Jump to content

Talk:Leslye Headland

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leslye Headland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not protected?

[edit]

With her being announced as showrunner of the upcoming female-centric Star Wars series, Leslye Headland is becoming a target for anti-feminist internet trolls. That means an increased risk of this article getting vandalized. I believe it might be wise to pro-actively issue some level of protection. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been persistent, long term vandalism on this page, therefore it does not qualify for page protection. If vandalism happens consistently in the future the standard page protection procedure will be followed. Ed6767 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair that is not all trolling. We should add a criticism section about her history of racist remarks. She has admitted to selecting her writer by skin color, not by talent. 84.112.125.136 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yada yada yada, blah blah blah, allegations. Prove it ... where are the reliable published sources that verify this tidbit? Or is gossip and social media all there is? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wrong information about "the acolyte"

[edit]

Her bio states that the TV show "the acolyte" received mixed reviews from critics and low reviews from the general audience, citing the website "rotten tomatoes" as a source. However, in the website the critics' score is 85% (hardly "mixed"), and has been getting review bomber by trolls since the start (source) I think it's incorrect to maintain in her biography that her first Disney+ show has been getting mixed to bad reviews and should be edited. Laslus07 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I created an account to suggest an edit be made in regard to this issue. The source doesn't support the claim. Moreover, the documented review bombing campaign is important missing context that should be mentioned. I believe that the statement could be removed entirely, if not edited to reflect the backlash from trolls and conservatives commentators. Suspicious Door (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "mixed" is not an appropriate summation of the score. I think it's best to not summarize it entirely and just say what the sources say, as WP:AGG suggests:

On Rotten Tomatoes, the series has an average approval rating of 84% based 102 critics' reviews, while receiving a generally unfavorable rating from the general audience on Metacritic

