG-based reasoning to exclude still pretty straightforward sourced description as discussed above. We don't have to go far for other sources on the anti-farming language either.[4]
  2. Just calling it a documentary with no prefacing was restored, which we also don't have consensus for. The better alternative would have been to remove that from the lead rather than just go back on forth on preferred versions.
I'm starting to wonder if we just need to go with what I mentioned above even though it's not ideal as vegan anti-livestock farming documentary. That at least avoids the issue of just saying it's a documentary without including key details on the type or intent of the documentary. KoA (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a purpose in stubifying for the sake of it - I found new information that wasn't yet cited and so I added it. I also added the sections back in to help organise the page, but I don't mind if we trim down on the number of short sections again, it was mostly an organisational aid for me while I wrote.
On 'vegan/anti-livestock' vs 'documentary', I started going source-by-source looking at how the sources described the film in generic terms (i.e. usually on their first sentence describing what it is). They almost exclusively call it a documentary, including the New York Times, Australian media coverage, and even the Queensland Country Life source. Whenever they introduce what Dominion is, they call it a documentary. If you want to understand what kind of film it is, all you have to do is read the second sentence of the article. I don't see any reason to call it a vegan film, anti-livestock film, or the cumbersome "vegan anti-livestock farming documentary". Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the stubifying was to make the article more neutral and remove some fluff, like going into Delforce too much, etc. That's a set of larger edits I'll work on addressing later though, but my main concern was that the edits just reverting back to some previous problems.
On the main subject for now though, as I said before though, it's not 'vegan/anti-livestock' vs 'documentary'. Sources outright are saying it's a vegan documentary, anti-farming film, etc. The whole point was that we just can't simply be calling it a documentary alone. The easiest route is just to use the language sources use like I was that add a little more description than the overly broad term documentary. At the end of the day it's a vegan advocacy film geared towards being opposed to livestock farming that we're describing. Various synonyms like animal rights, vegan, anti-livestock, all describe that in slightly different ways. Nothing controversial there at least if we go by sources. Calling it a vegan advocacy film/documentary is a good start, but the the sources fill in the gap for those not aware of what that means with the anti-livestock language. I'm open to hearing alternative wordings, but that anti-livestock/vegan descriptor was the most accurate and concise text I could find without leaving out key details without editorializing.
The other overall caution of this genre of undercover video "documentary" is outlined pretty well by academic extension sources at least.[5][6] You're not going to get academic comment on every video, hence the WP:PARITY comment above, but that background of these videos often being misleading at least is why we have to be really cautious about the initial description of films in this advocacy subset. The term documentary often invokes an air of accuracy, but there's a lot of discussion out there on how the modern day documentary isn't really matching up with the public perception of the term nowadays and the word is used so loosely that loses clear meaning.[7] That's why it's typically more helpful for readers to know at least what kind of documentary they are dealing with whether it's a nature documentary, general science, advocacy, biographical, etc. Sometimes you get a mix that isn't so easily defined, but when sources go into different iterations of repeatedly saying this is a vegan advocacy film pretty specifically, that is something we need to reflect, especially for advocacy style documentaries.KoA (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's it's had a little breathing room, seeing as most sources depict this in some fashion as a vegan advocacy film, I think we've reached the point we can't keep removing mention of it in terms of WP:NPOV. As mentioned above, nearly all make a tie to basically the same synonymous terminology whether it's vegan advocacy, anti livestock farming, etc. Vegan advocacy film seems like the simplest route, possibly with some exposition elsewhere, but the advocacy portion with the wikilink at least gets the bare minimum across. That would give us Dominion is a 2018 Australian vegan advocacy film. For those who wanted the term documentary included, that could still remain in the second sentence The documentary was primarily. . . or even change that sentence to a wikilink. At least that way we'd at least have the prefacing on what type of film it is instead of just saying documentary. There's a difference between just animal welfare and groups like this one who are against livestock farming, so we need to be careful about making that distinction clear.
As a side note, I took a look through the recent expansion of the article and pruned it down a bit where needed. Edit summaries should make it clear what was going on in each bit there. KoA (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that most sources depict Dominion as a vegan advocacy film, which I would like some citations for, as it is contrary to what I've found myself. Essentially all (unbiased) sources I've seen simply refer to it as a documentary, and the words "advocacy" or "activism" and synonyms are basically never used.
I have a difficult time understanding your insistence on adding more terms to to the first line of the page regardless, as this is not mirrored by any other Wikipedia page on documentaries regarding animal rights, even if they were created by groups that are explicitly anti-livestock farming (or anti-fishing/anti-captivity). Here are some examples:
  • "What_the_Health is a 2017 documentary film which critiques the health effects of"
  • "Seaspiracy is a 2021 documentary film about the environmental impact of"
  • "Earthlings is a 2005 American documentary film about humanity's use of"
  • "The Game Changers is a 2018 documentary film about athletes who have"
  • "Blackfish is a 2013 American documentary film directed by"
It does not make sense to me to deviate from what seems to be the norm on Wikipedia for this documentary specifically. Vonkelonkel (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shock tactics

