Talk:Ain't It Cool News
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just wondering why my changes on Harry-related controversies were backed out with a "NPOV" comment. I have nothing against Harry personally, but he is quite a controversial figure, and I provided facts and sources for everything I wrote. I'd prefer to see more info be added, or even have it reprased, rather than simply having my material deleted. The reason I added the material in the first place was that I came to this page to check out the controversy, and found only a slight, unreferenced mention, and I wanted to add the results of my own research into it.
--Misterwindupbird 23:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The link to the coming attractions article remains, so the material is still there for anyone who follows the link. the addition of the removed text pushed the article too much into "anti-AICN" territory, so to keep balance (i.e. NPOV) it was removed. Niz 11:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added some of the material back in, and tried to keep it short and neutral. I think we need to address some of the factual, documented sources of controversy in addition to, or instead of, the rumours. Citing unsourced rumours without any evidence smacks of innuendo, and it's what lead me to try to add factual info in the first place. Also, labelling CA a "rival" site sounds kind of dismissive to me (and it's not strictly true). --Misterwindupbird 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- changed "rival" to "another movie" (should be mentioned so readers are aware its POV)... i suggest a separate section called "controversies" or something to discuss the various allegations in more detail, but please also include AICN's defenses also. Niz 17:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"It is widely read by powerful Hollywood players as well as the general public." Is it really read by "Powerful Hollyood players" anymore? I mean, who are we kidding here. You don't see stuff like this in the descriptions of Rotten Tomatoes, or other movie based sites. It sounds like a pointless claim to me, because it can't really be proven and it has no place in an article that is supposed to be neutral. The part about the general public is really not needed either as any site on the web can claim this, so it isn't much of a statement. Vaginsh 14:57, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
