 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I can't find anything about this alleged "criticism" of Amy Ziering assaulting "several other survivors". Where was this reported? Who reported it? Can we either get some citations here, or remove this section? Sounds like heresay to me. El Beh (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Criticism" section keeps getting bumped to the front of the article. Why is this being listed so early? It seems more appropriate to place it near the Response and Reception sections, or to integrate it into one of those sections. I'm folding it into Reception now. Peanutbuttertoast (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In several places, information about the film's impact has been replaced with information about the work of various advocacy groups. Curiously, all the citations are still about the film and not about these other groups. It seems weird that the film is being scrubbed from its own page and replaced with uncited descriptions of other entities. Any reason not to revert these? Peanutbuttertoast (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page has recently received a number of non-constructive edits including: deleting descriptions of the film's impact from credible sources (e.g. New York Times), changing Award language from "Nominated" to "LOST", moving the criticism section to the top of the page, and scrubbing the film from its own page in order to insert language promoting other advocacy groups. These changes do not appear to be promoting a neutral point of view. Instead, they seem to be from the point of view of an outside organization that wants to discredit the film. A discussion of the film's criticisms is appropriate, but scrubbing relevant and appropriately-sourced information is not. Please discuss making these kinds of changes here. I am reverting. Peanutbuttertoast (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just me, but the linked article from the DOD that details Panetta's new requirement does not "ended the practice of commanders adjudicating these cases from within their own units." Instead, the quote from the DOD's article says, "Local unit commanders will be required to report allegations of rape, forcible sodomy and sexual assault.
So commanders are required to report to a higher rank--but it appears that commanders still have the power to dismiss cases from the get-go. Adamaero (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