[edit]

@Jeandjinni, could you explain what was going on in this revert, especially the edit summary? Shock tactics is language that specifically came from that academic source in its narrative review that uses the film as an example. It's a common use in these types of films. We've had issues with editors have personal disagreement with sources that has been an issue already, but we need to be especially careful about running into that with academic sources. KoA (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I also didn't love this wording, but it is what the source says: "There are also documentaries such as ... Dominion that construct their shock tactics with the accumulation of footage of wanton cruelty and abuse in a number of industries". Although MDPI is considered a questionable source, the author does seem to be an Associate Professor with plenty of other publications in this field. I'm open different wording, but the idea that the film collates shocking imagery to persuade the viewer doesn't seem particularly controversial to me. Fixing ping to @Jeandjinni. Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that MDPI is unreliable, over the years I have had to remove it many times from medical articles. I realise this is not a medical article and it is being used differently but they are not considered good academic journals. If we are going to cite a journal we need higher quality than MDPI. The problem is, that is the only journal that has mentioned the movie and it was only one sentence Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in general for MEDRS subjects I'd be more cautious, though over at RSP, WP:MDPI is not put in the general unreliable category. Just questionable where we'd be cautious about anything controversial. That the shock tactics language isn't controversial (that is what these types of videos do) and that this was the only academic mention I could find is why it was included. The film at least got enough attention to mention it was a highlight of how that style is used.
In short, I'm not seeing any serious issues being articulated here with the inclusion. Had it been beyond a basic description, I might be more cautious about MDPI, but the source isn't making any extraordinary claims either or any red flags from the author either. KoA (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in just to say that regardless of the article, generally when you're quoting directly or indirectly from a source you want the source to actually be about your subject. The extent to which Alonso-Recarte talks about Dominion is in a fragment of a long paragraph overviewing a breadth of recent popular documentary films on animals and agriculture, and the descriptive blurb quoted is paired with Earthlings. A very similar film, yes, but this is hardly meant to be some nuanced rigorous analysis of any of the films covered in the paragraph. Maybe the author put extensive thought into their words and summarized the film with elegant brevity, or maybe they are simply overviewing the lit and moving on. Same deal with von Mossner -- a blurb on the pair to simply state by contrast that Cowspiracy "does not foreground a moral argument"; a single mention in a fragment of a sentence. It would neither surprise nor bother me much if they had fast-forwarded through half the films in those one-paragraph overviews just to get the gist.
You don't need an academic on discourse and society to say useful stuff about Dominion. For purposes of a film article, you just need any RS to actually be talking about Dominion in some depth. (Doing otherwise means you're almost certainly going to end up cherry-picking, and discredits those few happy few band of readers who check sources.) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when we pull from academic reviews, etc. that give overviews on a subject, this is the kind of information we'd usually pull (e.g., species X is a notable example of behavior Y). They're not always going to go into a full in-depth review, though that would make our lives easier if it was like the Cowspiracy journal article. The key question here though is is there something wrong from a WP:PAG perspective on using the term shock tactics? That does not seem readily apparent, nor does using the term seem controversial here either. KoA (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surveillance footage of cruelty is not novel, nor is it equivalent to a “shock tactic” in film technique. I’ve watched the film, and it consists of primarily static, unedited surveillance footage of routine animal abuse. “Shock tactics” implies some sort of active intervention or manipulation of the video with the intent to achieve a shocked response that would otherwise not happen. As other commentators have already pointed out, unless the alleged “shock tactics” employed by the filmmaker are given substantive discussion and/or is central to the analysis of the film in the source cited, the phrase is inappropriately repeated. Perhaps another source (wherein a discussion of shock tactics in filmmaking is defined and discussed) could be used to justify the claim. Its inclusion i the article serves as a (false) warning to readers of the article that the film is manipulative in a way that it is not. At minimum, the label “shock tactics” is an unsupported opinion of the author of the source cited, and should be in quotation marks, if not removed altogether. Jeandjinni (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I see you personally disagree with a published source's description. That's not something we can really use here on this talk page in terms of following WP:CONSENSUS.
