Talk:Population Zero

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Claims of similarity to Box's novel

I've removed the claims that the movie borrows heavily from C.J. Box's Free Fire. The problem with this is that these claims have not been written about in independent and reliable sources. There's a claim in the reception section that the author (and one other person) complains about the similarities via the comments section of the Hollywood Reporter article, but this would not be considered a RS because anyone can post in the reader comments section. The issue here is that ultimately the comments are accusing Pinder of legal plagiarism, as allegedly the film borrows very heavily from the book to the point without attribution. That's a fairly contentious claim, one that could pose issues if Pinder were to see the article and contest the addition of the claims. In other words, he could say that Wikipedia is allowing libelous material on the page without any justification for its inclusion, something that could result in legal issues.

Ultimately what we need is coverage of this in an independent, reliable source. A reader comments section is not considered to be independent and reliable, as anyone can post there and the posts do not undergo any sort of editorial process that Wikipedia requires of its sources. At best it's moderated for anything that violates basic guidelines, which isn't enough to be considered a RS. It'd help if Box were to write about this in his blog, but that itself wouldn't be enough since it'd be a self-published source and Box can claim whatever he wants in his blog. If you can get a place like the Hollywood Reporter to cover it, that'd be considered a RS. Crimespree Magazine might be considered usable, but we'd need a lot of coverage given that Box is all but accusing Pinder of plagiarism. So far that's the only source I see and it's a little shaky, since the interview has at least one error in it (using "to" instead of "too"), so I'd recommend holding off until there's better coverage. The only thing I can recommend is just sort of letting the various RS know about the similarities between the two and see if they follow up on the suggestion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it to report the fact of Box's claim rather than just repeating Box's claim. The C. J. Box page has a synopsis of Free Fire on it, which allows for people to make their own assessments of Box's claims. But there is no question that Box has made the claim, and including that fact could not be construed as libel, especially since Box said that the movie did not borrow specific enough phrasing to constitute plagiarism. 35.10.210.72 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the problem is that ultimately this is something that we need a lot and I repeat a LOT of coverage to really justify having in the article at all. Even if it's just a claim, it's one that could potentially damage the movie's reputation and sales, so in order to show that it warrants inclusion we need to show that there has been a lot of coverage of it. That way if Pinder or one of the people representing the film argues that the material is harmful, we can back up its inclusion by saying that there's too much coverage to not add it. That's kind of the nature of the beast when it comes to Wikipedia. This sort of falls under WP:BLPREMOVE, because while it's not a biography of Pinter, it's something that does pertain to him and in general Wikipedia tries to avoid anything controversial unless there's been a ton of coverage in order to cover themselves legally because people have threatened Wikipedia with legal action because articles contained information that could harm their reputation and/or career. It's a really tricky thing and right now the only that can really be done is to just wait and see if more places cover the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now as far as the synopsis on Box's article goes, we can't use that to back up the assertion because that'd be considered original research, which isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia. Again, it's a tricky song and dance when it comes to stuff like this. Most of the time things like this can't be included because of the lack of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is basically needed now are articles about the claim, preferably ones that look like they've researched the claims to some degree rather than just an interview with Box. Wikipedia has to be really careful about stuff like that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation of all of this! 35.10.210.72 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tylee Ryan

Is there any possibility that Tylee Ryan was murdered in The Zone of Death? And is it located in the West Entrance of Yellowstone at Idaho Entrance. Could she of been burned in one of those geothermal spots and then taken to her burial site.Was this part of Yellowstone ever investigated. SupisiousMulberry (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]