| Revision as of 16:19, 10 September 2014 editDrFleischman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 edits →RFC - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:32, 11 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,801,449 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (951 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
{{Be civil}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Round in circles|archives=no}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=C|1= |
|
{{calmtalk}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Film|American=yes|Documentary=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blpo=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Film|class=Start|American=yes|needs-image=no}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=low|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject History |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
|class=start |
|
|
|importance= |
|
|
|attention=yes |
|
|
|needs-infobox=no |
|
|
|small= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States History |
|
|
|class= start |
|
|
|importance= |
|
|
|attention= |
|
|
}}{{WikiProject Politics|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:America (2014 film)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archive box | ] }} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reception == |
|
|
|
|
|
The reception should reflect the general consensus among critics. That is what is normal in articles about movies. This should not set a new standards.] (]) 03:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This isn't a normal movie. It's an explicitly political film, and the reception has fallen predictably along party lines. It would be disingenuous of us to pretend otherwise, or that only the opinions of a tiny handful of people who mostly all happen to be on one side of the political divide is all that matters. It's also not uncommon for other political documentaries to include quotes from pundits or others in the reception sections. Besides, Ben Shapiro ''does'' . The section leads off by citing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritics ratings, and includes quotes from Ebert.com and Reuters, so film critic opinion is well covered. ] (]) 22:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I have no problem saying that various conservative media outlets defended the film. What I would have a problem with is labeling the huge number of movie credits that panned it "partisan". You don't get to make people "partisan" just because they didn't like the movie.] (]) 23:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Their commentary, even the quotes being used here, show they're liberal partisans. They're attacking the film on ''political'' grounds, not artistic ones. But we ''don't'' label the critics "partisan" or "liberal", so your concern is unfounded. We simply present their views, and add a quote from Shapiro. Keep in mind that the section is just titled "Reception", and the reception by audiences have been overwhelmingly positive. The current Reception section is fine. Your concern, and that of any good faith editors here, should be the total lack of a "Plot" or "Synopsis" section. That's more important than worrying about the Reception section somehow not being negative enough. ] (]) 02:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I am fine with that. I am just making the point that we should not be providing labels for those who aren't themselves labeled as partisans. Also, the quote from Breitbart should be removed. It is a fringe source and would not normally be included in a movie's reaction section. ] (]) 02:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Breitbart is not "fringe". It's one of the most prominent online media outlets in existence, roughly equivalent to the Huffington Post. It's an opinion blog, but so are most of the other sources being cited. Reception is about opinions. In fact Breitbart routinely publishes movie reviews, an example of which I just cited above. In my edit summaries I also observed that ] is notable enough to have his own Wiki article, unlike "Peter" whose quote precedes his. I suspect Breitbart is cited fairly often in reception sections, but if it's not it should be. ] (]) 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Breitbart is certainly fringe because it is infamous for editing news stories to fit their biases, often changing context as a result. Remember ]? ] (]) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Did you not see the list I just posted above? All of those scandals from NBC, CBS, and others are far worse. Regarding Sherrod, Breitbart, was handed a tape (a real one, not a forged memo ala Dan Rather) and posted it to show the NAACP's bigoted crowd reaction to her comments. The administration saw the line where she confessed to discriminating against white people, panicked, and fired her for the wrong reason without watching the full tape (Breitbart posted the version including her describing her supposed transformation away from racism online). After later seeing the transformation part they apologized and offered her a better job. Breitbart never called for her to be fired. She should have been fired for her later comments where she falsely characterized the Tea Party movement and other Obama critics as racists, but the administration ignored that (or likely endorses it) and essentially just knocked its own straw man down. Regardless, none of that makes Breitbart "fringe". The fact that the administration reacted to it shows it's not, as do other events like Breitbart's role in exposing (so to speak) Anthony Weiner, with Andrew Breitbart himself showing up at Weiner's scheduled press conference before Weiner did and being spontaneously mobbed with questions from the mainstream media. Furthermore, as I said below, here Breitbart is just being used to source it's own opinion, which it's clearly a RS for.] (]) 17:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Could you point to examples of the source being used in other non-political movie reviews?] (]) |
|
|
:::::::Probably, since it's a major site that routinely publishes reviews (here's another example ), but, again, it doesn't matter. Editors not previously using a source has no bearing on whether it's acceptable to use. If editors have been excluding it for some reason they've been wrong to. And I've certainly seen pundit commentary from all sorts of corners on pages for explicitly political films, including outfits that don't normally do movie reviews (unlike Breitbart). ] (]) 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: I disagree. In the past, it has been seen as not a WP:RS source. While certainly that always depends on the context, it has been seen as similar to WND. As such I think it should be removed.] (]) 10:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I can't comment on what you've seen in the past, but both Breitbart and WND are at least as reliable as the Huffington Post or Ebert.com. In this case we're dealing with opinions, so all they would have to be reliable for anyway are their own views. I seriously doubt one could make a compelling case that they aren't reliable for that.] (]) 17:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: No. They are certainly reliable for their that. However, putting a fringe source's opinion in an article does not make a neutral article. Past concensus does not agree that Huff post is the same as WND. Perhaps is it is time to get some outside eyes to look at this?] (]) 20:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::If we agree that Breitbart is reliable for its own views, then on what basis are you calling it "fringe"? Alexa 41st among ''global'' news sites in internet traffic, and it broadly reflects the views of half of the American political spectrum. Clearly it's mainstream, not "fringe". ] (]) 17:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::: I am arguing WP:Undue based on the fact that it is a fringe source. Including the quote weighs the story in a way that does not fit the context of the overall coverage.] (]) 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I'm asking why you think it's a "fringe" source given the facts I just posted. Repeatedly asserting it's "fringe" isn't an argument. If you're trying to claim that including a non negative quote (from any source) is "undue" here since most film critics panned the movie, then I'll remind you that the total reception from those who have seen the film has been overwhelmingly positive. It would be POV for us to censor out a quote that seems to reflect audience sentiment, leaving only quoted opinions representing maybe one or two dozen people whose one sided partisan views run overtly throughout their reviews. Sobczynski's column was almost entirely political; the recent edit switched his quote to about the only non political commentary he had, and, given the surrounding context, it was less than convincing. It would be blatant POV for us to suppress the other side here. Again, this isn't a normal movie, so when a film is explicitly political, reception breaks down along party lines, and film critics are overtly mostly on one side of that political divide while audiences and conservative commentators are on the other, it's not only acceptable to allow a quote from the other side contending what Shapiro does, it's the responsible thing to do. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him or the audiences that gave the film the rare A+ rating. ] (]) 18:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::: It is fringe because the community has seen it as fridge in the past, in most context. I am traveling but will link the relevant discussions latter.] (]) 20:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::See discussion ] and ] |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Your first linked discussion was four years ago, only had four posters participating, was asking whether Breitbart should be considered a valid ''news'' source (as opposed to a relevant opinion source), and only two posters even said "no" to that (without providing arguments). That's not a consensus for anything, much less anything pertinent to this discussion. Your second linked discussion was two years ago, and likewise asking about its RS news status specifically relating to Zimmerman/Martin case coverage. Even the posters arguing against Breitbart's use for facts in Misplaced Pages's voice pointed out that it could be used with attribution for ''news'' coverage, and that it was a reliable source for its own views. If anything, your links underscore what I've said. ] (]) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I went ahead and asked for greater community involvement in this issue. I posted it on ]. Discussion can be found ]] (]) 02:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==We shouldn't purge all mention of the obvious political dynamic at play here== |
|
|
It would be unconscionable for us to only allow quotes from left wing commentators on an explicitly conservative film. That kind of twisted propaganda isn't what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about. With an explicitly political film, reception is predictably breaking down along party lines, and the Shapiro quote directly addresses that. It comments not on the movie per se but on the ''reception'', which is perfectly legitimate in the reception section. Even if one disagrees with him he's speaking for millions of non liberals. |
|
|
|
|
|
I already know Casprings won't change his mind, but I'd like to hear others, especially {{Ping|User:Srich32977}}, specifically comment on the "weight" issue as it relates to this quote. If we're just discussing film critics' response, I could understand not quoting a dissenting minority film critic (at least for a non political film). But the section covers total reception, not just a dozen or so critics' opinions as aggregated by a particular site, and the political dynamic is impossible to legitimately ignore. Even if one thought the former version gave too much weight to conservative complaints about liberal critics being motivated by political bias, isn't a better solution to simply add another liberal quote rather than delete the one third party conservative quote making the vital point, and pretending the latter view doesn't exist? ] (]) 18:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:We can safely assume good faith that Casprings will work towards consensus. And I don't think a ] of general political commentary is underway or needed. But the Beitbart.com piece (presently removed) suffered because it was more about the critics on the other side of the spectrum, ''rather than the film.'' For the moment I'm simply waiting for more commentary to play out here and on the NPOVN. – ] (]) 18:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Did you read what I just wrote? The fact that he's commenting on the reception is a reason ''for'' including it, because with a political movie like this the reception, particularly the stark split between critics and audiences, is notable in and of itself. It's one thing if you disagree with me, but at least acknowledge what I say and address it. Where in Misplaced Pages policy does it say that movie articles should only contain quotes from professional film critics, and only quotes representing the majority view of that very narrow category at that? ] (]) 18:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:1. The reception should reflect the reception of the film. I see no evidence that these film critics are panning this for political reasons. 2. It is not acceptable to call our editors in your OP. 3. Pinging on editor, who had the most sympathetic view at ] is in violation of ].] (]) 18:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 1. "''The reception should reflect the reception of the film.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Agreed. That includes the reception by audiences, professional film critics, and other commentators. And, if noteworthy, facts or comments about the reception itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: "''I see no evidence that these film critics are panning this for political reasons.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:: You must not have read the reviews. For example, almost every paragraph of review is attacking D'Souza's politics and making his own quite clear. The review's vile, almost childishly petty tone just makes it worse. Regardless, it's not about what you or I think. The sentiment that political bias is at play is undeniably widely held, and merits a mention. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 2. Call out? I simply asked for S Rich's opinion. He did ''not'' have the most sympathetic view at NPOVN, which is why I'm asking him questions. Multiple editors showed up supporting the quote's inclusion, BTW, undermining your edit summary claim about the conversation's alleged "direction". |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 3. S Rich is currently very actively involved in editing this article on the specific issues in question so it would be ludicrous to accuse me of "canvassing" by wanting to talk to him about it. ] (]) 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I said this at the noticeboard, but I'll repeat it here. A distinct "Political reaction" section would be far more appropriate than mixing that stuff in with film review. I'd support that. Those who are interested can see it, and those who aren't can skip it. Sources (and Wiki editors) definitely exist showing this film has stirred up the buzzing in those camps. So we ''should'' reflect it, without suggesting any of this has bearing on whether the movie sucked. ] ] 03:50, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
::I've done so, with a "other responses" section. – ] (]) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. I think rhyming "critical" with "political" would be more aesthically pleasing, but that hardly matters. ] ] 05:35, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Except the reviews themselves are political reactions (just read them), and we probably don’t need two or three different sections to cover Reception when a single quote (like that from Shapiro) would have been sufficient to cover the widely held view about the reception, and when we still don’t have a Synopsis section. That said, since a new “Other reactions” section has been created (for good or ill), would you oppose adding the Shapiro quote to it? ] (]) 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Some reviews themselves, maybe. But not what we take from them to include in ''our'' article. Many of the sources we use on Misplaced Pages present the facts with a slant. We excise them and (at least try to) present them without it. For example, in D'Souza's article we take from the apparently biased ''What's So Great About America'' the straightforward claim that he became a naturalized citizen in 1991. What readers will be exposed to if they use our sources for further research is an issue for the wider world to address. ] ] 05:34, ], ] (UTC) |
|
|
::::You didn't answer the question. Would you oppose adding the Shapiro quote? ] (]) 05:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===I added the POV template=== |
|
|
- The page still doesn't even have a "Synopsis" section describing the movie, and yet some editors have taken great pains to ensure that it's stuffed with negative commentary. |
|
|
|
|
|
- Even a few weeks into wide release, an editor is updating the drop in screen count and receipts every week, something I've never seen done in a movie article, without explaining why it's relevant or pointing out how small the drops have been compared to other movies. Frequently used source Box Office Mojo even described it as a "fantastic hold", but any hint that the drop was "slight" has been purged from the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
- The closest thing to a third party positive quote the page had, an observation by notable pundit and occasional film reviewer ] commenting on the political nature of the reception, has been removed from the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
- A brief, sourced clause quoting the self described political affiliation of the negative reviewer whose quote is most prominently featured was deleted, leaving no mention of his politics. |
|
|
|
|
|
- The fact that many people believe film critics are overwhelmingly liberal (including the critics themselves), and that this might be relevant to their reviews of conservative documentaries like this one, has been whitewashed from the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
- A sourced sentence providing historical perspective for the extremely rare A+ CinemaScore grade was removed from the text and relegated to a scroll over note (can't we do that with the far less relevant weekly screen drop sentences?). '''Update''' - The historical perspective segment has since been totally deleted by an editor who erroneously cited "FRINGE" and "SYNTH", possibly not understanding what they mean since the segment came directly from the primary source and its facts are verifiable (the purpose of the second source) and undisputed. The "fringe" claim is a non sequitur here. |
|
|
|
|
|
- Recent editing has pushed the article even further in the direction of only having the liberal POV represented, which is unacceptable when discussing subjective opinions on an explicitly political documentary. ] (]) 01:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We are required to represent the response with due weight. If the critical response to the film is overwhelmingly negative, we are not required to add quotes from fringe publications praising the film for "balance". And we don't add large quotes from those fringe sources which take up more space than anything else in the section. This completely misrepresents the actual critical response. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Connecting separate facts that you think are related is ]. Presenting these facts in a manner designed to present your particular point of view about the critical response violates ]. ] <small>(])</small> 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You don’t seem to understand what “fringe” means. ] , a mainstream conservative outlet that’s ranked #41 among global news sites by Alexa, is not a “fringe” publication, and ] is notable enough to have his own Wiki article. Also, quoting a noteworthy writer commenting directly on the topic at hand isn’t ]. Rather than randomly naming policies, you should try to articulate an argument supporting one or more of your contentions. |
|
|
|
|
|
::You did make a “due weight” argument, but it’s rooted in the erroneous belief that reception coverage is only about professional critics. As the , "''Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, '''though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited'''.......To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews.....Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used.''" Clearly there's no mandate that reception sections only reflect the views of professional critics, much less in the case of political documentaries. In this case the total reception to the film has been overwhelmingly positive. Even if one did grant the erroneous due weight argument, you're operating from the misguided premise that completely deleting the commentary is better than simply increasing the negative quotes. NPOV does require us to cover all aspects of an issue accurately, and omitting conservative complaints about film critics' liberal bias, and even any mention of the negative reviewer's admitted politics, fails to do that. ] (]) 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Popularity does not make something not fringe. Notability does not make something not fringe. ] has an article. The ] has an article. Should we quote their film reviews as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Obviously you did not read my due weight argument because it has nothing to do with limiting reception coverage to only professional critics. It has to do with you favoring a paragraph devoted to a single fringe nonprofessional critic that is larger than the paragraphs devoted to a combined description of the views of all professional critics. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::NPOV does not require us to document fringe viewpoints. It does not require us to note the politician orientation of one particular critic that you wish to highlight. If you wish to expand the section to eliminate UNDUE issues, go for it, but don't expect other editors to leave an UNDUE violation in the article while waiting for you to do so. ] <small>(])</small> 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You have yet to provide an argument why the source supposedly ''is'' fringe. You disliking its politics doesn't qualify as a reason. Breitbart has millions of readers, is one of the highest trafficked news sites in the world, and broadly reflects the ideology of half of the American political spectrum. The WBC, by contrast, has about one or two dozen members. No comparison. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::] actually is a professional critic (among other things), but that's beside the point. Commenting on the reception itself falls into a different category than commenting on the film per se, and his view is certainly widely held enough for it to merit inclusion. The due weight argument (which I did read) collapses. Apart from that, the vast majority of the reception has been positive anyway, as proved by the CinemaScore grade. Even if he was just commenting positively on the film itself, "UNDUE" charges would have no basis. ] (]) 04:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: What you want is ]. You think the reviews are biased because they are negative. That might be the case. But we don't add it to the article because you say so. The article should remain consistent with other movies and film reviews form notable film reviewers should be reflected in the same way.] (]) 04:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''<Insert>'''Quoting directly from a source isn't ]. It's the opposite. Please read the policy pages before citing them. ] (]) 04:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The examples of VDARE and Westboro are ] arguments. They are not providing film reviews or political commentary about the film. If they had, it would be proper to omit them from the article. This debate is about Breitbart.com and the weight that should be given to it. Now Victor wants to expand the "critics section", but that won't work because the film itself is contentious. The best course of action is to present the aggregator data plus 2 representative reviews, pro & con. And then we develop a section that covers what the political commentators have said, along with the impact that the film has had in the general public. – ] (]) 04:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Saying someone is a "liberal" and basing that on a review of another movie is certainly ]. There is no source that says he is reviewing this movie as a liberal or a secondary source that is WP:RS that suggests his reviews are slanted towards the left. Sorry.] (]) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, a direct, attributed quote from a source is never OR, by definition. Furthermore, multiple sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence all the time. That's not necessarily a violation of any policy. In this case PS's political affiliation is relevant since he's commenting on an explicitly political film. Either way though it has nothing to do with OR. ] (]) 05:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::providing equal balance to each "side" in the form of an equal number of reviews would be an UNDUE violation since he critical response has been overwhelmingly negative. ] <small>(])</small> 05:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Except that the audience reception was overwhelmingly positive, and the guidelines I cited above specifically mentioned CinemaScore (among other non pro film critics) as acceptable sources in critical reception sections. Therefore having a representative negative quote and a quote reflecting the positive reaction would not be undue. ] (]) 05:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Agreed, and there are obvious political dynamics to recognize. -- ] (]) 08:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::This argument makes little sense. Critical and audience reaction are two separate things, just look at any ] film. A positive audience reaction does not require us to misrepresent the nature of the critical reaction by creating a false balance. The allegedly positive audience reaction is already represented by the CinemaScore, which really only tells us that the relatively small audience for a niche political film is predisposed to like a niche political film in any case. ] <small>(])</small> 12:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yes. Indeed the phenomenon of positive or promotional reception among small self-selected groups is a common marker among fringe persons, theories and publications. As WP editors we should be able to recognize this for what it is and not "cut the baby in half" by pretending that these views are equally as valid as the clear mainstream/majority view. ]] 13:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Actually the includes "Audience response" as a subsection of the "Critical response" section. The definition of critical reception is left intentionally flexible, so, again, there's absolutely nothing in policy supporting what you say. Regarding SPECIFICO'S comment, the MOS's specific endorsement of CinemaScore renders arguing against it futile even if you weren't ignoring the fact that an A+ score tells us a lot due to its historical rarity. If you're claiming we should ignore the obvious political dynamic involved, including overt, one sided bias by professional film critics (or at least the widespread, noteworthy perception of such bias), then please refrain from talking about pretense or "recogniz(ing) this for what it is". ] (]) 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I agree with Gamaliel and SPECIFICO -- there was an UNDUE focus in this section on pundits' reactions to the critics' reviews. The article should stick to reviews of the film itself, not reviews of the reviews. Adding commentary from conservative critics would be appropriate; attacking the existing critics' reviews based on their perceived politics is not. ] (]) 16:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Your position has no basis in policy, and amounts to ]. Movie articles routinely cover noteworthy aspects of a film or its reception that transcend merely citing professional film critics' evaluations of the movie. The political component is relevant here because it's an explicitly political movie, the reviews themselves are overtly political, and the sentiment articulated by ] (a notable writer/editor) is very widely held. Such phenomena merit mention in these articles. Purging any mention of the significant viewpoint clearly violates NPOV. ] (]) 16:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::If tens or hundreds of millions of earthlings flocked to see the film, you might be on solid ground. From everything we know however, the film and its fans are fringe. ]] 16:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::It's already the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time, and the film and its fans are well rooted in the mainstream. The pertinent point here, however, is that professional film critics are extremely monolithic and unrepresentative of the general population in political ideology, which unavoidably has bearing on the subjective reception of political documentaries. Our mandate is to honestly cover the issue, not try to hide a huge portion of it. ] (]) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::That statement rejects the views of mainstream professional film critics. That is contrary to our mission here. You have no data as to the sample of the public who rated the film and no basis for the view that its fans are rooted in the mainstream. That is OR, ]] 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::You're the one making statements you can't back up (like "fringe"). As I've proved with MOS quotes above, "Reception" isn't limited to "professional film critics", so their views alone aren't necessarily authoritative. CinemaScore is explicitly endorsed by Misplaced Pages guidelines for use in these articles, and their survey methods are widely respected. You've provided no policy based reason for excluding a noteworthy, significant viewpoint relating to this film, and certainly no general ethical one. The honest thing to do is cover the widely held view. Intentionally misleading readers through significant omission is contrary to our purpose here. ] (]) 17:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Your view appears to be in the minority on this thread. ]] 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::That's not an argument. ]. Besides, numerous other editors have made points similar to mine elsewhere on this page and in the NPOVN discussion. Others even started a couple of weeks ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::Also, point of order: I'll note that some issues are getting conflated since you replied to different posts discussing different things. The issue of whether to add a positive review of the film itself to what's now the "Critical response" section is different than the issue of adding Shapiro's comment on the reception to the new "Other responses" section. That the latter includes quotes from a journalist and one of the producers underscores the absurdity of basing one's rejection of the Shapiro quote on professional film critics' opinions. It's not even clear the critics would dispute Shapiro, at least his assertion that they're overwhelmingly left wing and that this impacts their commentary (presumably they'd say their opinions are worthwhile anyway). The reviews cited on RM are overtly political. ] (]) 18:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===The Blaze=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've again removed this material from the article. ''The Blaze'' is a fringe, partisan media outlet which has no reputation for factchecking or accuracy, instead it has a reputation for pushing lunatic conspiracy theories. The author of the cited ''Blaze'' article is does not appear to have any credentials as a film critic or even a journalist. All the other articles by him on the ''Blaze'' are political. As a result, the author is not an appropriate source for factual claims regarding the history of film. Readers who want context about the CinemaScope rating can visit the article on that topic, we don't need to cite a fringe partisan source on a matter which it has no known expertise. Contrary to VictorD7's assertion, it is incumbent upon him to establish a consensus among editors that this material is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it is not incumbent upon other editors to convince him personally that material he wants to insert is inappropriate. ] <small>(])</small> 01:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There was a defacto consensus for it. The only one reverting it is you. You don't understand "fringe" policy. Leaving aside your garbage claims about The Blaze (an opinionated news/opinion site, like The Huffington Post and the various blogs and highly politicized "reviews" currently being cited by this article), "fringe" doesn't apply when the facts in the segment are confirmed via multiple sources and are undisputed. You've presented nothing even approaching a legitimate, non nakedly POV pushing rationale for your multiple reversions. ] (]) 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::A "defacto consensus"? Can you link me to this policy? Because what it seems to me that you are actually saying is that "Nobody disagreed with me before, so my edits should stay in the article until you convince me to agree with you." That's not how it works. You boldly included the information in the article. You tried to improve Misplaced Pages, good work. But now the material is disputed under multiple Misplaced Pages policies. You can't just loudly harangue other editors, declare victory, and reinsert the material. You have to discuss it. Very little of what you've done on this page is actual discussion, just loud declarations of the correctness of your point of view. Please try to engage the actual objections to this material. Instead of just declaring your correctness, can you explain it? For example, can you explain why, specifically, you think ''The Blaze'' a reliable source for claims about the audience ratings of films, or anything at all? Does ''The Blaze'' have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by policy? Do they or the author of the piece have any known credentials or expertise? If yes, can you document any of this? ] <small>(])</small> 18:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Actually the segment you reverted was crafted by multiple editors over a period of time and doesn't represent my ideal wording, as my edit summary indicated. Yes, that reflects consensus. Most of the rest of your post is projection. I'm the one discussing what actual policy is here, while you're simply shouting it repeatedly and erroneously. Sidestepping your general attacks on that source, since reliable sourcing is determined on a case by case basis depending on how it's being used in that particular context (sources aren't prohibited or endorsed across the board for Misplaced Pages use/non use), can you identify specifically any facts presented in the segment that are disputed or dubious? ] (]) 19:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Those multiple editors are subject to the same process as I described above. If they wish to include this disputed material, they can discuss the material here and establish that it meets policy requirements. The onus is on those who wish to include the material, and to date, no one, including yourself, has made any actual policy-based arguments for inclusion beyond your repeated but unsupported declaration that policy requirements have been met. In regards to the accuracy of the facts presented by ''The Blaze'', I refer you to comments above by myself and ]. ] <small>(])</small> 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat| {{=2|8}} Please discuss the topic. – 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)}}:::::So you can't name anything in the segment that's actually disputed or dubious? That's what I thought. ] (]) 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: {{facepalm}} I just did. ] <small>(])</small> 21:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No you didn't. Name something specific from the segment in question that's allegedly in dispute. ] (]) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Scroll up to the comments previously mentioned. ] ] <small>(])</small> 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Now you're vandalizing the talk page with space consuming drawings. I've read the discussion. Nothing from the segment has been singled out as in dispute. The facts are unchallenged. ] (]) 22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::] ] <small>(])</small> 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::What if we consume all our space? What will become of us? ]] 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::] Whoa. ] <small>(])</small> 22:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