In these types of films, these are never just "surveillance footage". All films, especially documentaries, go through at least basic editing (i.e., which frames to use, etc., not necessarily the photoshop kind), and in the case of undercover vegan advocacy films, to pick out what is or can appear to be the most shocking along with timing of narration. It's pretty uncontroversial that these films use shock tactics, and if a film is manipulative doesn't even matter, emotional shock is simply what this genre subset does. There's plenty of literature on the general subject as alluded to earlier.[8][9]
Because of that, you're not going to get long exposés on each individual film in sources unless it's really blown past the bar for that method. Instead, you're going to get basic statements like the source saying There are also documentaries such as Earthlings (Monson 2005) and Dominion (Delforce 2018) that construct their shock tactics with the accumulation of footage. . .. Those two films are what the source decided to highlight that use this particular tactic in a very broad overview of various animal-related films. To call those films representative examples of this type of delivery does stand out from the WP:DUE perspective in that type of review. While we can't use a thesis here in articles, I see this language is used elsewhere with Dominion seeks to expose this behaviour through shock tactics. . .[10], so the term is definitely used in what academic discourse there is on this film even in sources that appear to share a similar point of view as the film. I'm just not seeing any policy or guideline-based reason for removal after all this time. KoA (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t matter if I personally disagree with a published unsupported opinion that the film contains shock tactics. What does matter is that the article should not violate NPOV, and an unqualified repetition of unsupported opinion in a published source crosses that line.
It’s possible that some people may confuse the shocking action depicted in the film with the film’s technique.
It would help if the author(s) of this section of the article could elaborate on which particular cinematic shock tactic (or group of tactics) has/have been observed in the film (or refer to a published source that does so), but I suspect that they cannot do so without controversy or difference of opinion.
There are many documentary films that depict shocking images (and may be seen by some as using shock tactics) and are not described on Wikipedia as using shock tactics. This documentary film is no different, and should receive the same treatment with respect to NPOV. Jeandjinni (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeandjinni, it is per WP:NPOV that we need to summarize the sources and how they depict this film. We run into trouble with that policy if someone tries to remove such text, especially if it's because they personally disagree with a source. Even I can't do that as an expert editor in other topics, I still have to rely on other academic sources that disagree with the source.
We're at the point now where it's looking like there's no legitimate issue with the language itself brought up here, especially since it can be directly quoted from a narrative review. At the least, it looks like there isn't any consensus reason for your change that altered that language, so there is a point where we need to respect what the sources say and reflect that. KoA (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be only one editor arguing for keeping the vague(/undefined in sources) phrase “shock tactics” to describe the film. Several editors on the page have concurred that the phrase is inappropriate or not addressed in an appropriate context in the cited sources, so there would appear to a lack of consensus that the phrase be kept in the article.
I have already suggested reasonable alternatives: (1) defining the specific shock tactic in use in the documentary, or (2) sourcing another article that defines “shock tactics” well (there are several analyses in advertising studies that deal with this problem, such as this one). The currently cited sources use “shock tactics” loosely/colloquially, and not in any way as part of a formal analysis of the film’s techniques, and without respect for how the phrase is defined in prior literature.