It's best practice not to include user generated content, but when the disparity between critic and user reviews is a story within itself, it's hard to ignore it -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think Rotten Tomatoes reviews can, sometimes, be useful on series pages, but on bios... eh, not really. Historyday01 (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I think the section is pretty good here. And in the current text, Rotten Tomatoes is ONLY cited to note the reviews of critics as compared to those review bombing... Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny how its always dismissed as “review bombing” when users disagree with critics if certain political topics are involved. Laddmeister (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of maintaining reputation for fact, should the article not be edited to remove the statement that implies the "review bombing" as 100% fact? The reasons for an individual's rating of what is another person's attempt to entertain can only be guessed at. It brings author opinion into the topic and only presents one side to an argument or conflict.
If the statement of review bombing and discussion of the allegations of racism are kept then the audience theories that favorable critics' reviews are possibly a result of DEI pressure and fear of cancel-culture should probably also be discussed in the article. Bigmalakas (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review bombing is absolutely a thing that happens, and it's not the same thing as just a negative review or rating for a piece of media. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It definitely is not the same. Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question to raise. This is tricky territory. The article, as it is currently written, explicitly states that the show was panned by audiences by review bombing. I agree with you that the reasons for individual ratings can only be guessed at; I also do not think that it is Wikipedia's roll to prove if review bombing really took place or not. I'm also inclined to agree with you about author opinion because saying that the show was or wasn't review bombed is predicated on personal interpretation of the facts that people naturally interpret through their own biases. Likewise, as much as it irks me due to my own bias, I agree with you that if the statement about review bombing is kept in than the theories about favourite critic reviews being a result of social pressure and fear of cancel-culture should also be discussed in the name of neutrality. However, I don't think that this is an effective solution to the problem because there is the same inherent issue you pointed out which is that we can only guess at people's motivations. So what should be done? What makes one view more worthy of the other? There's no black and white answer to that question but it is an important ethical issue because differing ethics and opinions causes cognitive-dissonance and interpersonal and group conflict. I believe that this conflict is playing out over this article and it is a problem that must be addressed. But how do we address it? I've consulted Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for clarity.
According to the five pillars of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, and data should be put into context with explanations referenced to independent sources. The purpose of an article is to document and summarise information from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I believe that what you're proposing be included in the article aligns with these guidelines, however I also don't believe that the article as it's currently written needs to be changed.
There is already a referenced statement that supports the view that the series wasn't review bombed and that audiences were simply expressing their displeasure. However, there is still the issue that you raised which is that the article explicitly states that the series "was" review bombed. This is an editorial statement, and while I still believe that you've raised an important question I also believe that the claim has been given sufficient independent evidence and is otherwise free from bias. Additionally, I think that it is an appropriate summary of the sourced information that feels relevant in the context of a Wikipedia page about the series creator. So, in this instance, I think that this little bit of editorialization is appropriate. Crucially and notably, this editorialization is immediately balanced with a counter claim that is fairly and equally represented and which has also been reference from an independent source. This is what the Wikipedia guidelines deem as appropriate and which should be adhered to when editing Wikipedia articles, and which has been adhered to in this article. Suspicious Door (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to completely disagree with your opinion here and think what you have to say is a bunch of worthless word salad, to be perfectly honest. The current writing of the article is already a compromise from what was previously there, which seemed very negative to me. The mention of review bombing has been noted by VARIOUS outlets (The Hollywood Reporter, ComingSoon.net, The Mary Sue, The Independent, Comic Book Resources, and The Root) which are cited in the text (I made this clear in a recent edit/update I made). Besides, Wikipedia is NOT saying that the review bombing is happening, we are only pointing to sources which say so, let's be clear. The only thing that should be added in that section (beyond my recent edit) is MORE interviews with her about the series and her thoughts on its cancellation, continuation, etc. And I'm sure there is more of that. I did not get a chance to do that, but I do think the section is much better than it was before I edited it, as it was not well sourced/constructed.Historyday01 (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is doing more than just pointing to sources that say review bombing was happening, it is pointing to these sources and taking the same position. It is privileging one point of view over the other by treating it as 100% fact. This is what the user I was replying to was pointing out and it was a valid point. I don't think this user was seriously suggesting that the article treat theories about cancel-culture and pressure to be political correct as 100% fact either. Nor do I think that they were suggesting that review bombing isn't real or that the series wasn't review bombed. They were just asking a question about the way the article is written. They noticed how the article was biased and were asking if it was appropriate. I intended to communicate that I believe that it is appropriate given that the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and because the editorialization is immediately and fairly balanced in a way that neutralizes the influence of the author's opinion.
I'm not sure why you think that's worthless word salad, but I'm open to whatever criticism you have. Truthfully, I think you misinterpreted what I was saying because you and I are both pointing to the fact that the review bombing has been well documented, but you're missing the point that some people will disagree with those sources and how can you really say who's right and who's wrong. That is a magnet for conflict so I wanted to address that through a lens that acknowledges the complexity of individual bias and neutrality. My goal was to point out that although the article contains bias it isn't badly biased. I also wanted to point out that the bias it does contain is balanced, and it's influenced mitigated if not nullified, because the article fairly represents a dissenting opinion without inserting bias upon it. How in that worthless word salad considering that we're having a discussion concerning the articles bias? That's why I think you're misinterpreting me because it seems like you missed that point and started arguing against me instead. Suspicious Door (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I suppose my interpretation of your comment was faulty. In any case, I do think there is probably enough abut the review bombing in the article presently and I will see if I can add more about interviews from Headland about the series which I think is missing here. Historyday01 (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. Suspicious Door (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article should not be changed. And if you are going on about "DEI pressure and fear of cancel-culture", that isn't convincing me of what you are saying. This is just like a similar article I edited some years ago, where people hand-wringed about this same issue. In this case, MULTIPLE sources call it review bombing. I even added one which said it WASN'T. But all the others do say this. Historyday01 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your userpage and your comments here, Historyday01, you come off as somewhat activistic. And that's fine, you're welcome to having your opinions and values. But using wikipedia to promote your personal political views might not be the best way to go forward. Just saying. No need to reply, not interested in having a conversation. Laddmeister (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to laugh. I don't use Wikipedia to promote my personal views, not at all. Sure I have strong opinions, but others on here do as well. Considering your response, I do not believe you are approaching this conversation in good faith. I am doing so, but you are not. So, your opinions on this matter are, sadly, disregarded.Historyday01 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly adressing this in good faith. Activism on Wikipedia is well known and it needs to be called out and adressed when stumbled upon. And considering the tone in your previous comment to another user "what you have to say is a bunch of worthless word salad", you might not be in a position to call out others on "bad faith".
When that is said, discussion with you are not wanted, so I wish you all the best and have a nice day. Laddmeister (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of that claim. I only wished to reply to your comment and your concern over "activism on Wikipedia" is misplaced, since you seem to only be focused on those with left-wing views that are supposed "activists" (not a personal attack, just an observation from what I've seen of your previous contributions on here). Otherwise, your original comment in response to me plainly violates WP:PA, which you have been cited for before. As for the comment to the other user, I call things how I see them. I do not regret saying their comment was a "bunch of worthless word salad", and I stand by that remark. I felt their comment was wrongheaded, so I was disagreeing with it.Historyday01 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"since you seem to only be focused on those with left-wing views that are supposed "activists"
If that's your impression of my comment then let me be clear. There is without a doubt actors on both sides of the "identity politics war" in play here.
When that is said. I have no interest in having any further conversation or discussion with you, on this or other topics. I am therefore unsubscibing to this section of this talk page. No reply needed. Laddmeister (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources with conflicting information about years as Weinstein assistant

[edit]

In the Career section it is written that "Headland spent six years working as an assistant at Miramax, four years of which was spent as Harvey Weinstein's personal assistant" as reported in her RottenTomatoes profile (source 7).

However both in the Vulture and Entertainment Weekly interviews (sources 8 and 10) it is claimed by the author of the article and Headland herself respectively that she filled that position for a year: "Headland also talked about her 2008 play Assistance, which she wrote after spending a year as Harvey Weinstein’s assistant" (Vulture) and " I worked for the copresident of production at Miramax. I work for Harvey for about a year, and then I worked for Arianna Huffington for about a month." (EW)

Is there a reason why in the Wikipedia article it was decided to go with four years over one? (e.g. RottenTomatoes considered as accurate/trustworthy over personal recollections?) AlbertoSeptim (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about four years now, as I believe it has been removed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leslye_Headland&oldid=1261380106"