:::::So you can't name anything in the segment that's actually disputed or dubious? That's what I thought. It can't be "fringe" if no one disagrees. ] (]) 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Please read the relevant comments about this discussion on your talk page. If you refuse the attempts of myself and ] to calm this discussion and steer it in an appropriate and productive direction, then I don't see any point in participating further. I suggest you take a break from this issue until you are able to approach it in a calm and productive manner. ] <small>(])</small> 23:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm perfectly calm. I suggest you worry less about falsely characterizing me and more about addressing the topic here. Since we seem to have established that no one disputes the segment in question, do you still maintain it's somehow "fringe"? ] (]) 23:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I just saw your reply . Feel free to reply here instead since it's silly to conduct the discussion on multiple pages. |
|
|
:::::::::You - "The audience response has never been in dispute and remains in the article. The significance assigned to it by ''The Blaze'' is what is in dispute." |
|
|
:::::::::Me - ''What about the significance assigned to an A+ rating by The Hollywood Reporter? Since both sources agree that an A+ rating is particularly noteworthy, do you still object to its inclusion on "fringe" grounds? If so, do you have a contrary source?'' ] (]) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{outdent}} Good idea, it only makes sense to have this discussion here. I never objected to ''The Hollywood Reporter'' on fringe grounds. I objected to it because using it was ] since it does not mention ''America''. There is no reason to believe that the rating is significant in the same way for every film. As ] and I discussed, the rating could be skewed positive because of the small sample size and the nature of the audience, so an A+ for ''America'' might not mean the same thing as an A+ for a film like ''Titanic''. This is why we if we are going to discuss interpretations of the significance of the rating in the article, we need reliable sources. ] <small>(])</small> 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Cinescore survey's movie goers at the theatre's. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, your opinion about the reliability of their survey is purely your opinion original research and/or opinion. All movies are going to be skewed in the direction of the audience that goes to see them, but it doesn't change the validity of the score relative to other scores as they are independent observations. Since science behind this survey appears to be an accepted metric there is no rational for disregarding it in this instance. The conveyor of that information is largely irrelevant, and the source is just as reliable as TPM and other left-leaning sites. ] (]) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Straw-man. No one is saying the score should not be in the article.] (]) 01:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article predated this movie's release but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant here, and using it as a supplemental source for verification purposes (for people like you who don't like The Blaze) certainly isn't SYNTH. The Blaze piece connects the movie with the grade's historical rarity covered by . Since the Blaze source was used here, the segment most definitely was not ]. Here's SYNTH: "'''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.'''" I suppose the only "conclusion" in this case is the fact that America received an historically rare grade, which is explicitly stated by . |
|
|
|
|
|
:So SYNTH is out (I'm not conceding adding a dry, factual sentence on the "52" stat would even be SYNTH without the Blaze source but surely you'd agree that it certainly isn't with it). You're dismissing the Blaze source as "fringe", but since we have the THR explaining why CinemaScores, especially rare A+'s, "matter", I don't see how you can do that without another source disputing that. A Misplaced Pages editor's musings don't qualify as a RS. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I will say as that I'm not arguing we attribute any significance beyond the undisputed historical rarity. As a possible compromise, I'd be willing to drop the quote and even ending "lower grade" segment, only leaving a sentence saying "''From 1982 to 2011 only 52 movies received an A+ score from CinemaScore.''", along with the two sources. ] (]) 00:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::SYNTH is not out. You are still taking an article that gives relevance to the score, in the context of another movie, and giving that relevance to this movie. That is clearly ]. It should be excluded and the score can stand on its own. Also, I also agree the Blaze is not ]. There is no reputation of fact checking. ] (]) 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::SYNTH is out because The Blaze explicitly mentions this movie and quotes the "52" stat cited below and elsewhere. The story explains why an A+ score "matters" (their word) in ''general'', not just for a particular movie. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''"GRADE A+: Only 52 films have received the top mark from audiences, on average two a year since 1982"''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No further significance need be attributed. The rarity of America's top grade is noteworthy in and of itself. As for the Blaze somehow not being RS, it was already explained to you in the Breitbart discussion that RS is determined on a case by case basis depending on context, and that sources aren't prohibited or endorsed across the board for Wiki use. In this case the facts presented in the Blaze piece are verifiable through other sources and are undisputed, so it's clearly a RS. Also, while I appreciate your input, I would like to get Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal. ] (]) 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The Blaze should not be used as a source because it is not WP:RS. That should also be out. No one may dispute the score, but there is certainly dispute to the significants the blaze attaches to it. That significants needs to come from an WP:RS.] (]) 01:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If the grade is insignificant, then why include it at all? That MOS guidelines specifically endorse CinemaScore's use shows Misplaced Pages ''does'' consider it meaningful. If the score is meaningful at all then the rarity of scoring the highest possible grade is noteworthy. The "RS" issue is a non sequitur since no one has shown that any part of the proposed segment is in dispute. The "52" stat is verified through multiple sources, including The Hollywood Reporter. ] (]) 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::RS depends on context and content. A poll of a large, random sample of paying moviegoers would not measure the same thing as a poll of a relatively small group of guests invited by the producers, for example. ]] 17:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The CinemaScore poll seems to have been of audiences during the movie's wide release around July 4. Early VIP screenings of the type you describe are routine for movies. CinemaScore grades (the context in which CinemaScore is being used here) are specifically endorsed as noteworthy by the MOS guidelines, and I'm not aware of any proviso making exceptions for movies SPECIFICO doesn't like. ] (]) 18:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Most films have an eclectic audience. This film is only patronized by right-wing conservatives. Of course they are going to love it regardless of the film quality or even accuracy. Almost nobody outside of those conservatives would pay to see this film spare a few nonpartisan movie reviewers.. and they have not been kind. I challenge you to find me a non-conservative who would give this film a top mark. A Florida state Senator, Alan Hays, remarked that he doesn't see any young people watching the film. He is currently drafting a bill to make it required watching for public school students, despite his previous positions on government interference and propaganda. As un-American as that is, if this actually passes then you'll have an accurate picture of what people really think of this film.] (]) 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Your personal guesses as to the audience's makeup are irrelevant. Lots of political documentaries and movies have been made, but an A+ grade is extremely rare. That said, since you seem to believe bias in reception should be taken into account, you should be fine with us fully covering this story and adding the widely held, significant viewpoint expressed by the Ben Shapiro quote observing that professional film critics are overwhelmingly left wing and that this colors their reactions to the film. That this is manifestly true is obvious simply by reading the negative reviews; they all overtly attack the movie's politics and usually conservatism, religion, and/or the USA in general. For the record, some of the positive reviews seem like they may have come from liberals (I haven't confirmed that), but I have yet to see a negative review by a non leftist. Censoring out coverage of the political dynamic involved in the reception is dishonest. ] (]) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Proposed compromise – editors should also consider the compromise set forth by VictorD7 above |
|
|
:It is interesting that Brietbart and TheBlaze have advertising from American Express, Equifax, AT&T, Goldline, Wellspring Benefits Group, Beats Electronics, etc. This suggests that the websites are much more than personal blog/fringe-type pages. Nevertheless, they do not fit in to the MOS for movie articles because they are not movie reviews. But here is my suggestion for a <big>]</big>. We simply include the links (the below and others) in the <nowiki>==External links==</nowiki> section, or better yet a <nowiki>==Further reading==</nowiki> section. We omit commentary about ''what'' they say, thus avoiding SYN or POV pushing. We don't need to haggle about them being RS. By including them, we can proudly say ]. We don't don't violate ] (or we justify as ]. We include an <nowiki><!-- Editor's comment --></nowiki> that says "these links are placed here as a result of discussion, compromise, and consensus". If there are other links to add, they can be brought up as candidates in future discussions. So here is what they'd look like: |
|
|
* {{cite web|last1=Shapiro|first1=Ben|title=7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'|url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/15/7-movies-critics-America|website=]|date=July 15, 2014}} |
|
|
* {{cite web| last1=Urbanski |first1=Dave |title= Here Are the Legendary Films Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘America’ Now Sits Next to Because of the Incredibly Rare Grade Viewers Gave It | url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/05/heres-the-list-of-legendary-films-dinesh-dsouzas-america-now-sits-next-to-because-of-the-incredibly-rare-grade-viewers-gave-it/ |date= July 5, 2014| website=]}} |
|
|
: – ] (]) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's not much of a compromise. Where in the MOS does it say that movie articles can only contain movie reviews? That's a nonsensical premise, since all movie articles contain an array of notable information about the movies, not just critical reception. By that logic we'd need to delete most of the page. ] (]) 18:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Indeed that premise, saying even in the "Critical response" section that..."''Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, '''though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited'''''" If notable persons simply connected to the ''topics'' covered in the movie may be cited, then clearly things aren't restricted to movie reviews. In this case media bias was a topic covered in the movie. I'll add that the MOS's " suggest a more wide open format for whom should be quoted and what should be covered. ] (]) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud both editors for bringing compromises to the table but I'm afraid neither one addresses one of the fundamental issues here, the inappropriateness of using ''The Blaze'' as a source at all or even including a link to it. Perhaps if we flip it around you might see where we are coming from. Imagine if editors were advocating the inclusion of a link to Daily Kos. ] <small>(])</small> 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:There are two ways we can use the term "source". One, when we take information from a reliable source and put into article text, we are using the RS "as a source". But "a source" need not be used "as a source". So, two, in further reading and external link sections, sources are listed but they are not used for article improvement. Also, using ] might not be so bad. I looked, but did not find where they had written about the movie. I was hoping to see what ], one of their contributors, had said. IOW, a blog entry from one of their regular published contributors might be a worthwhile further reading item. – ] (]) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I'm impressed. Most editors, regardless of their political persuasion, reject Daily Kos out of hand. Earlier in my time on Misplaced Pages I favored a more open approach to including websites that are now considered inappropriate. But consensus on Misplaced Pages is firmly against these links now, and I don't see why we should go against that consensus here and create a double standard where liberal editors could complain that their favored sites are excluded while Glenn Beck's is included. I might be persuaded by a case to include the link if I saw some value in the content. But all that is there is a blog post crowing about the high CinemaScore rating. There's nothing there in the way of even remotely substantial history or analysis, it's just click bait. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Even if we ignore the SYNTH issue and link it to the Hollywood Reporter article about the significance of the rating, then why should we not also violate SYNTH again and link it to this I found tonight regarding complaints that the Cinemascore is outdated and uses poor methodology, such as the small sample sizes that we brought up as an issue earlier. This is exactly why we need sources from people who know what they are talking about to sort these issues out, instead of linking to partisans scoring cheap political points. |
|
|
|
|
|
::So I guess the key issue here is fundamentally "what is the value of this blog post?" Does the Cinemascore really matter? Who cares? It seems to me that the real point that is made by the cinemascore and the blog post is that audiences thought highly of the film. If this is really the point that editors want the article to make, then instead of using the Cinemascore as a roundabout way of making that point, instead let's find an RS making that point directly and we can include that in the article. ] <small>(])</small> 05:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm not sure what issues you are addressing. My proposal is to include some non-article-text bulleted links in a separate section. (My proposal does not involve SYNTH.) My proposal is in keeping with ]. Why and how? At present there is a complaint that the article is unbalanced because the "inherently-biased-towards-liberalism-of-the-Hollywood-left" view. We get a little balance, not by seeking to actually present the conservative POV in the article text, but simply by listing a few pertinent links in the section. If Daily Kos posts something from a notable contributor (e.g., someone other than "jotter"), that link ought to be considered too. Is there a risk that the section becomes a LINKFARM? By monitoring what gets added, I don't think so. – ] (]) 17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::My original response here was lost in an edit conflict, I guess, so I'll repeat the just of it. If it is the consensus of editors that they want to include these and other links in EL, then I will suggest a few myself. But this is not in line with the current consensus of interpretation of ] on Misplaced Pages, and I expect that within a few days or weeks or months, those links will be removed by some editor citing ] or LINKFARM. ] <small>(])</small> 20:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Your own article link shows almost the entire weight of current studio opinion affirming CinemaScore's value, and certainly Misplaced Pages guidelines do, as does the fact that most high profile movie articles here include CinemaScore grades (per the earlier talk page a few sections above). Otherwise the sample size question could easily be turned around and applied to aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which seems to have a lot more unscientific methodology than CinemaScore does. If CinemaScore is valuable, then the objective fact of the top grade's rarity is noteworthy for an article covering a movie that received such a top grade, especially since average readers likely aren't aware of said rarity (that's substantial value). Again, no one here is suggesting that we attribute any more significance to the high grade other than the rarity itself. I've seen Daily Kos used before and wouldn't object to its inclusion if the segment it was being used to source merited inclusion, as this one clearly does. From a conservative standpoint sources like CBS, the Washington Post, and NY Times aren't much better than the Daily Kos anyway, and I've added many liberal sources to Misplaced Pages. That said, it's worth pointing out that The Blaze and Breitbart both seem to be more news oriented than the Daily Kos, which is more of a pure blog, and The Blaze and Breitbart each see than the Daily Kos. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The article in question is making a legitimate historical point about the movie we're covering. It's no more "click bait" than the THR article covering the grade from the same angle for previous movies is. Clearly there is no consensus not to use sites like Breitbart and The Blaze, as each has strong support here. There has just been handful of partisan complaints about them leading to liberal/conservative edit warring. From an objective standpoint the issue should be "Is the segment itself verifiable"? Since it's verifiable and undisputed, the RS question is irrelevant. From an editorial standpoint, given this article's undeniable politically controversial nature, ''at worst'' one should err on the side of including all significant views and segments with strong support to avoid the appearance of Misplaced Pages having partisan bias, especially if we're just including a non disputed historical factual sentence essentially duplicated by a liberal source (THR) for previous movies. This inclusion shouldn't even be controversial. ] (]) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I think this could be easily solved if you could find a WP:RS that comments on the importance of the score in relation to this particular movie.] (]) 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The Blaze is RS here. And to what importance do you refer? Are you suggesting that CinemaScore grades are irrelevant? Because that flies in the face of MOS guidelines, the weight of studio/media opinion, and common movie article practice. ] (]) 18:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"The Blaze is RS here." You have made zero effort to establish that The Blaze meets RS criteria beyond repeatedly asserting that it does. ] <small>(])</small> 18:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You've made zero attempt to show that it's not, beyond repeatedly asserting so. My argument is that the "RS" claim is a red herring at best since the segment is verified and not in dispute. "RS" questions are for material deemed dubious. ] (]) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::All incorrect. ] <small>(])</small> 19:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::False. See more below. ] (]) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"Clearly there is no consensus not to use sites like Breitbart and The Blaze". And there is currently no consensus to include them, and even if you had such a consensus, including them would go against current Misplaced Pages policy and practice. And even if the verifiability of individual elements of a dubious source were some sort of acceptable standard on Misplaced Pages, the information in question has been repeatedly questioned on this page despite your claim that it is undisputed. ] <small>(])</small> 18:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You've failed to cite any such policy, and no part of the proposed segment has been disputed here. You declined my specific questions to try and get you to identify anything in dispute, remember? ] (]) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::] is the policy that has been repeatedly invoked on this page, including your own comments. You haven't even made a single comment, despite the acres of talk on this page, that addresses how those websites meet those criteria. And despite your repeated farcical lie that I haven't identified what is in dispute, I and others have repeatedly and clearly pointed out the issue of the small sample size and poor methodology on this page and I have even linked to a Hollywood Reporter article raising those same issues. At this point I'm beginning to think you are either trolling or have a ] issue. Please stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. ] <small>(])</small> 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::That's funny coming from the guy who claims below to have no idea what Box Office Mojo meant by saying the movie had a "fantastic hold" regarding the percentage drop in its second weekend box office receipts, which should be clear to anyone with at least fifth grade level reading comprehension. Your personal attacks on me and false accusations are reprehensible and totally uncalled for. I certainly told no lies. You certainly ''still'' haven't identified anything in the segment that's disputed. Your poorly formed speculation about alleged methodology attacks the very notion of using CinemaScore (as opposed to just the historical perspective segment), which, apart from being hypocritical if you're fine with rough aggregation of a dozen or so reviewers at sites like at Rotten Tomatoes, puts you at odds with Misplaced Pages guidelines (already quoted on this page), most movie studios, and established common practice for other Misplaced Pages movie articles. If you sincerely don't want CinemaScore used then you should have that discussion on the MOS guidelines page and seek consensus for the shift. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::If you do, you'll need to address comments from your own article quoting Warner Bros. distribution chief Dan Fellman as saying CinemaScore "'''gives you good direction on how your movie is playing, and to whom. For years, we've been doing our own research, and it is very close to CinemaScore results,"''' and Chris Aronson, distribution head of 20th Century Fox, saying that "'''CinemaScore remains a valuable poll'''". It's also the one still most widely cited in the media, and it's not like you've presented a contrary polling grade for this movie. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Simply naming policies you demonstrably don't understand, like "fringe" or "RS", isn't the same as identifying pertinent policy statements that would somehow prohibit including the segments in question or sources like Breitbart or The Blaze (apparently you don't feel they shouldn't be used in any situation, a preposterous position). Given the unwarranted, venomous personal attacks you just spewed against me, you're clearly upset and you might want to take some time off from editing this article. ] (]) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::A lot of typing but you still haven't managed to type a word about how ''The Blaze'' meets ]. It's clear this temper tantrum is a deliberate strategy of yours to obfuscate that issue. ] <small>(])</small> 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::You're the one throwing the tantrum and trying to make this personal, and you still haven't identified anything in the segment that's in dispute, so the "RS" issue is still a red herring. That said, despite you failing to demonstrate why The Blaze supposedly isn't RS, I'll point out that The Blaze is a news/opinion site with reporters and editorial oversight. The editor in chief, , is a veteran journalist and editor with over a quarter of a century of experience. Over the years he's worked at Voice of America, CBS News, and various local news stations. The piece's author, , has worked as a reporter, magazine editor, book editor, and film/music/book critic. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::The RS guidelines you linked to state that "'''The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content.'''"...."'''Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.'''" '''"While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."...."Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."..."Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis."''' None of your criticisms of The Blaze have been context specific. Since the segment is undisputed in this context it should be an open and shut case that the source is perfectly acceptable here. ] (]) 20:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Is something wrong with your brain? I have pointed out the same issue over and over again and you don't seem to realize that I've done so. You can disagree with it, but to repeatedly declare that I haven't done it, including in response to comments where I repeat it again, well, that's mindboggling. I don't really know how to penetrate that sort of logic shield, so I will take your advice, concern trolling though it was, and take a break from this discussion and no longer subject myself to this farce. Luckily for Misplaced Pages, the onus is on those who wish to include material, so good luck obtaining a consensus for inclusion when you behave in such a manner. ] <small>(])</small> 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Apart from me arguably possessing too much patience, my brain is just fine, thank you very much. You're the one with the demonstrated reading comprehension/critical thinking deficit. That your paragraph was, again, entirely ad hominem only further highlights the facts that you haven't cited anything in the segment that's in dispute, or provided any context specific criticism of The Blaze. By contrast, I've gone above and beyond what should be necessary by laying out a positive argument for The Blaze's reliability, including bio links and quotes from your own guideline link, which you failed to address. I'd suggest that you use your sabbatical to reflect on your disruptive behavior, from the giant diversionary pictures you posted earlier to your recent baseless personal attacks. ] (]) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::: While I disagree that it is a WP:RS, I think we do need to chill this dicussion a little bit. I posted on ]. It is time to get some outside opinions on rather The Blaze is WP:RS. Post can be found ]] (]) 23:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I'm not sure why you keep ignoring the instructions on pages like that asking for specific context, and making statements and asking questions erroneously assuming that a source is either "RS" or "not RS" across the board. ] (]) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Political film, thereby requires expanded political commentary=== |
|
|
{{hat|Thread which lost focus. Unlikely that productive commentary will come about if left open. Hatted by OP.}} |
|
|