Here’s another reasonable alternative: the film may be less controversially described in the Wikipedia article as “including shocking images”. This is still a subjective point, but it avoids the doubly subjective nature of “shock tactics” (which, with the word “tactics” added, also imputes the intentions and techniques of the film’s producers without evidence). But at minimum, it’s a more accurate description of the film’s contents to say it has “shocking images”, rather than to impute that the film’s producers used “shock tactics”, for which there is no substantive evidence (apart from
offhand remarks that happen to occur in the intro paragraphs of a couple of articles that address other subjects), and which could a further source of difference of opinion, making NPOV more difficult to maintain, at minimum, than a viable alternative.
If there is no consensus on the simplicity and harmlessness of pure removal of the phrase (this has not been made clear), then perhaps there would be consensus on using the phrase “uses shocking images” instead of “uses shock tactics”? Which phrase would a majority of editors perceive as better respecting NPOV in this context? Jeandjinni (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't articulating legitimate policy or guideline issues and is instead running counter to them. At this point, this still boils down to a WP:OR policy violation in that you personally don't like a pretty non-controversial description a source directly uses. That really puts a full stop on your suggestion or pursuing that on this talk page. We can't use that as a reason on this talk page to support your change, and without you gaining WP:CONSENSUS (please also read WP:!VOTE) for your edit after waiting quite a few weeks for an issue to be substantiated, I have undone the change that started this section.
You've made it clear you have a personal opinion on the term, but if there has been such a paradigm shift in sources that shock tactics is not a preferred term in for this subject (not on their questionable effectiveness, which there is academic debate I cited earlier), then please bring them here. That instead is your pathway if shock tactics really isn't appropriate. None of us can just say we don't like the language a source uses though, and that's the core issue being discussed here with your edit reasoning. That is unless you have similar credentials as Dr. Alonso-Recarte that specializes in implications of nonhuman animal representations in literature and film. Then you would need to publish a WP:RS yourself saying it is not a representative example of a shock tactic film in this area. I'd suggest reviewing what you say on your user page and let such sources with specialized knowledge in marginal topics like this do the summarizing for us rather than step in with your interpretations. Please also by mindful of WP:SYNTH. This is not the page to go into a deep dive on what shock tactics means like you are suggesting above. If there is additional discussion of shock tactics specific to Dominion in sources, then that can be discussed at that time. Right now we just have the starting point for possible expansions on that if they are ever warranted. We should be in a pretty decent state for the article at this point now based on existing sources. KoA (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My above reply addresses your specific change, but I'll mention to keep the two topics somewhat separated that the original text itself has been discussed here too where policy or guideline concerns have already been addressed. Outside of your comments, we've already walked through things like careful MDPI usage, that is isn't particularly controversial, it stood out as part of a fairly thorough overview in Alonso-Recarte at least, etc. At the end of the day, we're just doing an extremely basic summary (we're talking about a single sentence here) saying this is the type of film out of all the subsets Alonso-Recarte mentions that is representative of using shock tactics along with the other source saying the film the kind that is is upfront about its activism. This is all extremely basic information to describe the film that's been lacking (and frankly should not be this controversial), so we'd need a pretty extreme reason not to use basic academic commentary. Right now we're at the point where the language works, but others have definitely indicated it may be worth reworking or otherwise discussing here if there are other sources that come up. Right now though, we're just summarizing what limited academic mention there is, and I don't think there's much else to add at this point with the existing state of the article. KoA (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OR? Are you kidding? This is the Talk page discussing sources. And the sources are bad because the sources aren't about Dominion, nor they include Dominion in the research section of the paper (as opposed to introductory background). It doesn't matter if they're from academia. I'm sure there's a review out there that calls out shock tactics that we can find. Just use sources responsibly. