Talk:Tickled

Redirect

How would we set up a redirect for the HBO documentary film Tickled? --1Veertje (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No redirect needed. It would be the primary topic for Tickled so make it here. — Film Fan 15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Clarke

I haven't seen the film, and when I was reading this article I couldn't understand who Kevin Clarke was with regard to this film. I came across this article from the Chicago Reader, and it clarified that he appeared in this film after being recorded secretly making legal threats and the potentially embarrassing opinion that rich persons "don't work by the same set rules". This information gives factual(i assume) context on why Clarke created a website to "counter" this film.

I accidentally inferred that the "tickling videos" were associated with bondage, I think probably from a picture in the article, and I believe that my original phrasing conveyed unintentional editorial. Another editor (@JasonAQuest:), reverted the addition I made noting in the edit summary that there was "editorial commentary". I will re-add the info and ref, edited to remove the "bondage", which was not supported by source text, but because, even though Clark isn't yet notable for his own wiki article, WP:BLP still applies, I would really appreciated it if any editors might comment here and make contributions to the article to help make sure it's accurate! --IPedits (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Kevin Clarke works for Jane O'Brien Media – the company at the center of the film's investigation – is all the explanation needed for why he would create a web site about the film. I think this relationship is clear enough without awkwardly stuffing a mini-bio of him into the sentence. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If working for Jane O'Brien media was an entirely sufficient condition for creating a website to counter the film then the number of websites that had been created to counter the film would be greater than or equal to the number of employees of Jane O'Brien. This is not the case, so additional facts about Clarke's relation to the film might help one to understand how his unique experience is distinct from the common experience of being a Jane O'Brien employee and lead him to respond in a unique manner by creating a website to counter the documentary. --IPedits (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That argument is absurd. JOBM only needed one site to respond to the film, so only one employee of the company created one. An awkward commentary about Clarke that presumes to explain some additional motivation is editorializing and is not needed. Please do not add it again without first developing a consensus in support of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If the website was created by Clarke in his capacity of employee of Jane O'Brein Media then the website was, by extension, created by Jane O'brein Media as the company would be liable for the work done by it's employee (and yeah, they would only need one website). If this is the case then the article, instead of saying that David Clarke created the website, should say that Jane O'Brein Media had a website created to counter the film. I don't know if this is the case. The news article cited seemed to describe Clark as a producer of the tickling videos who had been caught threatening the film makers, and from the way it's phrased in the article to specifically name Clarke:

In June 2016, Kevin Clarke of O'Brien Media created a website TickledMovie.info[ to counter the documentary.

it seems that this maybe was a personal vendetta website created by Clarke, who happens to work for Jane Obrein, and not an official website created by Jane O'Brein media (the already have one too I think)

Since there's no consensus yet, I'll just delete that line for now. Since it's not legal action or response to legal action by documentary subjects it probably doesn't belong in the section anyways. --IPedits (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you should stop editing the article. All of your "I don't know but maybe" speculation is beside the point. It's a sourced, factual statement as it reads. It stays, as is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I know what I know and I know what I don't know. I don't know much about this film, but I know how to read and I know how to edit a wikipedia article. There is no evidence in this article's references that indicates that Clarke's website is a legal action or response to legal action so that line does not belong in that section of the article and leaving it in without good backgroud makes it seem like an advertisement to his website. If Clarke is significant to this documentary then maybe there should be a section about him (or a subsection in a 'cast' section). --IPedits (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The synopsis of the film explains who he is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

3O Response: I support the mention of this website (as it is mentioned above) due to two reasons: A third-party source covers it and Clarke (a JBM producer?) is someone relevant here, given the plot; this does make it belong to something covering the subject of the documentary's response. The website needn't be named or referenced to itself as that could be seen as a bit promotional. Not covering because it isn't legal action is an arbitrary rule. This does seem notable and that section could be retitled to "Response and legal action" to be more apt. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

David D'Amato's suit against his stepmother (who appeared in the film?(or just voice recording?))

David D'Amato filed a $40 million defamation and slander lawsuit in Nassau County court alleging that his stepmother, Dorothy D’Amato, has made statements with the intention to cause his mental illness and injure his business.

I read in this article from "pagesix.com" what I think might be maybe related to a new york post gossip column, and I'm not 100% sure yet if it is a reliable source or not, but I get the impression that this law suit might have been instigated by the film about comments she made to the film makers or possibly comments she made to people interviewing her about the film.

Another editor (@JasonAQuest:), reverted the above addition noting in their edit summary that the suit did not appear to be related to the film. I am not confident enough now to say that this suit is definitely related to the film but I think it might be worth looking into and, imo, probably still qualifies as "Legal action and response from the documentary's subjects".