This film is very much a ]. Accordingly, the addition of outside political commentary about the film necessarily involves a ] ''more than'' ]. Points of view about the film must be presented, even those we disagree with. Labeling these points of view as fringe is not in keeping with a balanced presentation. – ] (]) 19:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:We present views according to their representation in the real world. Commentary about the film which discusses the skill, methods, and effectiveness with which it treats its chosen subject matter does not constitute discussion of the subject matter ''per se''. WP does not give equal weight to mainstream and marginal views or opinions. The article needs to represent the reaction to the film according to the incidence of such reaction, not "equal time" like a US FCC-regulated political broadcast. This film, apparently does not reflect any widely-held point of view or analysis extant in the world. ]] 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::While it is considered a political film, that doesn't mean it requires the addition of outside political commentary because the film itself is not a political issue for political dispute. Including political commentary split 50/50 on the reception of the film only undermines the fact that this film was panned by 90% of critics and would falsely indicate the reception was more evenly split. That being said, if you there are reliable sources out there that represent the scholarly opinions of political scientists or historians that comment on the historical accuracy of the film or its depiction of the political environment, then those would meet MoS guidelines and merit inclusion. Just plastering a bunch of liberal and conservative quotes from biased media blogs/outlets does not merit inclusion.] (]) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's correct. We don't discuss veterinary medicine in a review of Planet of the Apes or Lassie. ]] 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In the real world Shapiro's views represent a lot more people's than a couple of dozen or so far left film critics' do. They certainly better represent the vast majority of people who watched the movie. As shows, Misplaced Pages movie articles routinely cover commentary on elements of the reception itself, particularly when there's some political or otherwise controversial angle involved. For example, Michael Moore's ] page includes multiple point/counterpoint segments from defenders of the film addressing critical comments, and the ] page includes opinions by Roger Ebert and Verhoeven about the critical response from gay activist groups. In this case the politicized nature of the reaction is a crucial aspect of the story itself that's not being covered. ] (]) 20:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Including that specific Shapiro quote violates WP policy. That's all there is to it.] (]) 20:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Excluding it, and totally censoring out the undeniable political dynamic at play here, violates ] policy. You actually even just repeated the old "critics" "weight" argument elsewhere, despite this discussion being about a section created explicitly for non critics' opinions. Your claims are false. ] (]) 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::My claims aren't false and are directly supported by WP policy which you fail to comprehend. Excluding Shapiro doesn't mean I'm violating NPOV as I'm not advocating that no differing opinions can be used. I've merely explained that an opinion about critics, which isn't even about the movie, not don't belong on this article and that Shapiro's quote certainly doesn't belong because it's a violation of WP:QS as well as other things. You've repeatedly created strawman arguments and have failed to comprehend the arguments that other editors have presented, which is consistent with your failure to comprehend policy.] (]) 23:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Wrong. You've demonstrably failed to comprehend WP policy and arguments other editors have presented to you, even to the point of denying that meeting ] criteria and having an article about himself makes a person "notable". I quoted from the page itself contradicting you; indeed that's the ''only'' usage of "notable" I've seen in WP policy or guidelines, so you've been using your own made up word. I showed with prominent examples that movie articles routinely cover commentary on the reception itself, particularly when there's a political or otherwise controversial aspect involved, and that there's no policy prohibiting that, all of which you've ignored. I caught you falsely claiming on the NPOVN page that the ] section includes instructions on how and when to use quotes, when it does no such thing; indeed the word "quote" doesn't even appear in the section. I demonstrated that your interpretation of QS is both empirically fringe (given the widespread use of pundit opinion quotes) and contrary to policy (I quoted instructions that biased, opinionated commentary be properly attributed, which clearly assumes it's allowable). I'm still waiting for your commentary on Jim Gaines and other quoted opinions. ] (]) 00:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::You're the only person who has presented arguments to me and so your first line indicates your intellectual dishonesty. Also, you're quote from WP:N doesn't support your position because it specifically says "some" which is no indication that every WP list/article restricts content to notable people. This is another example of you failing to understand WP policy and how it applies. Also, I didn't make false claims about WP:QS. I used the word "quote" but more specifically that refers to "quotes from sources" or "the source itself". This is another red herring argument over the word "quote" when clearly the WP:QS guideline explains where you can and can not use questionable sources ''and that includes quotes from those sources''. At this point I'm not sure if you're just genuinely incapable of basic reading comprehension or if you're behaving tendentiously. Even this portion of your post "which clearly assumes it's allowable" is an admittance that you're the one making interpretations about WP policy. Incorrect interpretations as there are policies that specifically limit where you can use opinions from a questionable source. Also, I don't have to comment on everything in the article. I addressed a concern about information from Breitbart.com and that's what I'll continue to focus on. Once you're ready to concede that using Shapiro's quote from a questionable source is against WP policy, then I'll be happy to move on and evaluate other quotes.] (]) 01:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::You first responded in this section to an op argument presented by Srich, lol, so I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest. Plus relevant commentary from Charles Edwin Shipp (whom you directly replied to), Arzel, and others involved in the discussions you've participated in are intended for a general audience. And, as I said on the other page, you're really grasping at straws now. I never said "every WP list/article restricts content to notable people" (straw man); the actual rule had nothing to do with my point. I only quoted that sentence to show that WP uses "notable" differently than you are; in WP parlance "notable persons" ''does'' refer to people who meet WP:N criteria and have (or merit) their own articles. Your claims otherwise are wrong. Period. Otherwise, provide a contrary example. That doesn't mean that articles can only cover notable people, or that a certain notable person has to be mentioned in every article. Notability wasn't the only prerequisite listed in the MOS guidelines, but you were clearly wrong to challenge ]. Given that you fail to understand even the basic stuff it's little wonder that you're hopelessly wrong on QS and other topics. ] (]) 01:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: Again, you demonstrate your inability to read and comprehend. The assertion you made was about "arguments presented to me" not about arguments I presented to others. S. Rich hasn't responded to my argument in this section, therefore he hasn't supplied an argument to me and neither has Charles, Arzel, or anyone else you're referencing. Only after your wrongful assertion, did S.Rich provide an argument to me about my misuse of WP:aboutself and I properly understood his objection and corrected him on his misunderstanding. This disproves your assertion of me misunderstanding other peoples' arguments. Again, I'm not the declaring what "notable" actually means in terms of MoS guidelines and WP policy. '''You're''' the one doing that, and this attempt to criticize me for what you're doing is another example of projection. You're the one claiming that Shapiro counts as notable to satisfy MoS guidelines because there is an article about him which meets WP:N. WP:N strictly details which topics are notable and worthy of a WP article, it doesn't say or imply that just because an article exists about a person, that the person is notable, especially not in the terms that MoS references. You're now attempting to switch the burden of proof onto me, which is laughable. You're the one who has to provide evidence that an article on WP automatically makes the person notable. The topic of the character Garfield might merit a WP article, this does not make Garfield a notable person who's opinions should be treated as such. ] (]) 03:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::I think that the article on lasagna is hopelessly biased because it does not contain Garfield's opinions on that subject. ] <small>(])</small> 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Nope, the comprehension failure is yours. An op is a presentation to a general audience. Since you're part of that audience, and even replied to and presumably read the op, the presentation was to you. You should also take a logic class if you believe that Srich retracting something on a tangent I didn't even comment on disproves anything I said, or that you allegedly (I didn't examine the details) getting one WP policy right disproves my observation that you demonstrably failed to comprehend the various policies I have corrected you on. I never said you misinterpreted ''all'' policies. I've already quoted ] notability guidelines defining what "notable" means, and it exclusively refers to people or items that merit their own articles. You have yet to provide another definition, much less evidence supporting your interpretation. I'm waiting. ] (]) 04:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Scoobydunk, my suggestion would be to disengage at this point because nothing productive is coming of this conversation. VictorD7, dial it back, please. You're being incredibly uncivil at this point, especially that bit about the "logic class", and you're just providing move evidence for the topic ban that will be inevitably imposed on you when someone brings this to ANI. ] <small>(])</small> 04:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::Your request is extremely selective given how uncivil Scoobydunk has been, and you're the last one who should be issuing threats given your own trolling here, including your snarky "Garfield" comment above. That said, I do agree that this discussion is unproductive. ] (]) 05:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::<small>I am in accordance with Gamaliel on this, which is why I posted the calm talk template with an edit summary about "dishonesty". Both should step back and assume good faith. Instead of this banter, take some time to <s>strike</s> the stuff with "you" in it. (Such as "comprehension failure" or "you demonstrate".) – ] (]) 05:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::::::::::::At least your comment is even handed, so you aren't completely in accordance with Gamaliel. ] (]) 05:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== "fantastic hold" == |
|
|
|
|
|
The quoted "fantastic hold" needs to be better defined. I understand what it means(It declained less then expected. However, something should be added there.] (]) 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you understand what it means, what else are you looking for? ] (]) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I haven't the slightest idea, myself, and I suspect the average reader will not either. ] <small>(])</small> 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You don't have the slightest idea about what? What it means or what else Casprings is looking for since he just stated what it means? ] (]) 19:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The slightest idea what "fantastic hold" means. ] <small>(])</small> 19:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Really? You honestly have absolutely no idea what it means? It means that the movie dipped much less its second weekend than movies typically do. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"'''Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million.'''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Look at the slight 12.8% drop compared to the other drops , which are in the 30-60% range. In fact America on record (out of 4,038 listed). I think in context most readers will have no problem understanding what the source means by "fantastic hold". ] (]) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}I think it means about as much as some patter we might take out of context from a sports play by play commentary. It isn't really meany to convey any information specific or well-enough defined to use as RS in an encyclopedia. Moreover the author is not a notable figure. If a WP reader, new to the topic of film, were to try to parse the expression, the most straightforward meaning of "fantastic hold" is that a "hold" did not occur in reality.]] 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The notable author issue is irrelevant since the source is the most used one in the article and in movie articles generally, unless you're arguing that we should purge other uses of ]. The film critic PS quoted by us isn't notable, and yet his quote supposedly represents general pro film critic sentiment (it actually doesn't even represent his own review, but that's another topic). The Suber quote reflects the fact that the movie had an historically strong second week hold, and explains why it's worth including the second week drop figure at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Why do you feel a reader would misunderstand what "fantastic hold" means? Are you suggesting that we add something to clarify it, like the fact I cited above about it being the 382nd smallest drop on record out of 4,038? ] (]) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Update: At first I didn't get your point regarding parsing, but are you seriously suggesting that readers are more likely to interpret "fantastic" as "fanciful" or "non existent" than the far more common usage meaning "great"? ] (]) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not all WP readers are down with your Hollywood jive jargon. What if a Sri Lankan monk looks it up? Or is that scenario fantastic? ]] 20:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Using "fantastic" as a superlative isn't "jargon" of any kind. Besides, doesn't use of the word "only" clear it up? "''In what ] writer Ray Suber described as a "fantastic hold", its box office receipts '''only''' declined by 12.8% in its second wide release weekend from its opening weekend.''" Monks are relatively wise. You also didn't answer my question about including the noteworthy fact that the movie had the 382nd smallest drop on record. That should allay any lingering concerns over interpretation. ] (]) 20:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Check out ]. ]] 20:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ditto. It's a direct quote. That's not "OR". ] (]) 21:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You've got this backwards. It's your source. I didn't propose OR. Anyway the text is removed, so this thread is finished. ]] 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The source can be used without the term, which is ]. – ] (]) 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Time to move on. If you can't do that, please don't put anything back in the article without explicit prior consensus on talk. ]] 21:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Huh? A direct quote from the source can't be "OR". You're speaking gibberish. And the thread is most certainly not finished, since the quote was removed on comically fraudulent grounds. "Fantastic" is an English language superlative, not "jargon". Even if it was "jargon" that wouldn't be grounds for removing a reliably sourced, clearly noteworthy quote. ] (]) 21:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"Fantastic" is demonstrably ''not'' a "superlative" in English. We editors must be ready willing and able to write article text which presents clear and explicit meaning. This is a fundamental component of ]. ]] 21:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::From : '''1 fan·tas·tic adjective \fan-ˈtas-tik, fən-\''' |
|
|
:::::::::'''A: extremely good''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::'''B: extremely high or great''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::'''C: very strange, unusual, or unlikely''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Clearly the word can't be dismissed as "Hollywood jive jargon". And for the record, not that it matters, I was using "superlative" in the broad sense. e.g. - ''2. an exaggerated or hyperbolical expression of praise. "the critics ran out of superlatives to describe him"'' (), ''Noun 1. superlative - an exaggerated expression (usually of praise); "the critics lavished superlatives on it"'' (); of course "fantastic" is also frequently listed as a synonym for the adjective version of "superlative" (e.g. ).] (]) 23:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: I think you can just say, "(Source) noted the unusual nature the movies small decrease in revenues". Or something like that. I just think the quote looks odd and isn't as that easy to understand, without the context of the article.] (]) 22:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Given the definition I just posted above, I see no reason not to use the direct quote, as it captures the emphasis the author placed on his observation. The context is provided by the rest of the sentence documenting the numbers, but I agree that it can be improved. Would you support adding the fact I cited above about the drop being one of the smallest on record, showing just how "fantastic" the hold was? ] (]) 23:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reverted the Postive Review == |
|
|
|
|
|
First, I have no problem having a positive review in that section. However, before we add it, I would like some thought on what would actually be ]. The reviews were overwhelming negative. I think the amount of space dedicated to positive versus negative reviews should be about the same 90 percent to 10 percent. I would suggest that we add some more negative review quotes to give a better feel to the reader of what the critical response to the film actually was. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And I reverted. As you have no problem with a positive review, we have a very short one. I gave thought to this and saw three sentences (one paragraph & the Ebert review) showing negative reviews. So I added a single sentence gives a positive review. What would you have? More sentences that illustrate what the aggregators came up with in order to balance the positive review? – ] (]) 04:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think that is a fair point. I may add another negative review to bring it closer to a 90/10 divide. But in general we agree.] (]) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And I see Specifico removing the single sentence . Is this how we achieve balance? We go from a 3:1 / 75–25% positive-negative balance to a 100% negative presentation? Incredible. Thank you, Casprings for your willingness to include the positive review. I look forward to seeing the second negative review review you have in mind. In the meantime, Specifico, please "use talk" and tell us how a 100% negative presentation is more balanced than the one you reverted. Indeed, I hope one or both of you can come up with a second, non-redundant negative review in order to achieve something closer to this ]. – ] (]) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Here is another ratio: at present there is a 111 word-count section for the negativity. Adding the positive review gives 33 words of positivity for a 144–33 (77–23%) positive/negative ratio. Come on, we need more negative words to make sure it "fairly represents all significant viewpoints". – ] (]) 05:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well? – ] (]) 16:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I think a line or two wouldn't hurt. If critical response was 90 percent negative, it seems intuitive to me to make that section 90 percent based on those negative reviews. I am not saying I have a huge problem with where it stands now, but that would be better. Do you disagree?] (]) 00:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You cited BALANCE. Well "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." By removing the positive review, you skewed the balance completely to one side. Please restore the positive review and come up with another negative one. 100% to 0% is unbalanced; 75/77% to 25/23% is closer to a neutral presentation. – ] (]) 01:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I have placed the positive review back in the article. I would argue that the following paragraph needs to be about 90/10 negative to positive in its representation of reviews of the movie. Does anyone disagree? |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px dotted #006; margin:5px; color:#000; background-color:#eef"> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reviewer at RogerEbert.com gave the film one star, writing " looks terrible, it plods along with all the verve of a PowerPoint presentation, the occasional dramatic recreations are exceptionally cheesy and the interview footage is so needlessly over-edited that you get the feeling that something may have gotten changed around in the cutting room." A reviewer at New York Film Critics Online gave it a positive review, saying "America ... presents a well-organized, well-researched exploration of how and why we've been lied to about certain events from American history." |
|
|
|
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you for the reverted edit. It is the right thing to do. I look forward to seeing an additional negative comment that does not plow the same ground as Ebert. – ] (]) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I will try to get that done tonight or later this week. Take care.] (]) 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'll note that while guidelines call for opinion to be properly represented, that doesn't necessarily mean that the quoted text space needs to precisely reflect a particular ratio. The weight of professional critical opinion is reflected by the aggregation scores the section leads off with. It's more important that the various salient views be represented, but, as Srich indicates, not necessarily repeated. ] (]) 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Movie articles routinely include commentary about the reception itself. == |
|
|
MOS guidelines explicitly allow for flexibility and it's common for articles here to cover noteworthy commentary about the topics covered by the films or the reception itself. I'll highlight five prominent examples to avoid TLDR. |
|
|
|
|
|
- Includes commentary from multiple pundits on the racial and body image oriented aspects of the reception. |
|
|
|
|
|
- Critical comments in the Response section are often followed by counterpoints dealing with the topics themselves rather than the movie, and there's extensive back and forth commentary about aspects of the reception itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
- Oliver Stone is described as saying that those criticizing the movie for its violence are missing the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
- The article details point/counterpoint commentary regarding claims about alleged anti-Semitism, violence, and historical accuracy. |
|
|
|
|
|
- Article features commentary from people like Verhoeven and Roger Ebert addressing charges from gay activist groups protesting the film that the movie negatively depicts lesbians. |
|
|
|
|
|
It has always been common practice on Misplaced Pages to cover noteworthy aspects of a film's impact and significant views on the reception itself. The Ben Shapiro quote pertinent here is even more relevant since America actually critiques the liberal media (which includes film reviewers), making said media a party in the dispute rather than a detached, supposedly objective observer. The primary initial objection to the quote was that it didn't represent professional film critic opinion on the movie, but since then a new section titled "Other responses" has been added that's entirely made up of non pro film critic quotes. The view that most film critics are left wing and that this colors their reaction to explicitly conservative documentaries is undeniably widely held and deserves representation in our coverage. It's not even clear that film critics themselves would disagree with that, given the overtly political nature of their negative reviews. For those reasons, and since at least one editor (InedibleHulk) who had previously objected has already indicated he'd support including such commentary in the new section, I intend to add the Shapiro quote to it soon unless there's a compelling, rational objection posted here. ] (]) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've already explained to you how Shapiro's quote is violation of multiple aspects of WP:Weight. So let's evaluate other reasons why his quote doesn't belong. Ben Shapiro is not a notable person or expert connected to the topics covered by the film, especially for the content you've quoted. Shapiro is not an expert or notable person in cinema or in media research, so his criticism about "liberal media" is not supported by the MoS guidelines. Including this quote is also a violation of WP:QS, WP:newsblog, and WP:newsorg because Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for commentary on others. Directly from WP:QS "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Here, you're trying to include a quote from a news blog and questionable source to state an opinion about critics and the media which is a direct violation of WP:verifiability. Shapiro is not an expert on media research and his blog on Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for commentary on others. So, not only is this still a violation of WP:Weight and doesn't meet the requirements of MoS guidelines, but it's also a violation of WP:verifiability as per WP:QS and other segments.] (]) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::What Scooby said. ]] 17:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just saw your last posts on the NPOVN board and . All your claims are false. ] ''is'' notable, by definition ], as he merits his own Misplaced Pages article. By contrast, none of the negative reviewers currently quoted in the article are notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles about them. So your assertion is not only wrong, but the opposite of the truth. Your "weight" argument is demolished above and in my reply to you on the NPOVN board. It would only hold if we were limiting our consideration to pro film critics' views, but since the NPOVN discussion previously petered out an entirely new section has been created for the purpose of including non film critics' comments, so clearly film critics views don't determine weight here. Seeming to implicitly concede that, you actually claimed on the other page that Shapiro's views don't represent a significant portion of the "political spectrum", when in reality Gallup polling shows that conservatives outnumber liberals two to one (which is why Democrats run rhetorically more away from their base in general elections than Republicans, and often echo, sincerely or not, the same patriotic themes espoused by D'Souza and Shapiro). Shapiro's views are far closer to the American mainstream than the extreme leftism of film critics. Regardless, declaring half the political spectrum unfit for Misplaced Pages mention is insane and unacceptable POV. Such sentiment violates core ] policy, and if systematically entrenched, would marginalize and possibly kill Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Ben Shapiro entered UCLA at age 16, graduated summa cum laude, and then graduated from Harvard cum laude. He's on and is a . He writes a nationally syndicated political column, has frequently appeared on various national tv media venues to offer his commentary, is a professional , and is Senior Editor At Large for Breitbart.com, one of the internet's most trafficked news sites, with Alexa rankings that crush the various outlets the cited negative reviewers write for. He also sometimes reviews films (e.g. ). Your assertion that he's "not a notable person" is so blatantly false, and so contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, that simply ignoring it and moving on isn't acceptable. For continued AGF to remain feasible, you must retract that assertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your dismissal of Breitbart is also without basis in policy. Simply throwing out random terms without evidence isn't arguing, it's asserting. Breitbart is a news/opinion site with editorial oversight roughly equivalent to the Huffington Post, but even if we did just call it a "blog" for the sake of argument, all we're using it for here is to source his quote, which policy assumes the source is good for, and we're only quoting his ''opinion'', not facts about others presented in Misplaced Pages's voice. It's the opinion of a very high profile, multiple NY Times best selling author commenting on the topic he usually comments on: politics. That SPECIFICO was so quick to give rubber stamp approval to your post, despite its glaring inaccuracies, is disappointing, and doesn't bode well for there being hope for this article becoming anything approaching NPOV any time soon. ] (]) 17:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Being an author and a media consultant does not make him a notable person or expert connected to political science or media research and therefore his criticisms on such are irrelevant. I also already explained that WP:N only pertains to the notability of ARTICLES, it doesn't make the person him/herself a notable person. Just because Donald Trump might have a WP article about him doesn't qualify editors to use his quotes in fields of Science, Math, or History because he's not a notable person in those respective fields. I don't understand why you're having such difficulty understanding this relatively simple concept. Simply giving a biography of Shapiro, doesn't suddenly make him notable or an expert in the field pertaining to the quote you wish to include. Furthermore, you keep ignoring WP:QS which specifically says you can't use material from a questionable source to make claims about others. It especially mentions opinion pieces which is EXACTLY what that article is. This is blatantly and plainly explained and I've quoted it for you multiple times and explained EXACTLY where such an article could be used. Again, for example, if on the Shapiro article page you wanted to mention that Shapiro on his Breitbart.com blog said "liberal movie critics suck" then you're allowed to do that and the Breitbart.com article becomes a primary source and the quote is about the author it's attributed to. However, you can't use that quote on another article to make a criticism about others, which is precisely explained in WP:QS. You wanted a specific policy that disallows you to use the Shapiro quote and I've given you MANY. It's time to stop this charade. ] (]) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You persist in making false statements and apparently don't grasp notability ] policy (or the others you keep tossing around). ''I'm'' the one who's been explaining that notability applies to article topics (including persons), not content, so we shouldn't even be discussing notability (yet you raised it, falsely claiming ] isn't notable in the process; I just refuted your assertion). Nowhere in any policy I've seen does it even hint that opinion commentary on politics is restricted to those "connected to political science or media research", and your earlier false claim was that he didn't represent a significant portion of the "political spectrum", so you're squirming around, grasping at straws. Regardless, '''Shapiro graduated summa cum laude from UCLA with a ''', and works professionally as a legal media consultant (which involves a great deal of research), so you're even wrong on your own ridiculous terms. Even if he wasn't a political scientist by education, the fact that he's written and had published several NY Times Best selling books on political/media topics, and is a nationally famous professional commentator on such matters, would more than connect him to the topics. He's as connected as one can get. Furthermore, there's nothing "questionable" about his article. ] refers to drawing facts from opinion pieces (even that's allowed in certain circumstances), while here we're just directly quoting opinions. The irrationality of your argument is underscored by the fact that applying your logic would necessitate deleting all the countless pundit commentary that litters articles, from Michael Moore's ] to the ] page, not to mention the Jim Gaines quote in this article. In certain places opinion inclusion is warranted, and the section in question is explicitly dedicated to it. It's time to end the charade indeed. ] (]) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: You persist in ignoring multiple aspects of WP policy to try an insert your blatant POV into articles. Furthermore, I'm explaining to you that WP:N doesn't refer to the notability of an individual, only to the notability of a topic. You just admitted that you're trying to claim that if a topic meets WP:N's requirements that it necessarily means that the person that the topic is about is notable and that is not supported in any way, shape or form. Also, your attempt to accuse me of raising the topic of notability is laughable. You're the one who attempted to quote MoS guidelines and claim that Shapiro is a notable person and therefore warrants inclusion. You raised this aspect, not me and I'm saying you have not proven that he is a notable person or expert connected to the topics in the film, particularly the topic referenced in your quote about liberal bias in media. My argument has never been strictly tied to whether he was notable or not, it has always been qualified with the "connected to the topics covered". To include his criticism about liberal media bias based on MoS guideline, you'd have to prove he's notable WITH CONNECTION TO THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC. Hence why I gave examples of what would make a person a notable expert on that criticism, like having scholarly articles published about that or something equivalent. As many others have told you and as common sense indicates, being notable regarding one thing, doesn't make you notable about everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: On top of this, regardless of whether or not he's a notable person, his article from Breitbart.com is an opinion piece and WP:Verifiablity specifically says that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for commentary on others. They can only be used as a source for a topic about the person themselves. You're intentionally misrepresenting WP:QS when you pretend it's about WP voice or drawing facts from opinion pieces. It's about opinion pieces themselves and explains when they can and CAN NOT be used as a reliable source. In this circumstance, it can NOT be used as a reliable source and that is clearly explained by WP:QS. Breitbart.com is a questionable source as it doesn't have a reputation for fact checking, is often times regarding as an extremist viewpoint, but more importantly is comprised of personal opinion. All of these aspects make it a questionable source, but even if you disagree with the fact checking aspect, it's still majorly comprised of personal opinion, which is the case of the article you're attempting to quote from. Furthermore, WP:aboutself specifically says you can only use such sources if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and this quote from Shapiro INVOLVES A CLAIM ABOUT A THIRD PARTY. You're blatantly ignoring WP policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Regarding your digression to a previous argument, that statement about Shapiro not being representative of the majority view pertains to undue weight. Critics are generally regarded as experts worth referencing and having merit and this is why MoS guidelines specifically allow for the inclusion of critic's perceptions on movies and other materials. That is the majority viewpoint regarding critics and their relevance/value in society and WP articles. You using a quote from Shapiro to criticize and undermine critics' reliability and portray them as "liberal" is a minority viewpoint and such a viewpoint is not only irrelevant to this article because it addresses critics and not the movie itself, but is also giving undue weight to a minority view. That was a completely different aspect as to why this quote from Shapiro shouldn't be used, because it violates WP policy regarding NPOV as per WP:Weight. This is not me grasping as straws, it me explaining to you how the inclusion of Shapiro is a violation of multiple WP policies in this context. ] (]) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::You're persisting in falsehoods across the board. Breitbart isn't a "questionable source" for Shapiro's quote, and Shapiro himself doesn't fall under the "questionable source" category any more than the other countless quoted pundits commenting contentiously about others across Misplaced Pages do (including Jim Gaines in the same section). I pointed this out to illustrate how fringe your interpretation of policy is. He's a person being quoted for his own opinion, not a source. The ] section doesn't mention the word "quotes" in any variation so there's absolutely no textual or empirical evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile there are numerous examples in policy that explicitly allow for opinionated comments, especially if attributed. e.g. ] - '''"Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Misplaced Pages as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.''' "Verifiable" obviously doesn't mean that the opinion is correct, only that the person it's attributed to verifiably said it. "Cited" refers to properly documenting the source. With such opinions "a reputation for fact checking" by the opiner himself is irrelevant, as long as he and his commentary are noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. If the US President weighs in on a political topic his opinion may be noteworthy in a section explicitly dedicated to various opinions even if he's a notorious serial liar. That your application of this flawed interpretation is so selective (where's your argument against Gaines, or the countless other pundits quoted across Misplaced Pages?) shows you're intentionally misrepresenting policy to impose a laughably one sided political POV on this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::By "raising the issue" I mean you started the debate over whether Shapiro is notable. I had previously mentioned it in accordance with the ... '''"notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited"''', and I took his notability in that sense as a given since possessing his own article means he's notable by definition. I never claimed that notability ''alone'' is sufficient to quote someone in an article, but cited it to underscore his case. If you're only attacking his "connection" to the