Talk:Devil's Playground (2002 film)

message: :Image:Devils playground.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Devils playground.jpg

message: I  have removed the word 'alleged' from  the lead. Whatever the Devil's Playground (film) documentary  tries to  either prove or disprove, the Wikpedia article Rumspringa appears to  be well  documented. The use of alleged in  the lead in  this context  is therefore probably  inappropriate. It may  be questionable whether Rumspringa is a Right of passage ceremony, or a period of adolescence, but  it  is probably not  up  to  us to  put  our interpretation on it in  the Wikipedia. To  do  so  would be possible infringement  of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I was planning to but real life got in the way. Rumspringa isn't a figment of someone's imagination. It may not be 'official' or universal, but it's real. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to repeat my call for precision -- the discussion here suffers from a lack of it. The claims here are really confusing -- to me at any rate. One seems to be that "alleged" refers to the word "rumspringa," -- or to the semantic field which that signifier designates? Another seems to be that it is exists, but is falsely assigned to the anthropological category of "rite of passage". We are definitely NOT putting up "our" interpretation when we cite an academic expert on the subject who notes two specific and connected facts IN the material cited: 1) there is widespread belief in x and 2) that belief is incorrect. Now, that is precisely the situation, in my understanding, which calls for the word "alleged." Please look this word up -- it does not mean "something which has been claimed but which is not true" For a second time, please bring forward any wikipolicy of which you are aware that governs the use of this word. And for the second time, please have a look at articles on subjects of contested veracity to see that the contest itself usually appears in the lead. Please do not make reference to possible infringements of WP:NPOV or WP:OR -- show what original research or POV violation occurs. DavidOaks (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just repeat for the sake of precision, and in language that  the non-academics of semantics among our readers can understand, that  this article is about a film - it's not a platform for applying an interpretation of it. We deal with facts, and the maxim is: If in doubt, leave it out. At WP:EAR we read editors' problems, we weigh up the pros and cons from a neutral standpoint. At WP:EAR we don't analyse your articles and rewrite them for you. If need be, we see if some kind of consensus has been established. It has, and the word alleged is not wanted in the intro.--Kudpung (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not that big a deal on the particular point, and I actually thought we were closing in on agreement, but things went wrong with some really disappointing behavior. Lexein dislikes discussion, complains, makes false statements, admin intervenes on the grounds that discussion is not needed. This consisted of two editors exchanging nine messages in 24 hours, with a third weighing in once, and then an admin deciding that this "extended" discussion is unnecessary, along with dismissive remarks on "academics" (yes, I know they're the bad guys in some views here, but is it just the fact that I'm asking people to look up the usage and meaning of words they're complaining about that earn this aspersion?) This is WP at its worst, but its fortunately pretty rare. DavidOaks (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I did not intervene 'on the grounds that discussion is not needed' and not that it's relevant, I think I'm the only Admin is this discussion. There's nothing wrong with academics at all. If any academics have commented on the film, I'd probably be keen to use them. But I believe Wittmer is self-published and he is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Counseling at The University of Florida (ie although he's an academic, academics specialise and this is outside his field), and I presume you know about WP:RS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  I requested editorial (not admin) assistance because I wanted a reality check, as stated.  This is Wikipedia at its near best, actually, because there was no revert war, more editors weighed in, I was wrong about WP:OWN, and I put a WP:AGF sticker on my Enter key.  --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help  request  at [[ WP:EAR]] 

message: It's important that the "voice" of an article be the voice of the sources, not that of Wikipedia itself, or of any particular editor. If there is a dispute between sources, that it be spelled out either in the text, citing both sources, or in a footnote, citing both sources.  Wikipedia is not a WP:Battleground. I've moved the comment about "The scholarship on the subject does not support this view of a normative rumspringa" (unexplained lowercase r) out of the synopsis to very acceptable footnote, where it still needs a supporting citation.  This may indeed be worthy of a sentence such as: 
:Though the film's introductory title card makes mention of rumspringa as a capitalized word as if it were a standalone concept,[1] or notional rite of passage (figure of speech), and as a period or time, and some interviewed Amish use the word contemporaneously with the notion of a time of "running around" before or while choosing to stay or leave the community and faith,[2][3] some researchers (one, passionately so) dispute the elevation of the notion to any sort of literal "time of fooling around" in which rules of Amish behavior are suspended.[4][5][6] 
Note, that if we say "some", we should cite at least three.
See below.
--Lexein (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I erred in the draft proposal above - no need for a controversy section.  The phrase "rite of passage" was inserted, unsourced, by the article's originating editor at its creation in 2004; it's not in the film, nor is it implied there, and 3rd party sourcing can't change that. It's not harmless either: this article had an unsourced phrase in its lede which may have contributed to the ongoing public misperception of the film and its subject - that's very annoying. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