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, policy issues like OR aren't something to kid about. There's no problem discussing sources on the talk page, but in this case, personally disagreeing with what a source says and using that to change content is putting editor opinion over sourcing. If there is true real-world disagreement on a term, then that needs to be addressed in sources. We don't get to just make things up here to influence content, it has to be source-focused. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. When a source clearly says something and someone wants to change the text so it doesn't have that meaning, that's hitting on the spirit of that policy pretty squarely.
As for "bad sources", you just described why it's a good source (at least for Alonso-Recarte). A literature review or introductory background from a larger overview is usually one of the best places to pull information from for articles in the absence of a pointed review on the exact topic. We're looking for that WP:SECONDARY source aspect like that, and that informs some of our even more strict guidelines for academic sourcing like WP:MEDRS. As mentioned above, Alonso-Recarte gives a pretty broad overview of the types of films they discuss and representative examples of each subtype. That stands out a bit in the context they give. The level of depth you're asking for though is not for this article, that would be for an expansive article that multiple editors agree sources just don't give that much attention to the film for at this time. Again, basic information for a single sentence vs. a full blown section are two very different things. KoA (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those unaware: a literature review in the "introduction" section of an academic paper is not at all the same thing as a "review article". The former is meaningless for policy, while the latter is usually considered an academic secondary source. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I’ve made a persuasive case for making the article more neutral by removing the evaluative language, have listened to and responded to objections about it, and remain unconvinced that the edit was the incorrect thing to do. Also, this is in no way OR related.
I appreciate the challenges to my edit, but I don’t think I fully comprehend why some editors believe that the terms “shock tactics” improve the neutrality of the article. I also don’t understand the relevance of the mention of my credentials or what I wrote on my user page several years ago, and I am also wary of the fact that there is conjecture about my personal opinions. I’m not worried about any of this personally in the least, to be sure. Just trying to contribute.
At some point, I have to have some faith in consensus and reason here about whether my edit sticks.
For the above reasons, and with sincere kindness and respect for your time and mine, I bid this debate a hearty adieu. Jeandjinni (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A shock tactic is defined as "a strategy that uses violent or extreme action or imagery to shock someone into doing something". I think the issue here is that most people are not aware of what happens in abattoirs so they will be shocked if they see disturbing footage of this nature. As Dominion shows such imagery and footage the author of the MDPI paper described Dominion as constructing shock tactics by using such footage. In an earlier post I commented that I am not convinced the MDPI paper is a good source. At the end of the day this is boiling down to some kind of semantics dispute about two words. I don't think it is worth having a major dispute over the words "shock tactics". In general the article has been greatly improved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Von D

[edit]

Kat Von D who narrated Dominion is alleged to have given up veganism. There is a current discussion about this at the list of vegans talk-page [11]. I have not yet seen any good sourcing on this but if any are published then it may be relevant to this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic publications (and some books)

[edit]

In the threads above, there were some mentions of academic publications. I made an attempt to find such literature that deals with Dominion (list includes a few books, too):

I couldn't access the full text of all of them. Leyo 21:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

[edit]

I propose re-adding 

* {{Official site|https://www.dominionmovement.com/}}

since there is additional information (incl. the trailer) relevant to readers. The YouTube link, on the other hand, is useless for readers who do not have a YouTube account, due to the requirement to log in. It seems that in articles about films, it's quite standard to have a link to the official website. Leyo 00:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominion_(2018_film)&oldid=1204960291"