topics then it's unclear why you keep saying he's not a notable person, and that ] doesn't even apply to people. The to "notable items or people": "'''The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people).'''" Clearly "notable" is being used there to refer to people who meet ] requirements, and thus have their own articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Your incorrect usage aside, you've presented nothing in policy or guidelines that restricts opinionated quotes to academics who have published in peer review journals, or explained what relevance that would even have to sections covering subjective opinions. The vast majority of pundits quoted here obviously haven't, much less on the topics they're commenting on. Not only is that an overly narrow definition of "expert", but the MOS guidelines don't even require that one be an "expert". It says ''"notable persons '''or''' experts''". Shapiro is undeniably a notable person, so the question is his connection to the topics at hand. I'm glad you concede that those topics include politics and the media (in relation to this film), and not just film per se (though he's a published film reviewer too), but it's incredible that you deny his connection to those topics, considering the education I've given you on him being a nationally sought after professional political/media commentator in tv, print, radio, and best selling books. He operates in the heart of political/media discourse. He's certainly connected, and he'd be by far the most knowledgeable and expert person quoted on the page. Your continued entrenchment on this score only makes your hypocrisy in not seeking to exclude Gaines and other pundits more glaring, a clear violation of ] and other essential policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Your fall back to the notion that we're supposed to determine weight by critics alone ignores the fact that this section was explicitly created for non critics; that's why it's called "". You're wrong. Period. In fact those responses have been overwhelmingly ''positive'', and pro film comments are currently sorely underrepresented per weight. You also ignore your earlier claim that "Shapiro's opinion is not representative of the political spectrum". It's unclear precisely what that even means, but presumably you were insisting that his political views aren't significantly held, which, since he's a mainstream conservative, is easily refuted by pointing to his large numbers of fans, the aforementioned Gallup polling, or virtually any published material covering politics at all. Same with your "extremist" comment about Breitbart. Frankly your claim reveals a shocking ignorance, and you've provided absolutely no evidence to support any of these characterizations. ] (]) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: Breitbart.com is a questionable source as defined by WP:QS and the Shapiro quote is a direct violation of WP:RS. It says it right in the policy and all of your complaining is not going to change that. ] (]) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Totally false, for reasons laid out above, and you never did provide a shred of evidence for your characterizations. Selectively censoring out coverage of the obvious political dynamic at play here is a blatant ] violation. It will be interesting to watch how (in)consistent you are in opposing other pundit commentary though. ] (]) 23:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: I'm totally correct and your "reasons" don't override WP policy. Just because WP says it's okay that reliable sources are biased, doesn't mean you get to include bias from questionable sources which are NOT reliable. Also, I have provided evidence for my characterizations in the form of citing and quoting WP policy that directly proves my characterization of Shapiro's comment not being suitable for inclusion. Also, not allowing content because it's in violation of WP policy is not an example of NPOV. Submit some political commentary from reliable sources and find out.] (]) 23:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Wrong. You've provided no evidence for your characterizations of Shapiro or Breitbart. You've demonstrably misinterpreted QS. It's unclear how you feel "RS" even applies when we're discussing explicitly identified subjective opinions; reliability means a source is reliable for verifying that the opinion came from the person it's attributed to. You demonstrably incorrectly used the term "notability" for several posts, making statements I refuted with quotes from the guideline page. Excluding a significant viewpoint is a blatant violation of ]. You refuse to comment on other examples, like the Jim Gaines quote in the same section. ] (]) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::: I haven't misinterpreted WP:QS because I quoted it directly. There was no interpretation there. It explicitly says you can not use a questionable source when it criticizes other people. I provided another policy quote from WP:ABOUTSELF that says the same thing, "it does not involve claims about third parties". Shapiro is commenting on third parties, it's it can not be used because it violates WP policy. There is no interpretation there, it's explicit. It's clear you have difficulty understand what words mean. WP policy does not allow you to litter article pages with biased opinions, even if they are properly attributed and WP:QS is an example of one of those policies. Even another editor gave the example of how the Barrack Obama page isn't entirely comprised of quotes from Rush Limbaugh. This is basic level understanding of WP policy and you're the only one here who doesn't get it. ] (]) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::<s>] does not apply here because it deals with self-published sources. We do not have this case here. Citations to policy and guidelines should be on-point. – ] (]) 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
::::::::::::::: WP:ABOUTSELF applies to "Self-published or ''questionable sources'' as sources on themselves". The section then goes on to explain exactly how self published sources ''AND'' questionable sources can and can not be used. Not only that, WP:QS directly links to WP:ABOUTSELF for people to see further details on when to use questionable sources. You can't really get any more on point than that. ] (]) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I stand corrected. My thinking was you were drawing an improper analogy between SPS blogs and QS. (The ] is daunting.) The debate then is whether breitbart & Shapiro is QS. – ] (]) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::I've been reducing the length of my responses to avoid making walls of text, but, "Yes", this aspect of my objection is about breitbart.com being a questionable source. WP:QS clearly defines questionable sources as having a poor record of fact checking, are perceived as extremist by other major publications, have an apparent conflict of interest, and are largely comprised of personal opinion, among other things. Breitbart.com meets all of these descriptions but even if one disagrees with "fact checking" or "extremist", it's really not a matter of debate that it consists largely of opinion pieces. Even the WP article for Breaitbart.com explains that it's an opinion website. This has been a key part of the discussion regarding the inclusion of Shapiro and I don't know why the subject on the RS noticeboard was shutdown. Yes, this conversation has taken many faces from NPOV to OR and RS, but all of them merit separate and distinct consideration. Just because the inclusion of the Shapiro quote gets ruled as not being a violation of NPOV, doesn't mean it meets standards of WP:reliable, and vice versa.] (]) 02:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Wow. The interpretation is all the ''other'' stuff you added in your words (including your false "quote" claim I caught you trying to make on the other page, when you pretended the QS section explicitly dealt with quotes; it doesn't even mention the word "quote"), along with your purpose for citing the quote. You're not showing the ability comprehend posts in this discussion, much less WP policy. Your classification of Breitbart.com as "questionable" at all, but especially when it's merely being used to source an opinion from its own editor, is what's being challenged, and what you've utterly failed to support. A source can be used to reference quotes from anyone, including people it disagrees with, as long it's deemed reliable for doing so in that particular context. Most sources are used to support facts or expert opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice, not quotes. That's why things like "a reputation for fact checking" are relevant to source evaluation. By contrast even serial liars' quoted opinions can be noteworthy, especially in a section explicitly created to contain subjective opinions (about "others" in this case, btw, which is usually the case; and QS does say "others", not "third parties"). There are plenty of other policies and mechanisms in place that have nothing to do with QS to keep articles from being indiscriminately littered with "biased opinions", including NPOV and basic scope/layout concerns. But there undeniably are places where quoted POV about "others" is appropriate, as I proved with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV quote, and I'm hardly the only one here who disagrees with you. ] (]) 02:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::That's not an interpretation, that's a matter of understanding that a "quote" clearly comes from a "source" and WP:QS explains where questionable sources can and can not be used. Therefore, it pertains to "quotes" from questionable sources as well. This is a red herring arguments you're trying to make, so both are inherently covered by WP:QS. It has nothing to do with when to use questionable sources in WP voice and specifically explains where questionable sources can be used if at all. A questionable source or quote from a questionable source can not be used when it makes contentious claims about a third party...PERIOD. The source can only be used in a topic about the source/author of the source themselves and as I explained before, this would make it a primary source WHICH IS WHY IT CAN BE USED IN SUCH PLACES. This is consistent with WP policy. I also find it funny how you claim I don't understand WP policy, yet I just corrected an administrator, at least I think S.Rich is an admin, about WP policy and he agreed and retracted his earlier statement. Clearly i do have a grasp of WP policy and S.Rich even admitted that this comes down to whether Breitbart/Shapiro is a questionable source.] (]) 02:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::So we'll add "" to the list of words you don't understand. What if Shapiro's quote had been referenced by the NY Times (I'm sure they've quoted him before), or some other source you presumably hold in high regard? Would his quote still be the "source"? Again, you keep saying "third party" but that's not what QS says. I don't believe Srich is an administrator and his retraction was about a tangential issue I haven't even commented on. He didn't say either Breitbart or Shapiro is a "QS". More pertinent are all the times I've corrected you, including your continued insistence on the other page that "notable" has some meaning in WP parlance ''other'' than saying that someone merits their own article. Why don't you ask Srich about that? As for the rest, you keep asserting things that aren't in the text and that there's enormous reason to dispute, so we may just have to agree to disagree on the point. ] (]) 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::You,again, with your semantics. WP:QS specifically says "others" and "others" by definition is/are "third party/parties". So to argue against this point and pretend I don't understand policy only shows how trivial and tendentious you're being. Furthermore, I already quoted from WP:aboutself where is does specifically say "third party". Again, you demonstrate your inability to understand WP policy with this criticism. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::If Shapiro was quoted in the NT Times or another reliable source, it doesn't change the fact that the quote originated from a questionable source. Trying to use a reliable source's quote of a questionable source to include material originating from a questionable source in an article it doesn't belong would be an example of WP:Gaming. In other words, usage of the NY Times as a source needs to represent what the NY Times has to say about the given topic, since it's the reliable source, and shouldn't portray or misconstrue what the NY Times said to represent what Shapiro or any questionable source actually said. It's wordy and confusing, but that's what happens when you try to use quotes of quotes. Such an article from the NY Times would likely be about Shapiro or something similar, and not about "liberal movie critics" and any quote from that article should represent that. If the NY Times article IS about "liberal movie critics" and was referencing Shapiro because of that, then just quoting NY Times would suffice since its the reliable source. For example, "In an article about movie critics the NY Times shared an opinion with Breitbart.com editor, Shapiro, that movie critics are liberal that was their reason for panning the movie". <--This is an example of how such a situation could be reliable approached on WP. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Lastly, my mentioning of S.Rich was directly to combat your claim that I misunderstood WP policy. Doesn't matter what S.Rich and I differed about, so long as it was relevant to WP policy. So my example clearly demonstrates that you assertion is incorrect. I do understand WP policy and I even understand it to the point what I can correct other peoples' misinterpretations. I can specifically identify and explain where their misunderstanding was and why it was erroneous. My reference of S.Rich was only to show how laughable your assertion is that I don't understand WP policy. Regarding is status on WP, I though S.Rich closed the discussion on the RS noticeboard and I also thought I remembered S.Rich saying that he would have closed down one of the comment threads if he wasn't already involved, which implies that he's an admin. I could be mistaken though and I readily admit that.] (]) 03:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::"Others" ''doesn't'' necessarily mean "third parties", but could refer to people the source is directly involved with. I only added that correction as a brief aside that's not enormously pertinent here, but your false statement underscores your inability to comprehend basic English. Likewise, ] refers to editor conduct, not content or sourcing policy, which may be why you failed to quote anything from the page to support your claim. There's nothing wrong with using the NY Times as a source for a Shapiro quote regardless of what "the NY Times has to say about the given topic", particularly if it's just a hard news article covering some opinions. The issue is whether the quote itself (the content) is appropriate for the section. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::I never said you misunderstood ''every'' WP policy (that would be difficult to accomplish!), and I hadn't commented on that topic you two discussed, so your example demonstrated nothing about my claim. But that you believe it does demonstrates faulty reasoning. For the record, I've corrected countless people on WP policy. ] (]) 03:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::"Others" does mean "third parties" and WP:Aboutself clarifies this. I've made no false statement regarding this, it's clear your incapable of understanding basic concepts regarding english, let alone WP policy. Yes, WP:Gaming does refer to editor conduct and when an editor tries to search for a reliable source that quotes a questionable source in an attempt to misrepresent the quoted material from the questionable as being from a reliable source, that is an example of WP:Gaming. That's exactly what I was referring to and that's entirely about editor misconduct. This is another example of your ability to comprehend. Also, WP:Gaming explains exactly why such conduct is wrong because you're trying to bypass WP policy forbidding inclusion from questionable sources, to indirectly include questionable source material through the use of reliable sources. Lastly, you made a general claim about my inability to understand WP policy and I've demonstrated that I don't have difficulty understanding it. You're the one who suffers from that...and projection.] (]) 04:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::You: "it's clear '''your''' incapable of understanding basic concepts regarding english". I'm no typo hound, as everyone makes little mistakes, but this is an especially unfortunate error by you, given the context of your sentence's (false) claim. According to ] (linked to on the ] page), a third party source involves not being '''"affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material."''' Presumably "third party" has a similar meaning, and is therefore a subset of "others", but, like I said, it's not a big deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::Where does ] say anything about sourcing policy, much less anything remotely supporting your contention about my NY Times scenario? Still no evidence from you. The comprehension failures, logic deficit, and projection are yours. ] (]) 05:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::: That typo is not unfortunate at all because grammar/typos has/have no bearing on the comprehension of english. Also, that essay talks about third party '''sources''' which you're erroneously conflating with the general use of "third parties". Also, you must be joking about WP:Gaming. The first line says "Gaming the system means deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages." Hence, when you try to include a quote from a questionable source by searching for a reliable source that contains that particular quote and then paste it to a wikipedia pretending that its no longer bound by WP:QS is an attempt to deliberately abuse WP policy to thwart the aims of WP. This is further discussed in detail in the Gaming the Use of Policies and Guidelines section. It's addressed loosely in multiple aspects but specifically by the fourth listed item which gives the example "Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." In the NY times case, if you simply just used the quote from Shapiro it would not be representative of what the NY times source actually said and would twist the meaning of the NY times source. The only exception would be if the NY times source that quoted Shapiro was actually about media bias and shared similar opinions to Shapiro, but then that NY times article and its content can just be used as the reliable source and there would still be no reason to present content from a questionable source as if its reliable. ] (]) 09:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::{{outdent}} |
|
|
I know it was about third party sources, which is why I said "third party" presumably has a similar meaning. In general English "third party" typically excludes the first two parties who are dealing directly with each other. Earlier I was asking for support for your claim about policy, so pointing to a vague line on the WP:GAMING page that just warns users not to violate policy is a circular argument. The problem is that we disagree on what policy is. Your new quote does address sourcing, but we don't typically use hard news stories for their subjective POV; ideally they aren't even supposed to have one. I think misrepresenting a source's view would be including material that makes a point contrary to what the source said. For example, a news article contains a paragraph about a tornado hitting a school and totally devastating it, but closes with a line saying officials had evacuated every living soul to a nearby bomb shelter before it hit. Paraphrasing it on Misplaced Pages to echo most of the paragraph but omit the evacuation part, and closing with a line saying the ruins contained no living people would warp the meaning by implying everyone had died. The same holds true on more opinionated fronts, like if we're using an historian's book as a source and misrepresent what he says on a particular topic. I don't think that using a news article to source a POV quote from a pundit it covers is altering the "view" of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, the quotes director Paul Verhoeven addressing upset gay protesters by saying, "Fascism is not in raising your voice; the fascism is in not accepting the no." The quote is sourced to a book about Verhoeven written by Douglas Keesey. I have no idea whether or not Keesey agreed with Verhoeven, but it doesn't matter. He's cited because he covered Verhoeven's opinion, and the latter was deemed noteworthy to the article. The specific source is only relevant to Misplaced Pages for verifying what Verhoeven said. Same with the book used to source the preceding segment quoting the gay protesters. In the hypothetical scenario above, the NY Times article would simply be reporting what Shapiro said. I'll also add as a side note that policy makes it clear that people are considered to be reliable sources for their own views. The Basic Instinct article also includes a quote from Camille Paglia blasting the protesters that's sourced to her own book. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your objection to the Shapiro quote on QS grounds is noted, but, since you actually agree with my central point in this section op about article relevance, I'll ask you to consider continuing any further discussion on the sourcing issue in your "Gaines" section dedicated to it lower on the page. It's up to you, but it would help keep things organized and reduce wasteful repetition. Feel free to quote, reply to, or disagree with anything I said above down there. ] (]) 00:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Most of what I wrote in the Gaines section addresses this comment. The difference between the hypothetical of Shapiro/NY Times and your reference to Basic Instinct/Paul Verhoeven is that Basic Instinct is a movie directed by Paul Verhoeven. Therefore, the quote from Paul Verhoeven is being correctly used on an article where him and his opinion are part of the topic. As WP:Aboutself says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field." Even if his quote is published by an expert in the field, it is still being properly used. However, this doesn't mean that editors can include Paul Verhoeven's quote on an article about "fascism". Even though Paul was quoted in a reliable source, that doesn't mean the source of that quote is a reliable source. It's still a self published source or if it was an interview, it would be a primary source and can only be used in articles where the subject matter is about the author or his/her activities. This article has nothing to do with Shapiro so it's not a similar comparison and since Shapiro's opinion originates from a questionable source, it still has to meet those guidelines even if he's been quoted in a reliable source. The author of the reliable source is the one's whose opinion gets the beneficial treatment of WP polcies regarding reliable sources, not Shapiro. Shapiro's opinions can only get that same consideration if he writes his article that does get published in a reliable source with him being the author.] (]) 05:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'll note that the section is ''about'' pundit reaction, and therefore about opinions like Shapiro's, but since you're still talking about sourcing, I'll reply to your comments more fully in the Gaines section. ] (]) 16:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The topic isn't about Shapiro, which is what would be necessary to include his opinion from questionable sources. Just because an article is about a group of people, doesn't mean that every person who self identifies with that group suddenly gets to bypass WP policy and include their own opinions on the article. Shapiro also belongs to the species of homo sapiens, that doesn't mean his opinions merit inclusion on articles about homo sapiens, especially when they don't originate from a reliable source. ] (]) 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Shapiro's opinions likely wouldn't be noteworthy to such a topic (neither would Gaines'), but they are noteworthy to a section about the audience/media/political reaction to a political film. Of course I still dispute the "QS" claim, but more on that below. ] (]) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Avi Offer == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't oppose including a positive review from a movie reviewer, but it should be an established one. Is Avi Offer an established critic? His website, , appears to be very amateurish. In the article, he's identified as "A reviewer at New York Film Critics Online", but ] appears to be a professional organization and not a review website, so this strikes me as identifying, say, a reporter as not being with the ''New York Times'', but with the ]. ] <small>(])</small> 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Offer is one of the critics listed in Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/avi-offer/ If he is to be excluded because of "non-notability" (which is ]), then we are passing judgment on why Tomatoes includes him, verses the others. Moreover, the removal of Offer serves to unbalance the article. – ] (]) 17:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agreed with Srich. Also, that inclusion was a compromise worked out between Srich and Casprings, and shouldn't be flippantly reverted. ] (]) 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I didn't see him there initially, but I checked again and there he is on page two. Thank you for pointing that out. So Offer meets Tomato but I wonder if he meets Misplaced Pages's. I haven't been able to find anything out about this website or critic outside of RT or his own website. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Offer simply offers an opinion on the film, and is not used for verification. So I'm not sure what WP criteria you are referring to. – ] (]) 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Obviously he doesn't need to be a reliable source, since this is just an opinion we're talking about. But is an opinion from what appears to be a non-notable blogger really encyclopedic? It seems like we just need a positive quote an he's the best we can do, but we shouldn't elevate him in importance if he's totally irrelevant. Maybe he has a cult following I don't know about, after all Bleeding Cool used to look even worse than the NYC Movie Guru website but it is obviously hugely influential. I'm just saying that we should establish that he has an opinion worth documenting before we document it. ] <small>(])</small> 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::None of the negative reviewers quoted are notable enough to have their own Wiki articles. David Ehrlich was from the closest thing to a noteworthy job he's had. Offers is noteworthy enough to be counted and quoted by Rotten Tomatoes. If you're attacking his noteworthiness then you should be seeking to have the entire RM segment removed. Including only negative quotes is a blatant violation of ].] (]) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::The publications featuring those negative quotes are all clearly noteworthy. Is the website NYC Movie Guru noteworthy? If anyone can substantiate that it is, then that will satisfy my concerns. If no noteworthy publications had positive reviews, then it would be a violation of Misplaced Pages policies for the article not to reflect that. ] <small>(])</small> 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: by Hickman is in the Tomatoes fresh category. (In fact, he provides a lot of factual information that can support the synopsis.) So here is a suggested segment for inclusion in the review section: "...'America' is a handsomely made picture that one-ups Michael Moore and his team while promoting a Right leaning view of history." – ] (]) 17:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::That seems reasonable, thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Out of curiosity what's the difference? Personal blogs are acceptable for personal opinions, and Offer's membership in a professional critics organization shows he's an established critic. ] (]) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You're right, we can cite personal blogs for personal opinions when appropriate, but I don't believe it is appropriate to cite a non-notable opinion. Rotten Tomatoes lists 25 different critics organizations that they draw from, and perhaps all of them, Offer included, are potentially notable under the right circumstances. But to single out the blog of one one obscure member of one of those 25 organizations is lowering the notability bar too much for me. ] <small>(])</small> 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You still didn't explain why you singled out one non-notable member for removal while leaving the other non-notable members' quotes in. {{strikethrough|Hopefully it had nothing to do with his review being the most positive. Surely that was purely a coincidence.}} I'd still like an explanation though. ] (]) 01:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::I would appreciate it if you struck the uncivil insinuation in your comment above. Otherwise I will disengage. ] <small>(])</small> 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Alright. Without commenting on whether the text was inappropriate, I'll strike it out anyway. I'd still like an explanation, however, but more importantly I'd like you to reply to and explain your revert, particularly given that the primary rationale for creating a different section in the first place was to accommodate such commentary. ] (]) 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Thank you. Now Offer's professional membership does not necessarily confer significant notability on him, anymore than my membership in the American Library Association confers notability on me and makes my blog quotable in library articles here. I make no claims regarding the authors of the other reviews, but their publications, ''The AV Club'', etc., are clearly notable for numerous reasons, including respectability, popularity, etc. How does Offer's blog "NYC Movie Guru" measure up in those respects? Does he have an audience of thousands, or just his mom? That's an entirely reasonable question to ask, I think, and I tried to find the answer to that and was unable to. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask those who wish to include Offer to attempt to address these issues as well. ] <small>(])</small> 19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::Simply writing for a media outlet that's notable doesn't necessarily make the author notable (otherwise we'd have Wiki bio articles on every local newspaper reporter), especially if it's as small (barely notable) as "The AV Club" (which, like rogerebert.com, is essentially a blog). The only reason we find these guys noteworthy enough to quote here is because they're cited by Rotten Tomatoes. So is Offer. Even if one did deem a hierarchy of noteworthiness that ranked the others ahead of Offer, that doesn't necessarily mean that drawing the ] below them and above him would be wise, especially seeing as how including his positive commentary would add some much needed balance. Huge numbers of people (for a documentary) really liked this movie, and their views are currently being excluded from the article. The one "positive" quote recently added has been subsequently edited and warped to the point where it's more negative than positive, and the addition of several more negative quotes, originally only added as a compromise to get Offer's positive quote in, remain, leaving a preposterous skew. At this point wouldn't it behoove you and the other left leaning editors here to show some graciousness, allow other views to be covered (especially the Shapiro quote), and maybe get a bipartisan rapprochement going? ] (]) 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::You seem to be really hung up on individual notability, but that's not the criteria here at all. ''The AV Club'', for example, is a hugely popular publication covering pop culture and a movie review it publishes is significant regardless of whether it was written by ] or some intern. Its reviews are regularly cited by other publications and review aggregators. It has an ] rank 3,222, indicating the huge amount of traffic it gets. Offer's blog has a low Alexa ranking of 2,193,691 and no one has produced any evidence of credentials or popularity or notability for Offer beyond his membership in a professional organization, one of dozens in that profession. If you are going to continue to advocate for the inclusion of this blog, then I think it's time for you to provide some evidence that this particularity blog should be included or else we should move on to more productive issues. If you think particular viewpoints are unrepresented, then the way to represent those views is to find some reliable secondary sources that document them instead of advocating for the inclusion of some movie review that maybe no one ever read. ] <small>(])</small> 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::I didn't raise the "notable" issue, you did. Notability refers to whether someone merits his own article. It does not apply to content within an article. Quoting directly from Notability guidelines ]: "'''The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.'''" Therefore your rationale for was invalid. Now whether he's ''noteworthy'' (different from "Notable" per guidelines) enough to merit inclusion in this context is a different matter, but since Rotten Tomatoes, the section's lead source here (and a secondary source for the reviews), places him on par with the others, counting his vote equal to theirs and giving a sample quote from him equal space, there's no legitimate reason for us to not do so. Otherwise we shouldn't be citing Rotten Tomatoes as the aggregate score would be dubious and unfit for inclusion. There's nothing in policy or guidelines suggesting that only critics who work for a certain type of publication can be quoted. That said, for the record, since you didn't address my Shapiro comments but did place importance on Alexa rankings, I'll point out that , with a global ranking of 1,188, a US ranking of 247, and a . ] (]) 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I think both the positive and negative reviews should be up for review. We should have the most noteworthy reviews here. Moreover, the reader should get a feel of the overall negative critical response from reviewers. ] (]) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:* I don't think the Reception section not being negative enough is a problem, lol. None of the quoted reviewers are noteworthy apart from Rotten Tomatoes deeming them so. ] (]) 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::*The Hollywood Reporter, the AV Club, and Roger Ebert.com are all clearly notable regardless of whether or not they are included in RT. ] <small>(])</small> 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*You keep saying "notable" but it's unclear why. All those outfits are "notable" in that they have Wiki articles, as does the group Offer belongs to. Surely you wouldn't suggest that someone who works for a local paper is ''automatically'' more noteworthy than someone who runs his own site. ] (]) 01:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So, per the talk page discussion here, we had agreement to put in a sentence I suggested from a different reviewer (Hickman). Without discussion, Specifico '''B'''oldly added another sentence which served to increase the negative content. I '''R'''everted. And so Specifico re-reverts , without discussion and says to use the talk page. Ummmph! What happened to the '''D''' in BRD? – ] (]) 00:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Read my edit summary and please refrain from personal remarks on the article talk page. You're free to disagree with my edit summary, but grumpy grumbling and grousing doesn't help resolve this little matter. ]] 00:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::You've both made excellent contributions to this article. Please let's not have any more incivility break out here. ] <small>(])</small> 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== How big is the audience for this type of film? == |