text: We need to mention Rumspringa, and something like this would work except for the 'passionately so' unless we can source that - as it stands it appears to be OR. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed (see Usage in the film, below). As for 'passionately so', you're right - I struck the whole thing anyways, as noted above. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice of Wikipedia

message: I watched the film, took screengrabs, and transcribed key parts to address significant issues.
#The phrase "rite of passage" is never used in the film, nor any variant of it. 
#The word rumspringa is used in interviews and in intertitles, where it is lowercase (except at the beginning of a sentence), and italicized as a foreign language word, but it is not used to imply a rite of passage, nor declare any official status upon the word.  The film makes no statement that kids are encouraged to go "running around," it just documents a few who do so.
* 0:02:02  "When Amish children turn 16 they begin a period known in Pennsylvania Dutch as rumspringa. They are released from Amish restrictions and can explore the "english" [sic] world." 0:02:14  "Rumspringa lasts from a few months to several years, until a young person can decide whether or not to join the Amish church."
* 0:12:29 (subtitle) "During rumspringa, boys will often drive cars and dress "english". [sic]
* 0:17:21 "Throughout his rumspringa Faron has been using and dealing 'crank'..."
* 0:49:48 "The Amish allow a rumspringa tradition known as "bed courtship". 
One interview subject defines it (italics per WP:MOS#Italics):
* 0:15:31 Man: "Rumspringa, literally translated, means running around. It's a time for the youth to attend their parties and do those kinds of things." [0:15:46:] "This rumspringa is a time during which a person needs to make his individual choice as to whether he will follow Jesus Christ or not, and he cannot make that decision until he is accountable, which is generally accepted as being over the age of 16." 
and two interview subjects use it plainly:
* 0:22:40 Gerald: "Most kids live at home with their mom and dad during their rumspringa."
* 1:12:30 Faron: "I don't know if I'm still rumspringa or... I don't know what I am."
As used, rumspringa seems only to refer to activity during a period of time, and its lowercase usage is informal; nothing official or rite-like.  It's used casually, in the way we run around (lowercase) doing errands during lunch; these aren't Errands (capital E), they're just errands.  It's italicized in the film, which matches WP:MOS#Italics (both words as words and foreign language words).
 
Including rumspringa in the article without editorializing solves all WP:UNDUE emphasis beyond its usage in the film.  Here's the next suggested lead paragraph: 
: ... about the experiences of several Amish youths deciding whether to remain in or leave their community and faith while rumspringa ("running around" in Pennsylvania Dutch). The film follows a few Amish teenagers in LaGrange County, Indiana who enter the "english" world and experience partying, drinking, illegal drugs, and pre-marital sex.  Some teens in the film profess that they will eventually become baptised as adults in the Amish community; a few do not. If they are baptized, then leave, they will be shunned by family and friends; one girl experiences this. 
I checked the following sources. Their definitions align with the text of the film; the first book criticizes its tone and emphasis.  The second book was based on research and interviews done for the film plus additional and re- interviews.
* Growing up Amish: The Teenage Years. Richard A. Stevick, 2007.  p. 152. This was suggested for further reading by Amish in America: What is Rumspringa?
*  Rumspringa: To Be Or Not to Be Amish Tom Shachtman, 2006. p 11. Review (positive) Interview
* Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy Donald B. Kraybill, Steven M. Nolt, David L. Weaver-Zercher - 2010. p. 162 
* Dug Down Deep: Unearthing What I Believe and Why It Matters Joshua Harris - 2010. p. 2.
Other RS welcome.
--Lexein (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the only part that looked awkward. Glad you're on board. --Lexein (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in the film 

message: Per a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment, I have reviewed this article to determine if it should be upgraded from Start class. As the article only consists of the synopsis and reception, I don't believe this qualifies for C class. I would recommend adding additional details such as production, home media, splitting off the awards from the reception into a separate accolades section, and including any other relevant details that are available about the documentary. Consider taking a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Spotlight articles for ideas for expansion. With further sourcing and expansion, this article can be upgraded to C class. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - that's some advice we can use. --Lexein (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:FILM Assessment