This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
I recently made a number of edits to the page, which were reverted with an edit summary of "gross violations of WP:NPOV." Could the reverting editor please elaborate on the perceived violations of NPOV? I'm quite confused by the mass reversions. I think my edits improved and expanded the article and added sourcing, context, and balance.
Specifically:
Why was this review and citation from Variety completely deleted from the article? Certainly this Variety review is as reliable or as relevant as the Village Voice and Los Angeles Times reviews currently in the article. What policy basis is there for completely deleting this citation?
Why was this deleted? It is well-sourced, to MLive via the Grand Rapids Tribune, and it appears to provide important context to the film: "The film was made by the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank which promotes free enterprise within the framework of Christian theology." Source
The New York Times[1] (and all of the other sources currently in this article) refer to the film as a "documentary." Why can't we? Isn't Wikipedia based on what the reliable sources say?
This sentence: "The film has been largely ignored by mainstream media, with few reviews" appears to be WP:OR, or at least an editorial opinion. How does this account for the positive Variety review mentioned above?
The synopsis of the film that I added to the lead comes from this source. I've literally never seen the Wikipedia article on a film give a lead synopsis based on review of the movie, rather than on what the movie is generally agreed to be about. I would argue my version is much more helpful to a reader and indicative of what the movie is actually about, rather than one random sentence from a cherry-picked review.
Why was this removed? "Poverty Inc. won a $100,00 cash prize in the 2015 Templeton Freedom Awards, presented by the Atlas Network." It's well-sourced, accurate and verifiable. I'm not sure how it's considered an NPOV violation to include an award won, but it's somehow not considered an NPOV violation to wholesale delete a positive review and an award won from the film. What happened to WP:BALASPS? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Safehaven: I don't agree with the revert of your edits and I've restored them. There's no reason to delete the number of reliable sources you added. Schematics (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that your edit contains text like "The film challenges current perceptions of global charity and promotes entrepreneurship as an effective alternative to alleviating world poverty" It doesn't. It's a rant against the banking system by a crank. See WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured out the issue. Safehaven, based on the sourcing it looks like your edits were meant for Poverty Inc. strangely, it looks like two films had the same name in the same year. Schematica (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, I feel stupid. It appears that I was indeed editing the page for the wrong film. Derp. Sorry for the trouble, and I will make my edits to the correct page! Safehaven86 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