|
|
|
|
|
With the A+ rating in CinemaScore noted regarding moviegoer reviews, how big is that audience? That is where tallying the box office results week after week comes in to find out how big the audience for that type of film is. ] (]) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't see the connection. Besides, the opening figures give an idea of the audience size, so why the weekly updates? The CinemaScore grade covered the opening couple of days or so of wide release. If you're somehow trying to delegitimize the CinemaScore grade, I'll point out that the movie is the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time and has enjoyed an historically slow drop. But the "fantastic hold" quote and historical smallest drop ranking segment were deleted without explanation (well, a fraudulent explanation for the former and no explanation at all for removing the second), so there's really no point to the updates now. Would you support restoring those items, or at least the historical drop ranking sentence? If not, I see no reason not to delete the updates as frivolous. Can you find one example of a movie article containing such weekly updates? ] (]) 15:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Have you heard of ]? As for an example, there's the flop ] spoof ]. ] (]) 17:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your only example is another conservative film article that ''you'' heavily edited? Do you have an example of a non conservative film, preferably one where you weren't the one doing the weekly updates? Every movie's screencount drops over time. What's notable about America is how slow the drop's been, but since those noteworthy facts have been deleted, the narrative of a continuous drop creates a misleading impression in readers' minds. You didn't answer my question: would you support restoring the aforementioned noteworthy material? If not, the pointless and potentially misleading updates should be deleted. ] (]) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As long as the CinemaScore A+ rating is noted, we need to balance that with actual box office results over the course of a month. As the production cost was never given, we don't know much much the movie is really making to make it a hit or a flop. ] (]) 17:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't believe this approach is merited. The cinemascore is simply an inclusion of factual evidence and doesn't have any sort of bias that needs to be "balanced". Including the receding box office totals does nothing to "balance" the cinemascore anyway. It's clear the cinemascore is based off of people who watched the film and the people predisposed to watch this type of movie are the people who know it reaffirms their own personal beliefs.] (]) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Steelbeard, you're assuming that the box office results somehow mitigate the CinemaScore grade. The fact that the drop has been historically slow ''reinforces'' the CinemaScore grade (positive word of mouth). Regardless of CinemaScore (which isn't mentioned in the section), the only legitimate reasons for including the weekly updates would be if the material was somehow unusual enough to be noteworthy (you haven't answered my question about whether you'd support the facts showing such noteworthiness) or was routinely included in articles (it's not; I guess you haven't found another real example). ] (]) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::CinemaScore IS mentioned in the following section. Also, explain why the film failed to make the Top 10 in the box office? Because we still do not know the film's production and promotion costs, we still do not know if the film is a hit or a flop. One other thing. The movie is no longer playing in my area. ] (]) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Documentaries never do as well as regular movies, and it's been in wide release for several weeks. many big budget features that have also been out for several weeks America actually out-grossed this past weekend. I figure D'Souza probably more than made back the budget in the first weekend of wide release, and that it's a huge financial success. It is the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time, and close to moving up. Regardless, seeking to "balance" the CinemaScore grade (which has been pushed much lower on the page) with weekly screen count drops is inappropriate. That such screen count drops always occur and America's "fantastic hold" actually reinforces the CinemaScore grade (if anything) makes it even worse, at least since those noteworthy facts have been deleted. Scoobydunk and I disagree with you on this, and Specifico thanked me for deleting the screen count drop segments, so, unless that was a mouse slip, at least three people have objections to what you're doing, and no one has expressed support. Given that, would you still oppose me removing the material? ] (]) 02:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Given the opposition, your lack of response, and the lack of any other support for the material, I'm going to go ahead and remove it, and I'll ask that you not edit war to keep it in. ] (]) 16:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Only if the CinemaScore material is removed will the box office updates be removed. ] (]) 20:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Please stop edit warring. Multiple editors oppose you on this, so the burden is on you to gain support for the material's inclusion before restoring it. CinemaScore results are explicitly endorsed by the , while never ending weekly screen count updates aren't. Only such counts for the opening week are mentioned, along with later segments if something noteworthy happens (it gives the example of wide release in another country). Movie articles routinely include CinemaScore grades but you haven't provided any examples of them containing the never ending weekly screen count updates, except for the other conservative film you personally added them to. ] (]) 20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::So far three editors have weighed in on this. IMO the boxoffice data is noteworthy and I have restored it. Whether a documentary film gets as much gross as any other film is not a subject of debate, so I can't see why this is such a contentious issue. – ] (]) 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Can you explain ''why'' you feel it's "noteworthy"? Are you aware of the fact that ''all'' movies' screen counts drop over time? Isn't singling this movie out for such weekly coverage undue and POV? The only noteworthy components (all time drop ranking and "fantastic hold" quote were deleted, the former without explanation. Can you provide any examples of other movie articles getting this week to week treatment? Have you read the that only mentions posting such details about '''"specific results of opening weekends, results from different English-speaking territories, the number of theaters the film was released into, and audience demographics. Coverage of a notable opening in a country not of the film's origin may be included (e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country)."''' ? Do you agree with Steelbeard's rationale, that it's important to "balance" the CinemaScore grade because he personally feels the screencount drops undermine them? Despite the fact that America's historically slow drop rate actually reinforces the CinemaScore grade, if anything, don't you think that the article's extensive focus on "drop(s)" successfully accomplishes Steelbeard's expressed objective in the minds of readers, especially since the aforementioned historical ranking has been deleted? ] (]) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::The MOS says "...this section ''may'' detail specific results of opening weekends ...." There is no restriction on subsequent weekends. The particulars are entirely within the discretion of editors, who work towards consensus in these questions. – ] (]) 21:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::There is absolutely no encyclopedic significance in week-by-week primary data on number of screens and revenues. If you have RS content on the film's reception or commentary on its financial success, that might be appropriate. As it is, after multiple re-insertions, this should stay out of the article unless consensus is reached on talk. ]] 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::True, but there should be some legitimate ''reason'' for including it, apart from it not being automatically prohibited. As is, the material by itself isn't noteworthy, and is arguably harmful to article quality and neutrality for reasons explained. If we were to include it we'd need to explain why were doing so in the text. I quoted the MOS because Steelbeard was demanding the CinemaScore segment be deleted in exchange for deleting the weekly screen count. ] (]) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No. The source itself would need to discuss what is significant and why. ]] 21:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I only meant we'd need to include whatever sourced fact/observation makes it notable in the text, as opposed to just tacking on a reference at the end that hypothetically does so for people who clicked on it. ] (]) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
Time to close this thread. I think we have consensus to keep the subsequent box office out. I will support the present text. – ] (]) 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Only the unexplained weekly screen count updates. Noteworthy material should still be added. ] (]) 22:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. – ] (]) 22:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As a result, I removed the CinemaScore rating as that can be misleading without detailed box office results. ] (]) 11:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I reverted, as there's absolutely no support or valid rationale for removing CinemaScore. ] (]) 17:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There is valid rationale as CinemaScore does not indicate the size of the target audience. Besides, the film DID NOT make the Top 10 in the box office. ] (]) 18:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::CinemaScore inclusions just present the grade. They never indicate "the size of the target audience", nor are they required to. The "top 10" remark is a non sequitur. ] (]) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::What do you mean by 'non sequitur'? It is a proven fact that the film peaked at #11 in the box office. ] (]) 19:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I mean it's irrelevant to the topic of including or deleting the CinemaScore grade. That said, documentaries don't gross as much as regular movies, and America is one of the highest grossing political documentaries of all time, which your own edits show you're perfectly aware of, so the high CinemaScore grade isn't surprising. ] (]) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== fantasy v docudrama v documentary film == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sources provided do not describe the film as a fantasy. Saying so is pure OR, and has overtones of POV. The sources use two distinct terms: docudrama and documentary. It is certainly possible for a film to fit into both descriptions. The film is also described as alternative history, which encompasses "fantasy". – ] (]) 04:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Look at the picture in the infobox. "IMAGINE..." WP policy does not call it OR to write ordinary English language description such as "fantasy" for "imagine". I find "fantasy", which is a recognized dramatic genre, to be more suitable than "imaginary docudrama" which is unclear and sounds a bit denigrating. Since we know it's not a documentary, I suggest you revert and try to consider a wording you think is an improvement. ]] 04:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The image (theatrical poster) and tagline in the infobox is your RS for describing the film as "fantasy"? <s>Wow!</s> Sorry, but you need published RS where someone says this film is a fantasy. <s>This edit is even worse than the OR which described the film as polemical.</s> The term documentary is used by the RS, including the New York Times. Another bit of RS, cited inline, used the term docudrama. – ] (]) 05:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The title of the film is "America: Imagine a World Without Her" so your statement makes no sense. Docudrama is not a subset of documentary. Per the pyramid of discussion, denigrating an edit you don't like without addressing policy and content is fruitless. ]] 15:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If reliable sources describe this film as a documentary, then that is what we should go with. The term documentary is probably inadequate or incorrectly applied to this film, but we're not here to correct the mistakes or shortcomings of reliable sources. ] <small>(])</small> 15:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::My impression is that "documentary" is used as a market category, but that it is nowhere intended to describe the content of the film. So for an encyclopedia article which is describing the film, I think it's misleading to use "documentary" without specifying the context or which of its meanings is being used. ]] 15:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::A fair point, but I'm not sure how we can address this without making up our own categories. I'm inclined to just go with whatever third-party RSes call it. ] <small>(])</small> 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"Imagine", it seems to me, is used rhetorically. A "what if" in order to allow for debate about the various topics. With this in mind, I've changed the synopsis to say "]". – ] (]) 15:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Box Office Mojo the film as a "documentary", as does every other source I've seen. In a responsible, neutrally minded editing environment that would be the end of the discussion. ] (]) 15:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Producing a reliable source adds value to the discussion, thank you. However, comments containing what appear to be insinuations about the motives of other editors do not add value to the discussion. Instead it only encourages other editors to respond to such statements with insinuations about your motives, leading to a breakdown in collaborative editing. What should happen is this: someone raises an issue, someone else addresses it by responding with a reliable source. Leave everything else out of it. Otherwise it will just degenerate into partisan carping. ] <small>(])</small> 16:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Do we really need to start off labeling it one way or the other? It's a film. Then we can describe the film, its approach, and the reception it's received. There are sources which use the word "documentary" -- most of them as a market category rather than a characterization of content -- but there are also RS which call the film other things, including those which say it's D'Souza's descent into crazen pandering, etc. and entirely without reality-based content. I don't see why we need to label it in an article which goes on to provide as much detail as is RS and encyclopedic. Does D'Souza himself call this a "documentary?" ]] 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Normally I'd agree, Gamaliel, but this article's editing environment is so contentious, unhealthy, and blatantly POV gripped that it might be even less productive to ignore it. After all, Wiki policies like ] and ], and guideliness against tendentious editing, exist so that we can raise them when appropriate. The difference between my comments and the hypothetical counter-accusations you raise is that I've backed mine up with loads of facts and evidence. The source I "produc(ed)" is the basic page link to the most frequently used source in this article all along. It's insane that we're even having to waste time arguing about such basic items, let alone the more entrenched NPOV violations the article is currently guilty of. ] (]) 18:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Many of the same accusations could be leveled at you, such as the time we've wasted discussing the inclusion of Avi Offer's blog, and you have yet to back up your advocacy of that blog with any facts or evidence. If we go down this road, we'll be wasting even more time. ] <small>(])</small> 18:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Empty tit for tat accusations sans the facts and evidence I just mentioned. Regarding Offer, I haven't advocated his blog. I've been observing that Rotten Tomatoes gives him the same credence and coverage they do to the other critics we've cherry-picked from their aggregation. If we're now deciding that Rotten Tomatoes' judgment on such matters is dubious, then we should remove the entire Rotten Tomatoes segment, particularly their aggregation score since it counts Offer as equal to the other critics. ] (]) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::If you aren't advocating including Offer's blog, then we can conclude that discussion and move on. Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 19:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I'm arguing that we should include a quote from his review, as Rotten Tomatoes did. Otherwise, we should delete the Rotten Tomatoes segment. ] (]) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::What other interpretation could you have of "including Offer's blog" that isn't "include a quote from his review" which appears on his blog? Semantic wordplay games is exactly the kind of time wasting nonsense that you were complaining about. ] <small>(])</small> 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::No, you claimed I had engaged in "advocacy of that blog", suggesting I was arguing that we should include the blog based on its own merits. My entire argument has been that his review is noteworthy in this context because Rotten Tomatoes deems it so, and we (until now at least) have deemed Rotten Tomatoes a reliable and noteworthy judge in these matters. Your continual avoidance of the RM issue I keep raising doesn't exactly disprove my earlier comments. ] (]) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I'm not avoiding anything, there's nothing to talk about. I don't believe the inclusion of Offer's review in RT confers on it any particular notability or significance which makes it appropriate to include here, and I thought that was made clear from my comments from the beginning of that discussion. For that matter, I don't think there's anything new to talk about regarding Offer's review at all. I think we've both made our points, I see no reason to prolong this discussion unless other editors wish to participate. ] <small>(])</small> 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::If RT is so irrelevant, then why you do you support ''its'' inclusion, particularly when it confers the same vote/quote weight to Offer that it does to the others? ] (]) 23:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
;Docudrama ''and'' documentary film: |
|
|
One source use the term "docudrama", and I had added the link further down in the page. All other sources use the term documentary, and thus this is the more appropriate term for the first sentence in the lead. Also, it supports the categorization, while docudrama does not have a distinct category. – ] (]) 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:We don't write bad text to conform to inapt "categories". "Docudrama is a specific well-defined term which describes the film and its genre. "Documentary" is much more broad and as previously noted here has connotations which RS use to relate to marketing and economics rather than the content and format of the film. ]] 19:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The text which says "documentary film" is good text based on the fact that several sources describe the film as a documentary. Again, as the majority of sourcing says documentary, that is the proper term for the lede. Also in fact, there is a ], but adding the film to it, based on the single RS used in the text is problematic because so much of the other sourcing says documentary film. – ] (]) 19:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Instead of merely repeating that your view is correct, please respond to the several reasons I've given for my edits. Because you were the one who added 'docudrama' I would have thought you'd be pleased to use that clear, succinct term instead of the vastly more general, vague and ill-defined 'documentary' ]] 20:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It seems that two other editors have commented above. Victor certainly wants to use documentary film and Gamaliel has commented about what the sources say (paraphrased) in terms of "documentary". I 'm happy with docudrama, but not in the first sentence of the lede. And as I said when I opened the thread, both terms can be used (and linked) in the text. Let's see what consensus develops. – ] (]) 20:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The first sentence is exactly where "docudrama" belongs because it is the most concise, explicit, specific, and readily understood description of the film's genre and approach. To help understand this, I suggest you do the following ]: Tell me the definition of "documentary" which is being used by whatever you feel is the source for calling the film a documentary, and consider whether that definition is what leaps to the mind of the majority of our readers when they see that word. Thanks. ]] 20:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The consensus version has been and is for "documentary film". While "fantasy" and "polemic" and "docudrama" have been floated for the first sentence, I do not see consensus for any of them. – ] (]) 22:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's not responsive. Please re-read and respond to my words. Thanks. ]] 03:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The title of this film == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that this article be moved to ], as that is the full title of this movie. Contrary to what was previously stated, "Imagine the World Without Her" is not a 'tag line' , but a subtitle , which is part of the full title of a work. Works are referred to by their full titles, including the subtitle (e.g. a book called ''Algebra: A Primer'', would be referred to as such), and Misplaced Pages practice is to title with the full name, even if a shortened version is commonly used. As evidence I submit that: |
|
|
|
|
|
* It's undisputed that the is titled ''America: Imagine the World Without Her'' |
|
|
* IMDB, which is the main database on movies, calls it "America: Imagine the World Without Her" |
|
|
* Reviewers usually refer to the movie as "America:Imagine the World Without Her" , , , , , |
|
|
* Movietickets.com is selling tickets with this title. |
|
|
* The article on Dinesh's previous movie is called ], not ] |
|
|
] (]) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Oppose'''--The official title according to ] is "America" period. They added '(2014)' to the title to avoid confusion with other films titled "America" As for "2016 Obama's America", that is the title Box Office Mojo uses. ] (]) 10:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Support''' per nom. ] <small>(])</small> 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Support''' This seems like a cleaner and more informative way to disambiguate, as there have been other films just named "America" this decade. This suggestion would probably cut down on people's initial confusion about which America film was which, although it's not fatal if it doesn't move. (Has this RM been tagged yet? It seems like ] maybe missed some steps from ].)] 01:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Support''' It would violate Policy to change the name of the film. One editor previously attempted to advocate that the "Imagine..." was just a "tagline", but this misrepresents the facts, per the producers' own usage. ]] 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*'''Support''' As others have said, this film is usually referred to with "Imagine" part. I also think it's fine to include a disambiguation for ''America (2014 film)'' or something similar if that appeases those opposed.] (]) 07:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Well, it's been two weeks, and consensus seems clearly to support a move, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. ] (]) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Box Office Ranking and Breitbart == |
|
|
|
|
|
Including commentary like "by the second week" is considered original research unless the source specifically makes that observation and articulates it. Editors must be careful when using primary sources that they don't add any narrative that isn't directly expressed by the source. The Mojo link specifically lists America as 6th, it doesn't list it at 7th, so the article now accurately reflects the source without including any OR or POV commentary about its second week accomplishments. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it hasn't been agreed that Breitbart.com is a reliable source, so I advise not including information from Breitbart.com until there is a consensus reached about whether it is a questionable source or a reliable source.] (]) 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's not OR since Box Office Mojo how many weeks and days a movie has been showing, along with how much it's earned each day, week, and weekend. As for the dynamism of certain pages, like the all time rankings, that's why we list access dates. By the logic of this section op the "August" reference would be OR too, since the source page doesn't mention the current date. That would be a misreading of the OR policy. Segments technically don't need to be sourced at all on Misplaced Pages; it's just a good idea if it's challenged or likely to be challenged. To your second point, there is no legitimate, rational basis for excluding a film review from Breitbart while including ones from even more opinionated, less news oriented sites like the AV Club or rogerebert.com. ] (]) 05:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The source does say 8/19/2014 in the top right hand corner. Therefore identifying the date as August is not the result of original research, but if you prefer 8/19/2014 then that's fine too. However, it doesn't say "by the second week" anywhere and nor does it reflect its ranking as "7th". So not only is that OR but it's also not verifiable and the link you gave to the week tracking doesn't list it as "7th" either in all time political documentaries.] (]) 05:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I didn't notice the fine date print in the upper right hand corner, but it's still dynamic, meaning it won't say "8" in a couple of weeks. There's nothing wrong with identifying the date accessed though, and it used to say "#7". Likewise, it's not "OR" to identify in the same sentence how many weeks the movie has been out at the time of access, especially when a different page of the same source provides the information, along with the precise dollar receipt amount so far that appears on both pages. Also, the ''America'' page I linked to above lists the political documentary ranking (previously 7th, now 6th), along with how many weeks it's been out and other info. The even shows both at once. ] (]) 16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It doesn't say "7th" nor does it say "by the second week". The changes I've made are neutral and can be updated whenever the list changes without providing a non-neutral narrative. Nothing on the mojo site gives any significance to "2nd week" rankings and the source, as it appears in the article, doesn't say "by the second week". It's not noteworthy or necessary to tally the films change in ranking every time it occurs. "By the second week", "by the 5th week", "by the 6th week", "by the 138th week", "by the 219th week", are all unnecessary, non-notable, and insignificant to include in an article.] (]) 18:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::So you're going to keep coming back here updating the month/year every month even if the rank doesn't change, because the "8" will no longer be on the page? The BOM summary page I linked to lists how many weeks (and days) it's been in release just a couple of lines above the all time political documentary ranking, so your original "OR" argument has been totally refuted. As for your noteworthiness argument, obviously landing on the top 10 list in speedy fashion is an additional and noteworthy piece of info that's lost by only mentioning the current ranking several weeks later. ] (]) 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Now that the movie is pretty much done in theaters, We can stop the rundown. ] (]) 18:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"speedy" is completely subjective. The importance of the "2nd week" is not given any merit by any reliable source and is exclusively the narrative of the WP editor. "By the second week" is still not supported by the link in the article, which means that any assertion of it earning 7th by the second week is considered original research. More specifically, from WP:OR Synthesis "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Here you took a statement(A) from one source/link that it ranked 7th among political documentaries, then took information(B) from another source/link that it had been out for 2 weeks, and then combined them to form a statement(C) that "by the second week....it ranked 7th". That's an example of original research and is specifically identified as such under WP:Syn. So you haven't refuted that it's not OR, you've merely asserted it's not, but WP policy clear identifies this type of action as OR. Also, the way I've left the sentence can be updated anytime an editor feels it's necessary to update. It's structure doesn't give any arbitrary or biased POV importance to the date, which acts strictly in a clerical fashion.] (]) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It is certainly ''not'' "OR", any more than the current "August" version will be next month. A properly sourced segment doesn't suddenly become "OR" just because the web page has since been updated or the book is no longer in print. In this case one can easily verify that the "second week" segment is true using historical data provided by the source. Your "Synthesis" claim is totally false because we're dealing with one source here, not two. Refer to the page . In fact the dates out, including a weekly count, is presented right above the all time rankings. And no one suggested adding "speedy" to the article, but the "second week" segment conveys time to top 10 information not present in the new "#6" segment I added. ] (]) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Original Research Regarding Amazon == |
|
|
|
|
|
] and ]- I don't see where Amazon.com says that its reviews correlate with the Cinemascore rating. Please familiarize yourselves with ]. As an editor you can not examine multiple primary or secondary sources and then include your own comparisons or correlations between them in a WP article. Also, " Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." This part of the ] for critical reception prohibit the use of user generated ratings on WP articles. ] (]) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sections/Information irrelevant to the movie == |
|
|
|
|
|
The addition of Alan Dershowitz and the Washington Times editorial have nothing to do with the movie. The quotes included from Amodeo and Berkowitz directly discuss the ending of the film and comment on its purpose and how it may directly relate to D'souza's past discretions. Furthermore, the Costco Book even has absolutely nothing to do with the movie and is completely irrelevant to this article. ] (]) 18:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've tagged the section with the Dershowitz material as OR as it is a ] violation to include material from sources that have nothing to do with the film. I don't think the Costco material is entirely irrelevant, but it is poorly sourced and not neutral so I tagged that section NPOV. ] <small>(])</small> 22:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
===Information is extremely relevant to the movie=== |
|
|
