Talk:Ellie Moon

"based on" is wrong

The source cited doesn't say or support this. It says "begins with", and says that reading out "Moon’s interview transcripts" and some reënactments of encounters during interviews "make up its content". Riley 2019, p. 17 says "in the wake of" and provides a similar description of the actual contents of the play. The book's own blurb at Talonbooks says "in the wake of", too. Even Houpt 2016 says "borne of" in the body of the article (and probably also did in the original headline before some editor tried to make it catchy, or wanted to avoid the word "borne", given that the URL says "asking-for-it-is-a-sly-intelligent-play-borne-out-of-the-ghomeshi-trial"). We could serve readers a lot better by using these 3 sources to give a description of what the play actually comprises.

The play is based upon the interviews, according to all of these sources. "the play is built from interviews", says Houpt 2016 directly. Its relationship to the sexual harrassment charges is not that of a basis, more of a context. We don't even really have inspiration, as Nestruck 2017 says that the inspiration was a sexual incident with someone that Moon was dating. This is supported by Houpt 2016, which says that "Moon was spurred to investigate the issue […], after the Ghomeshi news broke, […] a violent experience with a former boyfriend […]".

So it's after the sexual misconduct allegations, inspired by an incident in the author's own past, and based on interviews.

Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Riley, Jessica (Spring 2019). "Canadian Drama in the New Millennium: Inherited and Evolving Dramaturgies" (PDF). Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies. 30 (1). Universitätsverlag WINTER GmbH Heidelbe: 13–22.
• Nestruck, J. Kelly (2017-10-11). "Review: Asking For It candidly explores consent in the wake of the Ghomeshi scandal". The Globe And Mail.
• Houpt, Simon (2016-07-22). "Ghomeshi trial inspired this sly, intelligent play". The Globe And Mail.

Unclear what is being done to this page

I'm not clear why certain things have been removed or altered on this page. I am familiar with the work of the subject of this page. I understand from the 'talk' that some editors do not consider festival sites or book publisher sites to be either reliable or significant sources. I am not sure I understand that. If a book is published by Penguin, a major publisher, is that a reliable site that indicates itself the importance of the work? If giving the site of a film festival as a source is inadequate, is it sufficient to provide reference to a major reviewing publication such as Hollywood News or Screen Daily which refers to the film screening at the particular festival? If not I don't see what sources could be used. And yes, I saw the play "Asking For It" and it is not about Ghomeshi. It makes a brief reference to him at the opening - but that's it. That is clear in all the reviews. AMCream (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@AMCream, if you are not the subject of this article, you are not doing her a favor with all this sockpuppetry to try to make sure this article and Adult Adoption are uniformly positive. Like, literally people will assume you are her and will think she's an egotistical twit who doesn't actually understand anything about Wikipedia.

No, being published by Penguin does not mean a work is important if no one is talking about it. Being covered by a press release or the site of a festival does not mean appearing at that festival makes a film notable. Hollywood News appears to be a crowdsourced blog, so not reliable. And I'd already changed the language about Ghomeshi to 'inspired by'. Next? Think fast, you're likely to be blocked for sockpuppetry soon. Valereee (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Elsewhere I have replied - but I will repeat some of what I said there. No one expects uniformly positive commentary but you seem to have selected the negative comments and ignored the positive in the reviews you cite. Hollywood News is a recognised source of reviews and is included in the Rotten Tomatoes list of credible review sources (and as you may know they don't include many review sources). If the film is selected by festivals such as Glasgow and Whistler that is itself a significant thing - but yes even more so when the reviews are so positive, which they were. As I mentioned elsewhere Talonbooks is an important publisher - particularly of Canadian plays - and in a quick search of Wikipedia it appears to be cited 100s of times. This is true of many of the references you discounted and excluded. And no I am not Ellie Moon. AMCream (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"If a book is published by Penguin, a major publisher, is that a reliable site that indicates itself the importance of the work?" No, it does not. That needs to be established by secondary sources. Everything, really, needs to be established by secondary sources. Talon Books is a publisher; their posting something on a book they published, that's neither here nor there, and it is not a site that can be used to say something about a book or a publisher. Plus, publishers sell books. We shouldn't link to sites that sell books, because they have a vested interest in selling the book. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2024)

ongoing Valereee (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Archive instead of delete

Hey, Toronto IP. Your edit seems to have deleted rather than archived a discussion. I've restored. Archiving is generally done on this talk page when we have more than five discussions and when a discussion hasn't been commented on in at least 90 days. It's done by a bot. So for instance, since this is discussion #6, a bot should be along to archive the oldest discussion in a few days.

COI tag (September 2024)

Continued editing by Toronto IPs; likely COI sockpuppetry Valereee (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I changed the categories and have no close connection with Moon, I just found it confusing. Moon is a Toronto artist whose work is known in Toronto. It makes sense that people in that city of millions would update that page without it being sock puppetry. 2607:FEA8:8407:E800:455E:7076:54DB:E3A0 (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't object to the categories change. Perfectly reasonable change, explained in edit summary.

I objected to the removal of the tag by 209.171.85.206 with the edit summary of 'When to remove tag, point 7: “strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed“ ' The tagging editor did initiate a discussion -- three now, in fact -- and the issue has been ongoing for over five years.

Yes, I'm sure there are many in Toronto who know the work of this artist. But much of the editing history has been done by sockpuppets or by IPs, most of which have been trying to remove anything even remotely negative about the artist and her work. Doesn't mean every Toronto IP is a sockpuppet or has a COI, but much of the editing both here and at Adult Adoption appears to be COI. When it stops, the tag can go. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t the one to do that edit but when “discussion is dormant and there is no other support for the template” is the relevant part of that, I’m assuming. 209.171.85.217 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)