If there is a reliable source to corroborate this lawsuit I think it probably should be added back into the article. --IPedits (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a lot of speculation on your part, especially since you haven't seen the film. I have no doubt that it's related in the sense that it's about the same subject matter, but unless the suit names the film and/or its producers (and this article doesn't say so), it's a matter between D'Amato and his stepmother. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there can be defamation if it's a mater strictly between two parties (e.g. D'Amato and his stepmother) and for there to have been defamation there would have to have been a third party who received the slanderous or libelous publication/speech. A third party (or rather an n^th party, n>2) must necessarily have had a changed opinion of the 1st party plaintiff as the consequence of said defamation by the second party. If there is consensus that reliable sources indicate that there is a legal action or significant response by subjects of the documentary related to the content of the documentary it should be included in this article in the appropriate section. If the court documents (which I haven't read) clearly indicate it is completely unrelated to this film it should not be included in this article. For now,I'll assume the pagesix.com article is a reliable enough of a source and restore the info on the $40million lawsuit. -- IPedits(talk) 02:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the direct quote from the source (pagesix) is:

In the film, Dorothy says she has no contact with her stepson, and claims, “I think he has a split personality,” and, “I am afraid of him.”
David, who allegedly went by TerriTickle online, claims Dorothy’s statements were intended to injure his business and have caused him to suffer “medically diagnosable distress anxiety and injury to his person. He fears reprisals.”

Again, because WP:BLP applies, I much appreciate if any editors want to take a quick look and edit if it might improve accuracy. Actually. as I am writing this I think it would be better phrased:

David D'Amato filed a $40 million defamation and slander lawsuit in Nassau County court alleging that his stepmother, Dorothy D’Amato, has made statements with the intention to injure his business and has cause him to suffer from mental illness and injury to his person.

as the source's wording seems to indicate that David D'Amato is only alleging that his step mother _intended_ to injure his business and (intentionally or unintentionally) caused his metal strife, and also "injury to his person". --IPedits (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to make this clear: Wikipedia does not assume something is true until it is proven false. You keep citing BLP then ignoring the central tenet of it, which is that when there is doubt, we leave it out. Please do not add potentially contentious content without first developing consensus support for it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Just fyi, the way wikipedida works in general, is that referenced, sourced, information contributed to the encyclopedia is accepted in good faith and considered as 'true' until contested. When information is contested, there may be a clear consensus, or sometimes multiple points of view that may be included in the article. --IPedits (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't need someone hiding behind "IPedits" to explain to me how Wikipedia works. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest:Maybe you don't need to edit wikipedia with your subjective, close-minded opinions. To err is human, but if you can't learn from your mistakes then that might be a detriment. If you can rise above and be reasonable I'm sure you can understand why it's ok to consider the information from best available sources as true, unless there is some evidence that suggests the contrary. --IPedits (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed the second citation (WaPo, a reliable source) which corroborates that the second suit is about the content of the film. That's sufficient to include it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Consensus

The anon editor who hides behind his IP address keeps accusing me of his own chronic abuse: editing without consensus. He keeps asserting things on the Talk page here, then cites "talk" in his edit summaries for the things he deletes or changes as if there was support for them here. He has thus far received no support from any other editor for his changes, but argues that I am violating consensus. I would welcome input from other editors. Failing that, I'll go for a third opinion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm no more anonymous (actually maybe even less so) than other editors. I even take the time to edit my signature (adding a name like "IPEdits") so I can identify myself incase when I respond I am using another proxy server. @JasonAQuest: please don't be a bigot and think that because I edit without registering a user account, that somehow that makes what I say less valid. I took the time to write a lot on this talk page, and I am impartial, I have not seen the film, but I think I've made a strong case that if info about Clarke belongs in this article then it should be comprehensive enough to explain in detail his relation with this film. A simple one line advertizement about his website DOES NOT HAVE ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUE.

@JasonAQuest: I took the time to take a quick look at your other wikipedia contributions and I have to admit I didn't think they were top notch. I think I detected an editorial bias.

Please however, rest assured, I AM NOT STALKING YOU. I pride myself on being objective and I will always judge contributions on their own merits regardless of the contributor. That being said, if you edit articles that I'm editing, there's a good chance that my curiosity is going to lead me to looking at other articles that you have edited. --IPEdits (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bull Shit. You are hounding me. Furthermore, I stand by my statement: you have not acted with the support of consensus, nor have you made any effort on this article to develop it before unilaterally editing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the only person who's edited this article. A little input here, please? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"I have not seen the film, but I think I've made a strong case that if info about Clarke belongs in this article then it should be comprehensive enough to explain in detail his relation with this film. A simple one line advertizement about his website DOES NOT HAVE ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUE."

I pointed this out above, but you don't seem to have noticed: The article does explain who Clarke is in relation to the film. It's in the film synopsis (for the benefit of you and anyone else who hasn't seen the film). There is no need to stuff quotes and anecdotes about him into later mentions of him. (And your accusation that I'm trying to advertise his web site is bizarre, and insulting.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sub - heading?

I think there should be a statement about "neutrality," or even.."judge for yourself if the following does not contain extreme bias in favor of Mr. Farrier (relying on memory for the filmmaker's name there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramalack (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, no.--Jorm (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what @Ramalack: sees as neutrality problems, and if there's anything to back that up. tedder (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Odd/irrelevant citations

Have just removed the citations to the archived Jane O'Brien Media website after every mention of the name as they did not actually act as citations in support of the article (they seemed to be replacements for external links). Added external link to archived site in relevant section at end of article. Albeetle (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)