The states that "'''notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited'''". Dershowitz and the Washington Times comment directly on this film's maker and an event covered in the movie. Their quotes were only added after Scoobydunk inserted the paragraph featuring Huffington Post writers raising the issue to personally attack D'Souza, along with a sentence and source about his legal trouble that doesn't mention this movie (making the section op above incredible); their observations support D'Souza's characterization of the event in the movie and contradict the opinions of the Huffington Post writers. Removing them would be a gross violation of NPOV and would raise serious BLP concerns. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Costco controversy relates to the book mentioned in this article's second sentence, and is described as the movie's "companion" in the sources. The sources also discuss the movie directly, including when paraphrasing Costco's comments, and the timing of the book pull is impossible to ignore. The section can, of course, be tweaked, added to, and improved (I would have added a direct quote from Costco but didn't see one in the limited time I had earlier today), but its sources are higher quality and more neutral than the sources used in the first part of the Critical response section. I'll add that the entire article has already had a neutrality tag for some time, so I'm not sure about the appropriateness of adding new ones to specific sections. ] (]) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(ec)This by Scoobydunk ties in the legal aspects, if this is ok, then the other addition is related as well. It certainly is not synthesis of material or original research. You could argue that the legal aspects are unrelated to the movie, but that would mean all of the legal aspects, not just some of it. As for the Costco aspect, since the movie is closely tied to the book and the Costco incident was reported in concert with the release of the movie it is related. The Washington Post source, however, is not related. Though, what is being included via the WaPo source is included in the both other sources so it should be re-referenced to remove the WaPo source. ] (]) 05:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I added the WashPo source as a supplemental. It's a liberal, pro Costco/Obama outlet and column and I didn't want leftist minded readers to think Fox News or a newspaper with the word "Christian" in its name (gasp!) were making the stuff about Costco's political activities up. The sentence provides the same sort of background context as the sentence covering D'Souza's guilty plea does for the paragraph focusing on quotes related to his legal troubles. ] (]) 05:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Where in the sources you've included do they talk about the movie and connect it to D'Souza's criminal behavior? See, the sources I've included are responding to an actual scene in the movie, therefore making it relevant to the movie. Nothing from the material you've included in the article indicates that they were commenting on the movie. Furthermore, where is your source proving that D'Souza's indictment was one of the covered topics of the movie? If you're trying to fit in irrelevant quotes about a topic the movie covers, then you should be able to prove with a reliable source that the movie does, in fact, cover that topic. The sources I've included actually make an interpretation of a specific scene and I've accurately represented their interpretation. However, if you don't have a reliable source to prove that the topic of D'Souza's indictment for campaign fraud was covered by the movie, then you're violating WP:OR by using your own determination of what topics were covered in the movie.] (]) 06:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:You added a source talking about the possible punishment which is unrelated. You can't add some material that is as unrelated as this material and call the other stuff OR. Original research is presenting an idea or advancing an idea which is not supported by reliable sources. None of that is original research, it is possible that it would be undue weight, but you are the one adding the aspect to begin with. It would, however, be a violation of NPOV to only present your one-sided presentation. ] (]) 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Including the length of time he may have to serve in jail for the plea deal is not a violation of NPOV and is completely objective and neutral information. It's not my "one-sided opinion", it's a part of the terms of the plea deal. Its inclusion was to provide more information about one of the things mentioned by the political writer. I'm not including it under the premise that I, myself, interpret the ending to be about his punishment and am not using the MoS Guideline that VictorD7 referenced to include it. Trying to use that specific line from MoS Guidelines means you have to prove, through a reliable source, that D'Souza's criminal discretions were one of the topics of the film.] (]) 17:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your own quotes and sources describe the same events covered in the movie that the expert and notable newspaper I quoted comment on (as do many reviews, like ), namely D'Souza's indictment and his contention that it was a selective prosecution. The MOS doesn't require that every source be directly about the movie, but says we can include expert or notable commentary about "'''topics covered by the film'''", which is common (see the page for Michael Moore's Sicko as I linked to and described in an above section). Arguing that these segments should be excluded for not discussing the movie per se while defending your own inclusion of a sentence and source that doesn't mention the movie is preposterous. Your HuffPo writer quote ridicules D'Souza's suggestion that the prosecution was selective and politically motivated, so that a nationally renown Harvard law professor agrees with D'Souza is definitely noteworthy and necessary to include for balance and NPOV. That Dershowitz is a liberal adds weight to his support of D'Souza on this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As Arzel pointed out to you, none of this is "OR". It's all sourced. If anything, it might be a relevance/due issue, but, as he said, you raised the focus on the legal component, so it's vital that we remain NPOV on such a sensitive topic. Frankly I think including everything we currently have from both sides is fine, but we can't delete one side without deleting it all. ] (]) 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Again, where's your source that D'Souza's criminal actions were a topic of the film? My source doesn't say that his actions were a topic of the film, they merely interpret a scene of the film. This isn't proof that their interpretation of the scene is a matter of fact or proof that the handcuff scene was about D'Souza's campaign contribution fraud. Their inclusion is merited because it is directly relevant to the film since they comment on the film and make their own analysis. Your sources don't do this...at all. You're trying to include them under the notion that you '''think''' one of the topics of the film was his criminal actions, which is a violation of WP:OR if you can not provide a source that identifies his criminal deeds as a topic of the film. My sources do not make a claim that his campaign contribution fraud was a topic of the film, they only speculate on a scene towards the end of the movie. In you John Fund source and many other reviews that discuss the topics of the film, none of them label his criminal conduct as a topic of the film. That's because it's not and your inclusion of those sources is not supported by the MoS Guideline.] (]) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Why do you think he was in handcuffs? Everything being discussed here is a subtopic of his arrest/indictment/prosecution, and is therefore a topic covered in the movie. Numerous reviewers recount how D'Souza covers his own legal troubles in the film and suggests selective prosecution is at play. If not, then by your logic your Huffington Post quotes ''focusing'' on his prosecution and claim of selective prosecution don't belong in the article, whether the writer elsewhere touches on the film or not. Also, your earlier implication that a segment has to directly mention the movie goes out the window when you acknowledge that a sentence and source that doesn't mention the movie can be included for "more information" about topics raised.] (]) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You asking me "Why do you think he was in handcuffs?" pretty much proves my point, that your inclusion under the premise of MoS Guideline is a violation of WP:OR. It is not our privilege or responsibility as editors to make conclusions about the film and make the article reflect those conclusions. So my interpretation of the film has no relevance and it shouldn't as described by WP:OR. "Numerous reviewers recount how D'Souza covers his own legal troubles in the film" please list those sources because I haven't seen one yet. I have seen reviewers discuss Native Americans and Slavery as topics of the film, but you haven't supplied a single source that discussed his criminal actions as a topic of the film or a topic that the film covers. Furthermore, the Huffington Post quotes are discussing and focusing on a scene in the movie, not on his prosecution. As a matter of fact, one or both articles to talk about his criminal behavior towards the beginning of the article, but this is unrelated to the film since they are merely commenting on D'Souza's personal behavior. The part that I included came later in the article when they specifically talked about a scene of the movie and expressed an opinion that it might be an apology for his criminal behavior or their opinion that it's a pathetic attempt to excuse his behavior. I ignored the parts that weren't relevant to the movie because i know how to discern the difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I didn't imply anything, I said that the quotes I added were relevant to the movie because they discuss the movie. Your quotes are not relevant to the movie because they don't discuss the movie and you haven't even shown that they discuss a topic covered by the film. The terms of his plea deal merit inclusion because they objectively explain what the political authors are referring to, adding more context without narrative and are, therefore, not a violation of WP:NPOV. This doesn't apply to the quotes you've added because they are not objective, they are subjective opinions and it becomes a violation of WP:NPOV. Now, if you want to include other interpretations of the scene to balance the ones I've included, then by all means do so. However, the quotes you used don't address the scene at all and therefore don't lend any balance, are actually irrelevant to the movie, and are a violation of WP:NPOV.] (]) 20:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::No, my rhetorical question just illustrated the fact that even showing him in handcuffs, which your own quote references, proves the topic of his indictment was covered in the movie. Also, the Fund piece I linked to above explicitly states, "'''D’Souza includes in the film a brief section on his legal troubles; in this, he clearly conveys his view that he was selectively prosecuted.'''" Here's another example from the : "'''To his credit, D'Souza does mention his own arrest for illegal political contributions ("I made a mistake and I am not above the law") but implies it was because of a previous film critical of Obama.'''" Your own HuffPo Berkowitz quote directly reference's D'Souza's "'''suggestion that his own criminal conviction'''" is "'''the result of political targeting'''" in the film, before he proceeds to give his own opinion of D'Souza's position. Your claim that no sources have been provided saying the film covered his prosecution is false. Period. Your allowance for the sentence on his legal plea, which doesn't directly mention the movie, for the purposes of "more information" and "context" (which I'm fine with, btw), highlights a glaring inconsistency in your argument. Whether it's "neutral" or not (your defense for the plea sentence) is irrelevant to the issue of article relevance. Millions of sources might be objective but irrelevant to the article. You claim that the tangential sentence is useful for providing context for the opinions you quoted. Well the following paragraph is vital for providing context and balance for the opinions and legal info you added, though it's also legitimate for being pertinent to a topic covered in the movie (as I've proved). Removing it would be a gross violation of ] and would lead to a ] tone skew on a sensitive legal subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Since you believe the scene is important enough to justify adding an entire paragraph of commentary and tangential news coverage about it, you shouldn't object to a counterpoint segment maintaining balance and subsection neutrality. ] (]) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I don't agree that mentioning something or referencing something is considered a "topic covered by the film". If that were the case, then I could add any number of sources that discuss Matt Damon and his career. So, if that's the interpretation you want to go with, then I expect it to be consistently applied. However, the quotes I gave were an analysis of a scene of a movie, not an independent commentary on D'souza's actions. Your sources address the topic of D'Souza's criminal campaign contribution, while mine are still an analysis of a scene in the movie. So I will add separate criticisms of D'Souza's criminal history to balance the material you've added that specifically address his criminal history instead of offering interpretations of the movie. Again, my quotes discuss the content of the film, your quotes discuss the author's personal history and don't provide an alternative opinion to the scene in the movie, which is the topic of the paragraph. Glad we could reach an agreement.] (]) 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Thank you for separating that material out. I removed that entire section from the article. NPOV/BLP concerns should not addressed by piling a whole bunch of unrelated information into the article. Readers can find that information out by following links to other articles. A short contextual summary might be appropriate in the right circumstances, and Scoobydunk has already incorporated such a summary. Given the length of this article, that hypothetical summary probably shouldn't run more than a sentence, and definitely shouldn't be a long paragraph of unrelated material and commentary. ] <small>(])</small> 03:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Thanks Gamaliel. Though I worked hard on finding all of those sources, I support your reversion. I still don't think the Costco thing is related to the movie, but if there isn't a separate WP article for the book, then I'm fine with it being here.] (]) 06:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The quotes I provided were about his ''prosecution'' and the film's characterization of it as selective and politically motivated, which numerous sources explicitly identify as a topic covered in the movie. If you really don't believe it's a topic covered by the movie, then you shouldn't have added an entire paragraph focusing on that one scene. That's undue emphasis that smears the guy in one sided, venomous fashion, not to mention your "more information" sentence that doesn't even mention the movie. You failed to address any of my arguments. Your new material was mostly low brow partisan blog fare frivolously piling on and skewing the article further by dedicating even more space to a topic that doesn't merit that much emphasis. Some of it was even repetitive. Since Gamaliel deleted that entire section, but left the one sided POV paragraph that started it all, I deleted it too for NPOV. ] (]) 16:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: The original paragraph I added were an analysis of a scene in the movie and are directly related to the film. The information you added doesn't counter or balance with the information I added because it doesn't off a different view on the ending scene in the movie...which is what my paragraph is about. You haven't refuted this.] (]) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::The MOS guidelines allow for commentary from notable experts (like Dershowitz) on topics ''covered'' in the movie, not just the movie per se (as I've quoted and you've acknowledged), and, despite your earlier denials, the sources I quoted above prove the movie covers the topic of his selective prosecution. That you posted an entire paragraph (including a sentence that doesn't mention the film) on the prosecution shows that even you believe it's a topic covered by the movie, indeed one deserving more focus than any other portion of the film. The opinions I added are relevant because they directly support D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution, which the partisans quoted in your paragraph disagree with. Deleting the pro D'Souza material while retaining the initial POV, undue paragraph massacres NPOV, and on a BLP legal issue to boot. ] (]) 17:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: My addition commented on a scene of the movie, yours made excuses for why D'Souza was being prosecuted for a federal crime. One does not balance the other because they are discussing different things. My sources discuss the end of the movie and give their opinions on that ending scene of him in handcuffs. Yours discuss D'Souza's indictment and offer conspiracy theories to why he was indicted. If you were truly interested in "balance" then you'd look for different interpretations of the ending scene of the movie. Maybe a conservative writer who gives a different opinion about the handcuff scene and praises its inclusion. Whether the partisans I quoted agree with D'Souza's claim or not is not relevant to the fact that they think the scene was a pathetic attempt for self redemption trying to excuse his past discretions.] (]) 17:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::You're repeating yourself without addressing my points refuting your arguments. You dumped a venomous, one sided ad hominem paragraph attacking D'Souza and portraying him as a "pathetic" criminal whose claims of selective prosecution were totally without merit shortly after I added the positive review. You were apparently taken by surprise by the strong Dershowitz and Times opinions supporting his case I quickly added afterward for neutral balance, which are more notable and weighty than your sleazy partisan bloggers, and you didn't know how to deal with it apart from deleting the material undermining the picture you're trying to paint. Your attempt at ] to maintain the POV skew by erroneously citing various policies like "OR" have been rationally debunked and have often collapsed under the weight of their own inconsistencies. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::You've provided no policy mandating that every quote or sentence on the page has to directly mention the movie (or interpret a "scene"), while I have provided the MOS quote above saying that commentary on topics ''covered'' in the movie is allowed. That's especially true if your paragraph raises said topic to a heightened level of article focus, ''and includes a sentence and source of your own that don't mention the movie''. You attempted to make up your own rules to suit an anti-D'Souza agenda, but failed to even follow them yourself. You falsely claimed that I hadn't "supplied a single source that discussed his criminal actions as a topic of the film or a topic that the film covers", even specifically singling out the Fund source as supposedly not doing so. I faithfully responded to your expressed concern by supplying multiple sourced quotes directly stating that the prosecution and D'Souza's claim of political selection was covered in the film, including a clear quote saying so from the Fund piece. Without even pausing to briefly acknowledge any of this, you resorted to temporarily trying to separate the pro D'Souza material into a new section for supposedly being off topic (but not your tangential plea bargain sentence that doesn't mention the film), before supporting its deletion. You have yet to post a rationale justifying devoting an entire paragraph to the topic of D'Souza's prosecution to begin with, whether the partisans quoted mention a scene or not. The movie has lots of scenes that aren't singled out for special coverage in this article. Your extensive focus on his prosecution violates DUE and your exclusion of the balancing material provided grossly violated ].] (]) 19:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::: I did post the rationale, they are partisans that have responded to a scene in the movie. So their inclusion is relevant to the article because they are specifically discussing an ending scene in the documentary. It's also not a violation of DUE to include such commentary. You might have an argument if I was deleting commentary about other scenes while only keeping in the scene I want, or deleting other interpretations of the scene analysis I've included, but I haven't done either of those things. Furthermore, Gamliel is the one who deleted the material and since I already questioned whether merely referencing something qualifies as "a topic covered by the moive", I'm inclined to agree with his assessment on that matter. The information you added, by your own admission, was to address a "topic" covered by the movie, so I moved it to its own section because it was '''not a response to the film'''. That's completely different and unrelated to what I added which are responses to the film, specifically the ending scene. FYI, my argument of OR didn't collapse under its own consistencies. I asked you for proof and you provided quotes that verified D'Souza referenced his criminal charges or mentioned them, they didn't/don't prove that his criminal charges were one of the topics of the film. Just because the film referenced Damon, doesn't mean editors can include an entire section with a bunch of quotes bashing Damon, supporting Damon, or outlining his life's work and pretend it merits inclusion because it was a "topic" of the film, when he was merely referenced.] (]) 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::It violates due weight because it leaves a whole paragraph talking about that one scene, way more coverage than we give anything else in the movie. Which editors did what or what other activities you have or haven't engaged in is irrelevant. My balancing material covers the same topic your paragraph does: D'Souza's prosecution and his contention that it's selective. Whether it mentions the movie or not is as irrelevant as the fact that one of your own sentences and its source don't mention the film. It's unclear what distinction you're trying to make between a movie referencing something and covering it, or why you feel such a distinction would be rooted in policy. That you spent a paragraph covering the topic, more than any other topic we cover from the movie, proves ''you'' believe it's a topic meriting ''extensive'' coverage, and not something tangential like Matt Damon's life history (weak straw man). At least you concede your quotes are partisan, underscoring the glaring ] violation at play in only quoting them while deleting quotes from the other side. ] (]) 05:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::::: Nope. I didn't delete any quotes from the "other side" because no quotes have been supplied offering a different view/interpretation of that scene. You haven't given any "balancing" material. So your accusation of misconduct regarding NPOV is egregiously false. Also, I didn't concede that my quotes are partisan. I've only said that the writers are partisan, that doesn't mean their material is partisan or that the quotes are partisan. Also, the Matt Damon example is known as an "extreme example", it's not a strawman because I didn't say that you were trying to argue for the inclusion of a biography of Damon's life. I can give you a link to logical fallacies if you think you'd find that helpful in correctly identifying and understanding the difference. It's still not a violation of undue weight as we've listed other alternative responses and this is just one of many alternative responses. There is nothing dictating what the responses have to be about.] (]) 17:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::Nope, the topic is what the scene ''covers'', which is the same topic the balancing paragraph covers. I'm not sure why you're insisting that only the writers, and not their opinionated quotes, are partisan. Clearly bias is something to consider when evaluating subjective opinions from people on a movie and filmmaker they strongly politically oppose. Adding a paragraph focusing on D'Souza's legal (and marital) problems and ridiculing his contention of selective prosecution as "pathetic" while deleting comments supporting his contention leaves the article in clear and blatant violation of ]. My assessment of the "Damon" life history hypothetical as a straw man argument was correct because it bears no relationship to what's being discussed here. My paragraph, which only consists of two quotes, btw, directly focuses on the topic raised in the movie, and in fact is even more on topic than your plea bargain sentence is. As for being undue weight, you have yet to explain why D'Souza's legal issues merit an entire paragraph of coverage, more so than anything else covered in the movie. ] (]) 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::: No, the paragraph focuses on the ending scene in the movie and offers interpretations on what the scene was a reference to. Your partially right about the Damon example. It bears no relationship to what we're discussing here, just like the paragraphs you tried to add. The paragraph I added discusses the ending scene of the movie, yours doesn't, just like the Matt Damon example doesn't. Hence why it's an extreme example, because it shares the same logical concepts that you used to justify your inclusion of your material, and is clearly absurd and irrelevant for inclusion just like the material you supplied. That's how an extreme example works, and that's completely different from a strawman argument. ] (]) 08:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::No, the Damon hypothetical was a straw man argument because it involved principles totally different from this case: expounding on the life history of someone briefly mentioned in the movie; covering material not covered by the movie that has nothing to do with its focus (an extreme tangent). That's not what I'm arguing. By contrast, I added two quotes commenting directly on D'Souza's "prosecution" and its "selective" nature, the exact same words the sources use to describe what the movie covers. If anything, your plea bargain sentence is slightly closer to being off topic than my material. The MOS guidelines I've repeatedly quoted simply mention that commentary on "topics" covered by the movie are allowed. There's no requirement that a "scene" has to be directly referenced in the commentary.] (]) 18:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::: No, the Damon hypothetical is an extreme example and does share the same logical principles for inclusion that your material does. You say you get to include yours under MoS guidelines because the ending scene was a reference to his criminal behavior. I'm saying, by that reasoning, I get to include material relating to Matt Damon. So I can include quotes discussing his acting feats and his humanitarian efforts because he was referenced in the film and you think this is enough to establish a "topic" covered by the film. That's called an extreme example because the logical arguments for the inclusion of both of them are identical. Here you're trying to arbitrarily pretend that his prosecution constitutes as an actual topic while quoting and discussing Damon doesn't, and there is no logical consistency there. This example shows that merely referencing something doesn't mean it was actually a topic of the movie and that it doesn't necessitate inclusion on the WP article. Whatever argument you want to apply to the exclusion of quotes discussing Matt Damon and equally be applied to your quotes discussing his prosecution.] (]) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::No, the analogy fails because the balancing material focuses directly on the topic covered in the movie, D'Souza's selective prosecution, within the same scope as the movie, and the same topic covered by your initial paragraph for that matter, while your Damon hypothetical is likely untenable because of the extra stuff you want to add that has no relationship to what the movie discussed. There's nothing arbitrary about citing D'Souza's "selective prosecution" as a topic when the sources use those exact words to describe what was in the movie. Of course, even though it is covered in the movie, the material could still violate UNDUE and/or neutrality, as your paragraph does. All the other quotes in the section cover the movie generally, and yet you've added two quotes (and originally another news sentence you've since deleted) singling out D'Souza's prosecution for special, detailed emphasis. ] (]) 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::: No, the extreme example is valid because neither are topics covered by the movie, they are merely referenced by the movie. I don't remember you supplying a quote that says his selective prosecution was a "topic" of the movie and that's the point. ] (]) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::No, we're discussing qualitatively different arguments, not differences of degree, you've provided no basis for your attempt to draw a distinction between a movie "referenc(ing)" a topic and "cover(ing)" it, especially since you posted an entire paragraph on the topic the movie "referenced", when no other specific topic gets mentioned at all in the Critical response section. ] (]) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::: No, they are qualitatively the same arguments and if you want to refute that then you're the one who has to prove the distinction, not just assert it. I've only said that I don't agree that simply referencing something counts as a "topic covered by the movie". This doesn't mean i have to define what a "topic" is, as it's not my place to do so. You're the one trying to define what a "topic" is, so you can include irrelevant commentary under MoS Guidelines. You say your "experts" discuss a topic of the movie, and I say that it's not a topic the same way Matt Damon isn't a "topic" of the movie. If you want to refute that argument/extreme example, then you have to prove/explain how yours is a topic and Damon isn't. All you've done thus far is assert that they're different, but you haven't substantiated it. Furthermore, the paragraph I added is a direct commentary of a scene of the movie. It wasn't added under the guidelines you're trying to argue for the inclusion of your material. So whether the ending scene of the movie is a legitimate "topic" or not doesn't matter for my inclusion, because my inclusion doesn't hinge on that particular guideline.] (]) 08:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, I've already explained how commentary on topics not covered by the film (e.g. something from Damon's boyhood) is qualitatively different from commentary on topics covered by the film (D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution). You're the one trying to draw a distinction between the film "simply referencing" something and covering it, without even explaining what you mean, much less justifying your assertion in policy or fact. The burden is on you to do so since it's your argument. Guidelines make no distinction, simply referring to "topics covered by the film", though historical/scientific examples given later on the page indicate such topics can be narrow and detailed (as long as policy on DUE emphasis isn't violated). The meaning of "topics covered by the movie" should be obvious to reasonable, good faith editors employing the "common sense" guidelines suggest. The sources comment on lots of topics in the film, but you cherry-picked this one to post an entire paragraph about, the only film topic that receives specific coverage in the section, so clearly ''you'' felt it was a ''very'' important topic, and not just a minor detail the film merely referenced in passing.] (]) 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: No, here you're conflating your use of MoS Guidelines with my simply adding criticism relevant to the film. I never said that D'Souza's criminal conduct was a "topic" of a film. The burden of proof is on you to prove that his criminal prosecution was a "topic" of the film since that's the criteria you tried to use to include your information. I simply said that I don't believe a movie merely referencing something qualifies as a "topic covered by the film" which was a rebuttal to your assertion that it was a topic. I further demonstrated why merely referencing something doesn't constitute as a "topic" with my Damon example and how absurd it would be to use that movie reference to springboard into a paragraph about Matt Damon. You've yet to prove that his criminal prosecution is actually a "topic covered by the film", you've merely asserted it is and have merely asserted that it's different from my Damon example, though it's not.] (]) 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, I've explained why your position is wrong on multiple levels. If you don't believe that D'Souza's prosecution is a topic covered by the film, that makes you singling it out for special, extensive, detailed coverage when no other events "referenced" by the film get specifically mentioned in the section an even more outrageous ] violation. You can't eat your cake and have it too; posting a paragraph about the topic and then denying it's a topic covered by the movie as an excuse to delete any balancing material an editor adds. ] (]) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: No, I've explained why your position is wrong on multiple levels. My inclusion has nothing to do with his criminal conduct being a topic of the film, it has to do with an interpretation and criticism of a scene in the movie. That's why my material is included under different rules/guidelines and why you had to attempt to use an obscure policy from MoS guidelines to try and include yours. It's also not NPOV, as I haven't prevented other interpretations of the scene from being added nor removed any information/interpretations about other scenes of the movie. So you can scream "NPOV" as much as you want, but that doesn't make it true.] (]) 08:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::No, everything you repeated here has been debunked, and you can't just make up your own self serving rules as you go along. You've failed to present any guideline restricting commentary to scenes (as opposed to "topics covered", which is what the guidelines actually say). You've also failed to justify adding an entire paragraph about the D'Souza prosecution "scene" when no other quote in the section comments on a specific scene, much less a totally one sided paragraph sourced entirely from what you admit are partisan bloggers, a clear ] violation. You haven't even tried to articulate an argument for doing so from an article quality standpoint.] (]) 20:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What rationale is there for deleting Christian Toto's review? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with an earlier talk page agreement to include a positive review, I from Breitbart reviewer Christian Toto, but it was deleted on the grounds that it's supposedly a "questionable" source. This is despite four of the other section quotes coming from ], which is operated by the satirical website ], the opinion blog , and two partisan Huffington Post columns (HuffPo is a news/opinion site; the liberal equivalent of Breitbart). |
|
|
|
|
|
