Talk:Voice acting/Archives/2017
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Neutrality of de-breathing: 3/20/17 UTC
Hi! I've noticed that this sentence (within Types, sub-section: Commercial) may not comply with NPOV:
- De-breathing is often done inappropriately though and should never be done in any other area of voice acting as breathing informs the human aspect of delivery just as much as the characterisation.
"Inappropriately" and "should never be done" sound like opinions. Perhaps this sentence (which is also uncited) can be cited, in which case the sentence might become something like:
- According to Person X, de-breathing is often done inappropriately and should never be done in any other area of voice acting, as breathing informs the human aspect of delivery just as much as the characterisation.
On the other hand, if the sentence cannot be cited, it should probably be removed.
If anyone has any opinions, please let me know. Otherwise, I will remove the disputed sentence from the page.
Thanks!
Noah Kastin (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Claribassoonist, I see that you have removed the sentence in question. Thanks for doing that!
- I have re-added the Citation needed tag at the end of the paragraph, as the remaining part is still uncited. However, what remains should probably be easier to cite than the disputed sentence would have been.
- Thanks again!
- Noah Kastin (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
E-learning section
Under the types of voice acting, there was previous an "E-learning" section with https://voicebunny.com/blog/why-use-a-professional-voice-over-for-your-e-learning-videos/ as the source. The section caught my eye as dubious to begin with, as e-learning is an incredibly specific usage for voice acting, and much of the phrasing seemed like marketing jargon. Sure enough, the citation is a source with a commercial interest in this application, far from a WP:RS. To add insult to injury, all but the end of the Wikipedia section is plagiarised from that link verbatim. This is not acceptable.
It's also worth noting that the section was edited by [User:VoiceB]. By the username, this is likely a WP:COI. It appears that VoiceBunny is also connected to the poorly sourced Colombian voice acting. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to know how to proceed appropriately.
In principle, I don't see anything wrong with a section on e-learning as it relates to voice-acting, provided it was source appropriated and was not given undue weight. But in its current incarnation, it had to go. Arzg (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)