Toto is a professional film critic who is . He wrote for the for years, and was hired by Breitbart a couple of years ago as a columnist, associate entertainment editor, and feature reviewer. This particular review . I'll note that a different Breitbart Toto piece has also been used to source the article's Molen quote this whole time without noticeable objection. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since we're dealing with attributed subjective opinions here, there's absolutely no legitimate basis for excluding Breitbart or Toto as sources, especially given the other sources used throughout the section. ] (]) 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Breitbart.com is a questionable source on multiple grounds. The reliability of other sources is irrelevant to the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source. WP:QS and WP:Aboutself clearly provide a legitimate basis for excluding questionable sources.] (]) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Nope, consistency is vital to ]. I'd like to get your position on the section's other sources on the record, especially since you personally added the Huffington Post quotes. Even if Breitbart is questionable (which I dispute), and we embrace your interpretation that QS prohibits even covering attributed quotes from sources in subjective film review sections or other places where such quotes are deemed appropriate according to content guidelines (which I also dispute), the expert exception would clearly apply here, given Toto's resume. Quoting from section: "'''Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.'''" If the exception applies to self published sources, it certainly extends to merely "questionable" sources too, as long as we're confident the source accurately relays the quote. ] (]) 06:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Have we not been through the problems with Breitbart before? Here and on ]? And Breitbart isn't Huffingtonpost. In most situations, Huffingtonpost is considered ].] (]) 11:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::By you, perhaps, but many others disagree that Huff Po, much less ] (which operates the The AV Club), are any more reliable than Breitbart. Besides, reliability is always context specific and this particular review hasn't been discussed before. You also didn't address my expert exception argument. ] (]) 17:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: That quote pertains to self published work not to questionable sources. But, before we evaluate that further, be sure to included your evidence that he's an established expert on this movie and prove that he has had work formerly published in a reliable source regarding this movie. The reliability of other sources doesn't change the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source.] (]) 17:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Without conceding that's a requirement, did you see the link in my op to the ] article citing and quoting from Toto's ''America'' review? Also, why do you think the expert exception would apply to self published material but not material published by a "questionable" source? Finally, evaluating the other sources is vital because we must be consistent. We can't single out one source for removal based on a rationale that would apply equally or more so to the others in the section, especially if the source removed is the only one in the section representing its side in a dispute. ] (]) 18:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Christian being quoted in a reliable source doesn't mean that his work was published by a reliable third party publisher. It wasn't his work that was published, it was the work of the author who merely referenced a bunch of different quotes reviewing the movie. One clear reason why that portion wouldn't appear in WP:QS has to do with biased narrative. If a well reputed expert who has been published in reliable third party sources decides to write and publish their own book, we know that it's strictly his opinion free from outside bias and narrative. A questionable source still can inflict bias, thus distorting the author's/expert's ideal intent and conflating their own narrative. It has to do with writing for yourself as opposed to writing for a trash-talking, name-smearing, propagandized questionable source. That's one difference. The rationale for Breitbart.com's removal does not equally apply to others because the others aren't determined to be questionable sources. However, if you disagree you're free to open a noticeboard discussion for each of those sources to determine if they are questionable or not. Their status as questionable or reliable sources doesn't change the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source. If those other sources are deemed to be questionable sources then WP:QS will apply to them as well. ] (]) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::To be clear, while there is currently not a consensus to add this review, there is certainly no consensus that Breitbart is "questionable". That's just your argument against it. I'm asking for your opinion of the other section sources I listed as well. I think your interpretation of the expert exception is incorrect. Although it appears in the "Self-published sources" section, it would logically apply to merely "questionable" sources too, as long as we were confident that the author really said what's being attributed to him. Bias wouldn't be a reason for excluding an opinion on sourcing grounds. I'll remind you that biased sources are by guidelines: "'''However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.'''" As for Toto, of course a newspaper article covering the reception isn't going to republish an entire review. But the fact that his reviews (including this one) are covered and quoted in media sources we all deem reliable shows that reliable sources consider his views worth covering, and they certainly accept that Breitbart accurately represents what he says. I'll add that I'm already in the process of soliciting fresh opinions on these issues. ] (]) 17:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::] does not appear notable and that is generally a requirement for using a SPS - the author has previously established him/her self as a relevant subject matter expert/influential opinionista/etc. and so their views may be appropriate to include whether or not they have gone through third party oversight. -- ] 18:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No, notability simply means someone has (or merits) his own article, and isn't the same thing as expertise. The MOS when they state, "''Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons '''or''' experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.''" "Notable persons" and "experts" are listed as two distinct categories, and I know of no policy limiting the expert exception to those who have their own Misplaced Pages articles. Of course Toto is a professional film critic anyway, so the point should be considered moot, and I'll note that none of those quoted in the primary critical response section are notable in the sense of having their own Misplaced Pages articles, though Toto should and likely will have an article at some point.] (]) 19:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::How exactly do you propose to establish any claim of Toto's "expertise"? -- ] 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Refer to my op. If being regularly published in a newspaper with national reach, belonging to a professional media organization with a televised awards show, and having one's reviews cited alongside other prominent critics in other media outlets doesn't establish expertise as a film critic, I'm not sure what you feel would. Of course I don't think the expert exception is even necessary in this case. ] (]) 20:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: If you want to know what I think about the other sources, then open up a reliable source noticeboard topic and I'll tell you. Also, logically, if the expert portion of self published did apply to WP:QS then it would be listed in WP:QS. Misplaced Pages has no problem repeating similar rules/procedures in multiple sections and is redundant on many occasions, so if that material was not included in WP:QS, then there was a reason behind it. I gave a logical explanation of what that reason is, and it wasn't about personal bias, it was about editorial bias which can manipulate and change the true intentions of the writer. Furthermore, the New Orleans newspaper article you gave was a work created by the author of the article, it wasn't a work of Toto's, so it doesn't meet that requirement anyway. Just because Ken Ham was quoted in a scientific journal, doesn't mean Ken Ham has "works published" in a scientific journal and now he can be quoted along side scientists that have actually had their work published by reliable third party sources. Your argument derived from that reviews quoting of Toto is also not sufficient to merit inclusion. Newspapers quote people all the time, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, that doesn't mean those random people now get to have all of their thoughts on any range of subjects included on WP.] (]) 16:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Toto has had many articles published in the Washington Times and other outfits. I just cited the frequent Rotten Tomatoes citations and the newspaper coverage of this particular review to show that mainstream media deemed it worthy of such coverage, alongside other prominent critics. Such coverage isn't "required", but it underscores the lack of reasons for us to exclude his review on alleged sourcing grounds. On the expert exception rule I explained why your "bias" argument falls short (and unless the author has a gun to his head he endorses his own words, regardless of where they're published). I asking whether the expert exception applies only to self published sources or also to merely questionable ones on the , where some of the editors most experienced with examining and shaping the policy post regularly, and so far every respondent to address the issue agrees that it applies to questionable sources generally, as long we're confident the source accurately relays what the author wrote. Of course your earthquake analogy is invalid. We aren't quoting Toto's opinion on sunspots or calculus, but as a film reviewer, just like the paper did. I'm not sure why you won't answer the question about the other sources here on this talk page, especially since you personally added at least a couple of them to the article. It would be silly and inefficient for us to switch to a different page for me to ask you these questions. ] (]) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::: No, you didn't explain why my "bias" argument fails and you didn't even exhibit a comprehension of it. It has nothing to do with the WP policy you listed, as I'm well aware that bias is acceptable so long as it's attributed to the source. That policy doesn't address what I explained, that a source's bias could compromise the actual work/opinions of an expert. So a questionable source like Breitbart.com has a clearly biased narrative and authors who are published in the source have to tailor their content to fit the biased narrative of the source. It's possible that even in the editorial process that editors can change and compromise what the author actually wrote to fit the bias of the source. That's just another possible reason why the expert exception doesn't apply to WP:QS.] (]) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I'll note that you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider the other sources in the section questionable. I understood your argument just fine, but perhaps you didn't understand my post. You're conflating two different concepts: bias in the column and accuracy in relaying what the author said. I agree the latter is vital, but that's obviously not an issue here. There's no evidence Breitbart is lying about Toto writing what it attributes to him. Bias isn't an issue either. Biased content can exist for countless reasons, including in an expert's self published work. As long as he isn't being coerced into writing something for a source against his will, he's responsible for his words, whether he's skewing his work for money, politics, or some other motive. That the expert exception to self published works exists at all shows such potential bias isn't the concern of verifiability policy. An expert's reputation would be on the line even in self/questionable published works, and we're to cover such opinions regardless of whether we personally agree with them or not. Of course I dispute your claim that Breitbart is "questionable" to begin with, and the fact that other media outlets treat Breitbart as a reliable source for Toto's words should put any concerns you have on that score to rest.] (]) 20:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::: I'll note that you still haven't informed me of a relevant noticeboard topic about the sources you inquire. I'm not conflating anything, the policy you referenced has no relevance to the possible reason I gave why the expert exception doesn't appear in WP:QS. So you're mentioning it had no relevance to what I was saying and didn't refute what I said. All you've offered to counter my example are baseless assertions like "I agree the latter is vital, but that's obviously not an issue here." This is not obvious and this is exactly the problem I'm referring to, that the conservative and biased nature of the questionable source can compromise the author's work. Regardless, the fact remains that it's not a part of WP:QS.] (]) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::It's unfortunate that you've refused to answer the question on the record about whether you think the section's other highly opinionated (and biased) sources are "questionable" (including the ones you personally added), given how vital consistency is to ], and you never did explain why a noticeboard would be necessary for you to offer your opinion since we're already discussing the issue here, but I appreciate you taking the time to offer your opinions on the topics where you did feel like doing so. Of course you conflated the issues I say you did; your own previous post said it's possible "that editors can change and compromise what the author actually wrote to fit the bias of the source", which is what I referenced in my last reply and which we have no reason to believe happened with Breitbart and Toto here. As for publisher bias causing a writer to alter his own expressed judgment, you've presented no evidence of that either, and certainly no reason to assume that's more likely in Breitbart's case than with the biased Huffington Post, The Onion site, Reuters (a long history of documented bias with occasions of journalistic fraud, including doctoring photos to make it appear Israel was carpet bombing Lebanon when it wasn't), or the very liberal and entirely opinionated rogerebert.com. For that matter such bias could conceivably be introduced through sheer peer pressure and affect even self published sources. Bias is too complex an issue to regulate, which is likely why policy doesn't prohibit sources for "bias", but explicitly allows their use. That Toto is a conservative makes it highly unlikely that any such pressure from Breitbart would be needed for him to review a conservative film from a non-leftist perspective. You seem to be arguing that conservative sources are inherently unacceptable, while liberal ones are fine (your silence and use of them effectively imply they're fine), which is a blatant, classic violation of ].] (]) 19:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::: No, I follow WP guidelines and policies and argue that questionable sources are not reliable. Regardless of how hard you try, questionable sources can't be used unless as a source about themselves.] (]) 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::No, an attributed opinion is material about itself, and you've only applied your opinion of questionable source policy to one source you politically oppose, refusing to state your opinion about the section's other sources, including the ones you added.] (]) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::No, an attributed opinion is just an attributed opinion, it does not become a topic in and of itself. So you can't take opinions from questionable sources and plaster them all over the evolution wikipedia article and pretend that since they are direct quotes/opinions that they are material about themselves and can be included in an article on evolution. They could only be used on an article about the author of that opinion or an article about the published material. Those would be examples about "topics about itself."] (]) 08:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::No, policy says questionable sources are "'''usually''' limited to articles about themselves or their activities", not "only" as you assert. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether a quoted opinion is material about the opinion holder, but inclusion of opinions is properly governed by DUE and other aspects of ], not QS Verification policy, which is why quoted, subjective opinions from non-questionable sources aren't haphazardly plastered all over evolution or other articles either.] (]) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Reliable sources noticeboard unanimously states that Breitbart is RS in this case=== |
|
|
I . While only two editors posted replies, they both agreed that Breitbart is reliable for sourcing its own attributed film review, and importantly the section remained on the board for several days and no one posted to disagree. There likely weren't more respondents because the question seemed like an easy open and shut case that had already been answered. Hopefully this causes the editor arguing otherwise here to reconsider. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll add that I sought fresh input on questionable source policy from the . Everyone who addressed the issue agreed with me that QS doesn't prohibit sources simply for relying heavily on opinion when the section in question calls for attributed opinions, specifically regarding film reviews. , who has edited the Verifiability page regularly for years and has been involved in the discussions that shaped QS policy. Here's the most pertinent portion of our discussion: |
|
|
|
|
|
Me: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but if being "questionable" depends on context, it sounds like you're saying "QS" is ''not'' grounds for automatically rejecting Breitbart.com from ever being used as a source for a properly attributed quote from its own film review in the appropriate section of a movie article, especially if the author is a prominent and widely cited professional film critic (like Christian Toto), and that such inclusion decisions should be dictated by factors like DUEWEIGHT. Is that a fair takeaway?" VictorD7 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Blueboar (ellipses his): "No you essentially have it correct... we should never ''automatically'' reject '''any''' source. However, that does not mean we should ''automatically'' accept it either. Questionable sources are called "questionable" because they should be ''questioned''... but the ''answer'' to the question will be different, depending on the ''specifics''. The same source may be deemed reliable in one context, and completely unreliable in another context." Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Though it should be unnecessary in this case, I also asking if the expert exception rule applied only to self published sources or to other types of questionable sources, and most respondents thought it applied generally to questionable sources as long as editors are confident the source accurately relays what it attributes to the author. ] (]) 19:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Neither of the two who responded on the reliable sources noticeboard said that Breitbart.com is a reliable source. One cited the "Be Bold" part of editing, which you were and it was contested as a questionable source among other things. The other didn't say anything about breitbart.com's reliability and only commented on opinions not being "bad news sources" or "good news sources". The second place you listed as seeking a "fresh" input was a response from a single person which you decided to represent as "everyone". Furthermore, Shapiro is not established or recognized as an expert and his comment specifically dealt with the notion that the person in question was an expert. On top of that, Blueboars comment doesn't support your argument. Questionable sources can be used as reliable sources on articles or topics about themselves. This is clearly stated in the WP:QS policy and directly relates to what Blueboar is speaking to. Lastly, most respondents didn't think the expert exception applied to QS. Only the first person who responded couldn't find a reason to disagree, while most others disagreed and explained why. Darkfrog, myself, and Zero were all editors who responded directly to your question and didn't agree with extending the expert exception to quetionable sources. As a matter of fact, Zero said "In summary, it is only in the definitely self-published case that the word of an expert is reliable on its own merits. No change to the policy." This in no way, shape, or form supports you assertion. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and its use is limited to articles about itself, as WP:QS specifically states. Also WP:FORUMSHOPPING is greatly frowned upon on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 08:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::This section is about Toto and his film review, not "Shapiro", though extensive evidence establishing both as experts has been provided. Apparently you became confused about which topic we're discussing. Both noticeboard respondents endorsed its use, the first even suggesting I find a second "non-liberal" source to further balance an obviously skewed article, and the second explicitly (and independently) stating the same position on sourcing policy that I hold: "''Opinions properly sourced and cited as opinions are not related to "bad news source" or "good news source" - they stand on their own.''" Again, ''no one'' posted to disagree, which is telling. You were the one who repeatedly suggested putting Breitbart.com to the RS noticeboard, so I did. That you don't like the result isn't grounds for flatly dismissing it, and certainly falsely accusing me of "forum shopping" is unwarranted. Two editors are deadlocked and Misplaced Pages policy clearly favors inviting outside input, as did you. Misplaced Pages also frowns on false accusations of policy violations. I went to the Verifiability policy page due to your repeated invoking of Verifiability policy as an excuse to exclude the Breitbart review (hardly random or unrelated), and due to our fundamentally different policy interpretations. Your characterization of the responses is false. Blueboar's comments (and comments by others) there and elsewhere directly support my position. I just quoted a portion of them, but readers can click on the link and read the full exchange for themselves. Also, policy says that questionable sources are "''usually'' limited to articles about themselves or their activities", not completely "limited to articles about itself" as you claim. Blueboar went so far as to say "''"questionable" often depends on context''", and specifically cited the example of Charles Krauthammer as an acceptable pundit commentator on a topic. He clearly wasn't talking about an article on Krauthammer, so your characterization of his comments is not accurate in any way, shape, or form. Nor is your implication that I'm representing a "single person" as "everyone". The editor who responded directly to my own initial section explicitly about our QS policy disagreement on attributed opinions, Brian Josephson, completely agreed with me (no one disagreed) and started his own section suggesting a policy text change for clarity. Likewise, your description of the expert exception discussion is totally false. A Quest for Knowledge agreed with me. Darkfrog24 just said that stuff from a questionable source should be properly attributed, which is my position. TFD agreed with my position, stating that "''Self-published sources are a type of questionable source''", later saying that the established, peer reviewed physicist and Creationist John Hartnett could have his views published by Creationist websites (rather than peer reviewed articles) quoted via the expert exception, but that inclusion should be dictated by how "fringe" they are (DUE WEIGHT) rather than source verification policy, which is exactly my position. The only editor apart from you to hint at disagreement with my position was Zero, and even his objection was limited to a concern that the source accurately transmits the words of the author they're attributed to, which isn't a concern in this Breitbart/Toto case (I also wasn't suggesting a change to policy there, but rather a clarification; Zero never responded to my reply). Even in on questionable sources, three people seem to be disagreeing with you, and no one has posted to agree with you, which should at least give you pause and cause to reconsider your general interpretation of policy. ] (]) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The Alan Dershowitz quote and other material supporting D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution should be restored to maintain NPOV. == |
|
|
|
|
|
An entire paragraph to the "other responses" section focusing on D'Souza's prosecution. It elevated that topic into receiving more article coverage than any other scene in the movie, and wasn't just artistic film critique, but commentary on D'Souza personally. It was also mostly sourced to liberal Huffington Post opinion writers and was totally one sided, anti-D'Souza POV. To maintain section neutrality, I consisting of quotes from ] law professor ] and the Washington Times editorial staff supporting D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution, which is dismissed and ridiculed by the Huffington Post writers in the aforementioned initial paragraph. The balancing paragraph was deleted, but the original POV paragraph remains. |
|
|
|
|
|
The closest thing to a coherent rationale given for this was that the second paragraph doesn't directly mention this movie, but neither does one of the sentences in the original paragraph that covers D'Souza's legal proceedings (added by the same poster who removed the balancing paragraph). Furthermore, no policy has been provided mandating that every sentence has to directly mention this movie to be relevant to the topic. The state that "'''notable persons or experts connected to the ''topics'' covered by the film may also be cited'''" (emphasis mine). This would reasonably be considered especially true if said topic has already been elevated in page importance by the existing paragraph on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
There's no legitimate reason to exclude notable expert commentary on an issue already being given extensive (if one sided) coverage, and the current skew grossly violates ]. It's especially problematic since it covers the legal issues of a living person, calling ] treatment into play. Either the initial paragraph should be deleted or the balancing material should be restored. ] (]) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nope. The material you added didn't provide balance and you admit you included it under a completely different premise. If it actually provided balance then you wouldn't have to use MoS guidelines to merit its inclusion because it would already be directly relevant to the film as an alternative response. Your material isn't a response to the film, and therefore offers no balance to other interpretations or criticisms regarding the '''ending scene of the movie'''. I'm more than happy to include other interpretations or comments on the ending scene of the movie from reliable sources, but the sources you added didn't do that. Balance is about representing all sides of a topic and the topic in the paragraph I provided is the ending scene of the movie and the interpretations from political writers about that scene. One said it could be an apology for his criminal behavior, the other said it was a an attempt to excuse his extra marital affair and criminal behavior. The information you added do not address the topic of the ending scene of the movie and therefore have no relevance to that topic and don't provide the "balance" you claim they do.] (]) 22:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You just admitted that your partisan quotes use the film as a launching pad to expound speculatively on D'Souza ''personally'', beyond the scope of the movie. My material added balance by supporting rather than ridiculing and dismissing his claim of selective prosecution (not sure how the alleged infidelity thing got into your blogger's quote; he was separated from his wife at the time, btw, and I'm not sure he's ever blamed Obama for that), and would be allowable anyway from a guidelines standpoint as standalone commentary on a topic covered in the film (what I ''actually'' "admit(ted)", or more correctly have always maintained). If I had added the Dershowitz paragraph first, without your anti-D'Souza paragraph being there, one might have argued for removing it on undue emphasis/NPOV grounds, not relevance. There's nothing in policy or logic mandating that balancing material mention the film just because the initial paragraph tangentially mentions it before launching into broad personal attacks and a sentence on the legal issues that don't mention the film anyway. It's also unclear what balancing material you would have accepted according to your own rules you've set up anyway, since you apparently see all conservative opinion sites as "questionable", but are happy to quote what you admit in the above section are "partisan" writers' opinions from liberal opinion sites like the Huffington Post. ] (]) 05:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I admitted that the political writers are partisan, and even then, I'm pretty sure I was just adopting your language. Your paragraph has no relevance to the film, so it does not "balance" a paragraph that discusses a scene in the film. I've already explained what would be acceptable in terms of "balance", and that would be other interpretations of the ending scene or other criticism/commentary on other scenes of the movie. The main problem is your misinterpretation of the material I've added. You perceive it as a "anti-D'Souza paragraph" and think that justifies you adding a bunch of "pro-D'Souza" propaganda not relevant to the movie. This is a false equivalency. The paragraph is a criticism about a scene in the movie, it is not just random D'Souza bashing. It specifically speaks to his use of the scene, what it could possibly be a reference to, and their opinions on the scene and D'Souza's use of it. The political affiliations of the writers doesn't matter and suggesting every analysis of every scene of the film must have a liberal and conservative point of view is a false dichotomy.] (]) 18:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::We agree that your quotes start by mentioning the film and use that as a springboard from which to comment on D'Souza personally. My paragraph is relevant to the film because it directly comments on a topic which I've proved (with multiple sources, per your earlier request) the film covers. It's also relevant because of the quotes you added, just like your plea bargain sentence/source that doesn't mention the movie. You added that segment for "context" and "more information" (your words), and I added mine for the same reasons (in addition to balance). If anything my paragraph speaks more directly to the claims in the movie than your plea bargain sentence does. Also, I've interpreted your material correctly; of course it's an anti-D'Souza paragraph (roughly speaking), and certainly the (admitted) political biases of those quoted matter. Also, balance, in accordance with ], means covering all sides of an issue, not necessarily precise symmetry. The differing sides don't necessarily have to be diametrically opposed. Just because you add a paragraph with a certain angle doesn't mean other editors are bound and restricted in what they can add by the way in which you shaped the discussion. No one has suggested that "every analysis of every scene" must have both liberal and conservative points of view, but in an article about an explicitly political documentary both broad political perspectives should certainly be appropriately represented, and on this article they aren't. That said, half of the two quotes I added are from Alan Dershowitz, a famous liberal, hardly a conservative. His perspective on the topic you chose to write an entire paragraph about merits inclusion. ] (]) 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Can you please point out where you have "proved" your content is movie related? -- ] 19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::, with quotes in another section. To be precise, I said I had proved that the content covers a topic that the movie (and the proceeding paragraph for that matter) covers, namely D'Souza's prosecution and his characterization of it as politically selective.] (]) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::this? ''" the fact that even showing him in handcuffs, which your own quote references, proves the topic of his indictment was covered in the movie."'' -- i dont think you made the case at all. Say there is a movie about the explosion of Mt Etna. There are lots of scientific papers about the explosion of Mt Etna. We, however, cannot take those scientific papers about the actual explosion of Mt Etna in the article about the film portrayal of Mt Etna ] -- ] 18:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::The issue was whether the movie covered D'Souza's prosecution and his characterization that it was selective. You left out these: From , "'''D’Souza includes in the film a brief section on his legal troubles; in this, he clearly conveys his view that he was selectively prosecuted.'''" Here's another example from the : "'''To his credit, D'Souza does mention his own arrest for illegal political contributions ("I made a mistake and I am not above the law") but implies it was because of a previous film critical of Obama.'''" Even the currently used HuffPo Berkowitz quote directly references D'Souza's "'''suggestion that his own criminal conviction'''" is "'''the result of political targeting'''" in the film. Also, material providing appropriate "context" for other statements is allowed, which is why the currently existing paragraph in the article includes a sentence on D'Souza's plea bargain that doesn't mention the movie. SYNTH doesn't remotely apply here. While this isn't the same situation, even in your volcano example say that, "'''If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license.'''" ] (]) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::No, the issue is : "Are the sources discussing the subject of the article?". If they are not, we cannot use them. The subject of this article is a movie. If the sources are not discussing this movie, we cannot use them, ]. -- ] 19:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::No, as quoted in the op, the state that "''notable persons or experts connected to the '''topics covered by the film''' may also be cited''; that's "topics" plural, so it's clearly not limited to just the movie itself as a subject. I'll add that your link is to a non binding essay, and, if anything, COATRACK would apply to the existing paragraph that creates the undue emphasis on D'Souza's legal issues to begin with. ] (]) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::You kind of skipped over the context provided by the heading "Critical '''response'''" and in the previous sentences ''" Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects''' of the film'''. Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. "'' Non film critics responses to the film may be quoted ''if they are talking about the film,'' not just talking about the topic covered in the film. There is nothing in that section giving permission to ]. -- ] 20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::I disagree with you that any of this is ], and think that the meaning of "aspects" is informed by the subsequent segment on "topics covered by the film", but my only followup questions to you are these: Do you oppose the sentence currently in the article detailing D'Souza's plea bargain that doesn't mention the film? Do you consider the current paragraph focusing on his legal issues to be COATRACK or undue emphasis compared to the (non)coverage the section gives other individual topics covered by the film? ] (]) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::Not every scene in any movie is of the same value note importance and reception of coverage and analysis by third parties. We follow the sources in determining what sections may or may not be worthy of addressing. Authorial / autobiographical/ semi-autobiographical content within a work or presentation is a standard subject of third party analysis and it appears in this case that this scene and the autobiographical link has been deemed one of the sections most worthy of discussion and analysis and so it would be ] for us NOT to cover it more heavily than other sections of the film which have NOT received as much coverage and commentary. -- ] 01:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::Actually what you claim hasn't been established at all; in fact most reviews I've seen barely if it all mention the scene, focusing instead on the more salient themes of the movie. Regardless, we aren't talking about one scene getting more coverage than others here, but the topic of D'Souza's prosecution getting a whole (one sided) paragraph when other specific scenes ''get no coverage at all in the Critical response section'', every other quote commenting on the movie generally rather than specific topics. That's a blatant violation of ]. But at least we now seem to agree that his prosecution is a topic covered by the movie.] (]) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::You keep talking about his prosecution, but this article is about the film. We are covering the film and the analysis of the film. Period. ]. It is that simple. -- ] 20:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::Actually ] applies more to the existing paragraph: "''A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality has been written to make a point about a tangential subject....Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Misplaced Pages is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve '''through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject.''' In either case the article should be corrected. Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. '''Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed.'''''"] (]) 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::You have shown no evidence that there is anything coatrackish about discussing his appearance in the film and how it relates to real life. Such analysis of authorial insertion are part of the bread and butter of critical analysis. -- ] 05:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::I've shown quotes from the page and observed how the paragraph singling out his arrest, prosecution, and marital issues for a paragraph of commentary when no other scene is even mentioned in the section is a textbook case of using the movie (the nominal subject) as an excuse to post extensive, one sided, negative material about the filmmaker personally, which certainly comes a lot closer to the COATRACK definition you raised than the balancing paragraph does.] (]) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::::::And again you have shown nothing of the kind. Some scenes in films are more worthy of comment than others. "I'm melting! Oh, what a world!" "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!" "Stella!!!!". That commentary has focused on the standard analysis point of authorial insertion means nothing other than the authorial insertion has been found worth commenting upon as is usually the case. -- ] 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Wrong. That I've shown the quotes I said I have is undeniable. Regarding your point, the material has only been "found" worthy of the commentary posted by the couple of admittedly partisan bloggers who wrote said commentary, hardly a suitable Misplaced Pages standard.] (]) |
|
|
::::::: You've provided sources saying that the ending referenced his criminal conduct, not saying that it was actually a topic of the film. Furthermore, the quotes you added don't provide balance in an interpretation of the ending scene of the film, which is what the quotes I've included address. So your quotes don't merit inclusion in the article sense they don't expand on the movie and are not relevant to it. If my inclusion of the length of time to be served as dictated by the plea deal is such a big deal for you, I'm happy to remove it if you stop trying to insert irrelevant material yourself. No saying mine is irrelevant, but is a compromise I'm willing to make since you keep bringing it up as if it merits the inclusion of your material. It doesn't. ] (]) 08:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I'm not sure why you keep saying "criminal conduct" when I keep saying "prosecution". If you're trying to draw a distinction, I'll note that my balancing material uses the words "prosecution" and "selective prosecution", the exact same wording the sources use to describe what the movie covers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether an item covered by the movie that you deem warrants an entire paragraph of coverage here is a ''topic'' covered by the movie, though I see no basis for the distinction you're trying to make in guidelines nor your own editing. I'm not seeking the isolated removal of your plea bargain sentence, and removing it wouldn't be a compromise. I'm pointing out that you adding it in the first place is inconsistent with your assertion that every sentence and source must directly comment on the movie to warrant inclusion. I'd be fine with keeping it as long as the same rules applied to my material. ] (]) 17:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: I say criminal conduct because his conduct is criminal. Since he's already plead guilty, it's not longer "alleged" or simple a "prosecution" it's not a verified fact. I've already explained why I included that single sentence about the length of time he may serve as a result of his plea deal. It's NPOV information that expands on the criminal charges that my sources discuss. Your information is not NPOV on top of not being relevant to the film. However, in terms of being consistent, I have no problem removing, especially since you've been complaining about it nearly every round of posting.] (]) 16:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I asked because the topic covered in both the movie and my balancing paragraph was more his selective prosecution than his activity per se, though they're related and it would be fallacious Wikilawyering to pretend they're different topics, so I'm glad you weren't making a meaningful distinction. I disagree on NPOV. Apart from your remaining two quotes being extremely one sided POV, a neutrally worded hard news sentence can still be POV if it represents skewed coverage compared to the rest of the article. I never specifically opposed the plea bargain sentence's presence and therefore don't see this as "appeasement" (per your edit summary), but it does finally eliminate the inconsistency between its presence and your contention that only segments that directly mention the movie should be allowed (an argument I still disagree with). However, the remaining two sentences about a single item in the movie still represent extremely UNDUE emphasis. Every other quote in the Critical response section is broad and about the film generally. Singling out D'Souza's legal prosecution for special, detailed coverage, especially in completely one sided fashion, violates ].] (]) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::: No, quoting third party sources that discuss and analyze a scene in the movie is not a violation of NPOV, regardless of how much you don't like their analysis. Quoted material does not have to be neutral and is allowed to be biased, and this negative criticism of one of the scenes of the movie is aligned with the majority of reviews. Again, if you have other reliable sources that analyze the ending scene and offer a different perspective, then feel free to add them. However, if your attempting to add "balance" to the topic, the topic of this paragraph is the final scene of the movie, so your inclusion should address the final scene of the movie. Just posting Pro-D'Souza propaganda and conspiracy theories is not "balancing" the interpretation of the ending scene, it's irrelevant POV information.] (]) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::No, NPOV is also governed by the context of the rest of the page, and just because something is properly sourced and about the subject doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the article, no matter how much you like the material. For example, in an article about the sun it would be undue emphasis to spend half the page talking about its impact on skin no matter how well sourced such material is. In a section where all the other quotes are about the movie generally, not specific scenes, the article suddenly veers into a COATRACK paragraph that uses a brief mention of the film as an excuse to expound speculatively on D'Souza's legal and marital issues, attacking him personally. That's a clear and blatant ] violation. For the record, I'll add that nothing Dershowitz or the Washington Times said amounts to a "conspiracy theory", and just because the liberal Dershowitz thinks this was a case of selective prosecution doesn't make his assessment "Pro-D'Souza propaganda". ] (]) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::: No, NPOV is governed by a wide variety of things not simply the context of the rest of the page. If an entire article was biased propaganda, that doesn't mean more propaganda can be added because it fits "the context of the rest of the page." Clearly if a page is just starting to be written, then it wouldn't have an already set context and therefore NPOV would be based on principles completely separate from context of the article. Regarding the sun/skin example, it would be appropriate to add a paragraph or sub-section about the sun's affect on the skin and my addition was only a paragraph in length, not half the page, so it is keeping in standards commonly practiced on WP articles. The section the paragraph was added in is about alternative reception. These are political writers who criticized D'Souza's ending as an attempt to excuse himself of his criminal misconduct or use it as an awkward apology. It isn't half the page, it's like a 3-4 sentence paragraph that briefly addresses a common political conception about that specific scene in the movie. Again, if you have other criticisms or comments on the scene, feel free to add them. What you added before did not comment on the scene and didn't add a different perspective to the final scene of the movie. So it didn't "balance" anything and only served as a weak red herring argument propagating feeble cries of selective prosecution which have already been dismissed as baseless by the court. Also, WP:Coatrack doesn't pertain to this paragraph because they are directly addressing the topic of the movie and their commentary is about the ending scene of the movie. They don't mention D'Souza as a director of the movie then attack D'Souza about any number of subjects. They DO talk about D'Souza's particular use of this scene and the imagery of the scene which directly relates to the movie/article. Just because another editor showed you a new term, doesn't mean you get to erroneously throw it around everywhere. Your removed paragraph didn't discuss anything about the movie, not even on the surface, and was a clear example of COATRACK and POV. ] (]) 07:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::No, I never said NPOV is ''only'' governed by surrounding context, but that is a major factor, and one that your argument had ignored. The sun/skin example was an (actual) example of an extreme hypothetical to illustrate a principle that does apply here. Your paragraph singles out one brief scene for extensive, one sided, POV commentary when ''no other quote'' in the section singles out one scene. This isn't a new section either, but an already well established and arguably too long section. Just because some partisan bloggers vent their hostility toward D'Souza doesn't mean it belongs in this article, especially when it breaks the page's already established pattern, creating a major skew in focus. I've already been familiar with the term "COATRACK" for a long time, have cited it in past discussions, I've used it correctly, and I just explained to your friend (and you) what it actually means, using quotes from the link. Your paragraph is a COATRACK segment that nominally mentions the subject (the film) as an excuse to attack the filmmaker personally with an undue emphasis. COATRACK examples can and typically do discuss the article topic, but that doesn't justify them. Your description of "D'Souza's" contention of selective prosecution as being allegedly "feeble" underscores that my paragraph ''did'' balance yours. That the judge didn't toss the prosecution out is irrelevant; it's not a serious ''legal'' defense, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and that prominent legal experts like Dershowitz affirm D'Souza's claim is a fact that belongs in the article to balance the one sided POV picture you've painted via partisan bloggers of it being "feeble". Such commentary is allowed by MOS on topics covered by the movie, whether the movie itself is directly mentioned or not, as your own (since reluctantly deleted) plea bargain sentence that didn't mention the film showed. Or, perhaps it would be even better to simply delete the offending paragraph. ] (]) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::The analysis of autobiographical content into creative productions is a standard part of academic critiques of works - the analysis of the authorial self insertion into the climax is clearly an appropriate subject to discuss. -- ] 04:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::Not a full paragraph in a section dedicated to brief comments about the movie generally, and that otherwise doesn't mention any specific scenes. That's a classic ] violation.] (]) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::That is just pure bullshit. NPOV does NOT mean every sentence of the film has exactly the same amount of commentary. We cover it as the sources cover it and if the sources focus on a particular scene rather than a different scene that is where we go as well.-- ] 03:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::The sources cover lots of details from the movie, none of which are included in the Critical response section except for the paragraph quoting partisan bloggers attacking D'Souza personally. The only bullshit here is pretending that's not a gross ] violation.] (]) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::: I didn't say "only" and you're the one who "only" mentioned the context of the article when referencing NPOV, which was proven incorrect. None of my edits have ignored WP:NPOV. Your inclusion was an actual example of COATRACK, mine was not. You perceive the quotes I included to be merely attacks against D'Souza, and they're not. They are an interpretation of a scene in his movie and their opinions on that scene and its usage. Also, this is a new sub-section, I was here when it was created. It's far from well "established" and was created for the soul purpose of including non-critic reception, like those from political pundits, into the article. Provided they come from reliable sources and not questionable ones.] (]) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::You spent time arguing that NPOV is governed by various factors, and "not simply the context of the rest of the page", which I never disputed. However, your earlier argumentation disregarded said context, implying that what mattered was whether the sentences themselves are "neutral" (they aren't anyway). Nothing I said was proved incorrect. You posted a COATRACK of one sided, ''admittedly'' partisan opinion painting D'Souza in a negative light, and have deleted balancing material supporting his contention of selective prosecution with facts and expert legal opinion. Period. This is a clear cut and obvious ] violation. It's not even close.] (]) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::: It wasn't COATRACK, the comments address the movie and scene itself and their opinions of the scene, they don't springboard onto a bunch of irrelevant stuff not related to the film like your inclusion did. That's why your material was actually an example of COATRACK. Also, I didn't delete balancing material, an admin did and I respected his removal. On top of that, it wasn't even balancing material, it was Pro-D'Souza propaganda that had no relevance to the movie and didn't "balance" my information because it didn't even discuss the scene my material covered and didn't offer a different opinion about it.] (]) 08:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::::Addressing the article topic isn't a defense against COATRACK, as my quote explaining what COATRACK means to you proved. Furthermore, my paragraph didn't "springboard" to discuss anything other than the topic of D'Souza's selective prosecution, which the movie directly covered. The current paragraph you dropped ''did'' "springboard" from the movie to attack D'Souza personally, and comes a lot closer to any reasonable definition of "propaganda" than anything I posted, especially since it's been left unbalanced. You never did provide a guideline requirement that the movie itself (rather than topics covered) has to be mentioned by every sentence or source. Also, you've endorsed and are arguing for the "admin's" deletion, and it's disingenuous to describe an editor who happens to be an admin but is acting here simply in his capacity as an ''editor'' as an "admin", as if to attribute some unwarranted authority to the action. You have, of course, consistently personally deleted opinions in the article that you politically oppose. ] (]) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request to bring article under Discretionary sanctions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Request can be found here: |
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_American_Politics |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm asking myself if "this is over my paygrade" (?) -- "Battle on!" -- ] (]) 13:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request to have a chart of interviewed persons from the film == |
|
|
|
|
|
I request that a list of all the people interviewed in the movie be added to this article. It could have a short description of who they are and where they are "pro-admiration" or "pro-condemning" America. -Sorry this was the best spot I could find to add such a request since I my self dont know such facts of the film, but would like to know more about people who were interviewed. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Costco == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Costco section appears to have a blatant pro-D'Souza bias, consists mostly of a quote from D'Souza himself, contained a SYNTH violation which I have just removed, and has no rebuttal from Costco or the many commentators who have basically pointed at D'Souza's accusation and laughed. I've restored the NPOV tag. ] <small>(])</small> 21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Aside from the ] violation, and the misrepresentation of the source, and the source being a notoriously biased POV shop; it is still probably ok to mention the bru-ha-hah in the article if we address those issues, and i think is close. -- ] 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your version is much closer to reality. The only omission is the lack of seriousness with which D'Souza's charges were received outside the wingnut bubble. Here's a characteristic response, from another conservative no less: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/10/dinesh_d_souza_effective_crybaby.html. ] <small>(])</small> 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] "suspect" == |
|
:A denial from Costco was included in the original, and you were free to add more of a "rebuttal" at any time, including a quote. You added the tag weeks ago and never bothered to follow up with anything, either in the article or this talk page, until today when I deleted the essentially orphaned tag. The current version is unacceptable POV, as it starts by expressing Costco's version as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, and is poorly written to boot as it gets the sequence of events wrong with a confused semi-repetition of the "restock" segment. I'll tweak accordingly.] (]) 23:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
===New NPOV tag=== |
|
|
Would adding an explicit quote from Costco alleviate the neutrality concerns? ] (]) 00:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ] for this film was very positive. That should not be surprising to anyone who has read the Misplaced Pages ] article which clearly explains what Cinemascore does and what their score means. Cinemascore survey opening weekend audiences, a self selected group of people most likely to enjoy the film. It is not any kind of objective evaluation of the quality of the film, it is a poll to see if the film met audience '''expectations'''. If in doubt you can read the ] article again. If editors feel it is absolutely necessary they could briefly explain what Cinemascore means again here in this article to give readers some context. |
|
== RFC - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ] article also explains "The distributor of a film that opens in fewer screens can optionally contract with CinemaScore for a private survey, whose result would be disclosed only to the client." It is already known that Cinemascore does surveys that are not necessarily disclosed to the general public. |
|
{{rfc|media|pol|soc|rfcid=FEBD013}} |
|
|
|
Unfortunately it seem as if people have not read the ] article, and instead of exercising some editorial discretion they have given ] weight to a very uninformed comment from "Film School Rejects" who said the film is "not a film to be found in CinemaScore's listings on its own site, which is strange (and possibly suspect)." If you understand CinemaScore this is not "suspect" and should not come as any surprise. |
|
Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for ? The relevant discussion can be found in the . To summarize, there is agreement to add a positive film review to the otherwise negative , but there is disagreement on whether an attributed quote from a film review published by Breitbart.com should be excluded due to Verifiability sourcing policy. The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here.] (]) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no need for this encyclopaedia giving undue weight to a silly uninformed comment from Film School Rejects. Editors should be able to properly explain what CinemaScore means if necessary. There are plenty of ways to dump on this partisan polemic in other ways without resorting to a "suspect" source that does not seem to understand how CinemaScore works. This encyclopaedia would be better if it chose not to quote this misinformed comment from Film School Rejects. -- ] (]) 10:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
: I don't know if it was deliberate scaremongering or an unfortunate failure to understand how ] works, but I have gone ahead and removed misleading the scarequotes claim from Film School Rejects that the Cinemascore was in any way "suspect". Just because they don't understand how Cinemascore works does not mean that editors of this encyclopedia should repeat their mistake. If editors still think the Cinemascore grade needs better context and explanation but it is no surprise at all that the self selected opening weekend audience had a positive opinion of the film. We have plenty of reviews from critics to indicate what most everyone else thought of it. -- ] (]) 21:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
* '''Yes''' - Of course it's reliable for its own attributed opinion ("material about itself"). Even if Breitbart was a "questionable" source, which it's not, that wouldn't automatically prohibit us from covering its own, properly attributed opinion in a film review section explicitly created for covering such subjective opinions. Excluding it on QS grounds while the section currently includes quotes sourced by completely opinionated film blogs, including one (]) operated by the satirical site ], and multiple quotes from Huffington Post bloggers, is especially preposterous. Furthermore, Christian Toto is a well established film reviewer who wrote for the , is , and has had this particular review cited and . He's also of the ], which runs an annual televised awards show, and other professional organizations. He's currently employed as an editor/columnist/film reviewer at the news/opinion site Breitbart.com, and there's no question that his words published there are truly his own. ] is a news/opinion site currently .] (]) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: Cinemasore A+ grades are rare, that is a statement supported by reliable sources and there is references included to support it. There is no need to '''overqualify''' the fact by also adding that "The Wrap identified it as rare" which is like inserting "According to" in front of everything to foster doubt, so I have removed it too. Again CinemaScore grades are about marketing not quality, they indicate that audiences got what they were expecting, so it is ] to quibble over how rare it is to get an A+ grade. -- ] (]) 22:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
**even accepting your contortion that the review of the movie somehow "material about itself" , SPS can only be used about themselves IN ARTICLES ABOUT themselves. so if you think the review is reflective of brietbart.com, then the place would be ] .-- ] 00:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Toto's piece isn't a "SPS" (self published source), and no, even if it was, policy states they are "''usually''", not "only", "limited to articles about themselves or their activities". Here, given Toto's credentials, the self published exception for experts would apply anyway.] (]) 01:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*what is the benefit taking the loophole rather than following the recommended process?-- ] 03:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Whatever'''. We need a pretty compelling reason to employ a contemptible source like Breitbart, with its well-documented history of character assassination and contempt for truth and accuracy, and none has been offered beyond the repeated justification that we merely can. Even if we can employ a source, one must offer an affirmative reason to employ it and develop consensus for that reason. In this case, there are dozens upon dozens of film critics, many of them "frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes", all of them likely members of one Critics Association or another, but there is only one that VictorD7 has been arguing for weeks to include in the article, while offering no compelling reason we should single that critic out above the others who are not currently included. ] <small>(])</small> 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*The reason for inclusion would be that Toto is the most prominent professional film critic to positively review the film (Gamaliel was one of those who agreed to add a positive quote, btw, before finding an excuse to delete a proposed quote from a different positive reviewer named Offer, before Toto was proposed, on the grounds that Offer's site supposedly didn't look professional enough), but the issue here is whether Toto's review in Breitbart must be excluded on sourcing policy grounds. Many people find The Onion and Huffington Post "contemptible" for character assassination and disregard for truth and accuracy, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be excluded on QS grounds from merely having their writers' quoted, attributed opinions covered in a section dedicated to covering such opinions. For the record, there's no "character assassination" in the Toto quote, though there's plenty of it in the Huffington Post blogger quotes currently included in the section.] (]) 23:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Are we going to rehash the Offer bullshit now? I said from the beginning I was willing to include Offer if someone presented evidence that he was a notable film critic, but you spent days arguing about it without presenting a shred of it, and probably would still be arguing about it today if I hadn't walked away from the discussion. Where is your evidence that Toto is the right-wing Roger Ebert? Again you attempt to draw a false equivalence between a gutter site like Breitbart and the Huffington Post, which for all its flaws, is still a somewhat respected member of the mainstream press corps. And who are these people who find The Onion "contemptible for character assassination"? We should pelt them with rocks and run them out of town back to Shelbyville. ] <small>(])</small> 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*So much for your frivolous ad hominem claim that there's "only one" I've argued for weeks to include. As for the rest, readers can decide for themselves, though I'll reiterate that the question here is only whether Breitbart.com should be excluded as a source on Verifiability policy grounds, which is the argument currently being used to keep it off the page, not whether you personally like or agree with the site and/or Toto.] (]) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Pointing out the obvious evidence on this page is hardly a "frivolous ad hominem claim", but then satire of ''The Onion'' isn't "character assassination" either. Despite your attempts to distract the issue with a non sequitur about my opinion, it's been pointed out many, many, many times during discussions related to this article that it is the general reputation of Breitbart that we have been pointing out, and it is this reputation that is what is a key policy issue. ]: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for the opposite, and lamely attempting to draw a false equivalence with your own low opinion of the generally respected ''Huffington Post'', which, while hardly the ''New York Times'', has a reputation for fact-checking and general accuracy, is a member of the White House Press Corps, etc., doesn't change that fact. With Breitbart's general unreliability and unsuitability on Misplaced Pages having been well established amongst everyone except you, you have to provide us a compelling reason to include Breitbart as a source which both overrides that unsuitability and explains why we can't simply use one of the many other movie reviewers who are also widely published, who are also members of professional critics organizations, who are also frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes, and who do not work for a shit sewer disguised as a professional news organization. ] <small>(])</small> 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*I disagree with virtually everything you say, the notion that The Onion or rogerebert.com have a "reputation for fact checking" is laughable, and your personal opinion doesn't constitute evidence, but here I'll only point out that RS is ''always'' based on context, with evaluations on a case by case basis, and this is a high profile ''subjective film review'' in a section where such opinions are called for. Again, the question isn't whether you like the site, but whether the argument that sourcing policy ''automatically'' prohibits its use is valid. Perhaps your flippant "whatever" reply indicates that you know it isn't. ] (]) 16:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::* You don't seem to get the point, or perhaps you do and are furiously dodging it by repeatedly bringing up false equivalences. The point has never been whether or not I like the site, as much as you need to pretend that is my point, the point is the odious reputation of the site makes it unusable for our purposes, even for opinions. And even if we carved out an exception for film reviews (And why should we? What's next? Film reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos?) you've given us no reason to employ this film review above the many others available beyond the fact that you simply want to use it. ] <small>(])</small> 17:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::* Considering your defense of MMfA, I find your view of Breitbart difficult to square. You don't like the site, that much is clear, unfortunately that is not a valid argument. ] (]) 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::* Nor is it the argument that I'm actually making. You people are ridiculous. Walk away from the strawman. ] <small>(])</small> 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''' Breitbart is RS for nothing whatsoever insofar as WP is concerned. ]] 02:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' Opinions cited as opinion are not a problem. The claim that "''Breitbart is RS for nothing''" is odious here, and where the issue is a ''film review'' of all thins, it is ''worse'' than odious. Film reviews are, indeed, opinions and citable as long as there is a reasonably notable source publishing it. Cheers. ] (]) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::So, how can it be "worse than odious" to exclude a source which is not "a reasonably notable source publishing it"? ]] 14:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Breitbart is a reasonably notable source. It is used by the New York Times and other major RS sources, and is widely cited. That you find it not to be reasonably notable is interesting -- in such a case I urgently suggest you place it at AfD as nt notable. Cheers. ] (]) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Sure, why not?''' This would not be my go-to source for news and other facts. But to cite a review, why not? The political orientation of the source is publicly available (not that that really matters), and we would attribute it as its opinion anyway. --] (]) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Reliable''': This is a pretty straightforward application of ] and ]. The source may be used for its opinion with attribution. The did not suggest that we were endorsing any of Toto or Breitbart's views. The fact that Toto is on is evidence that his views are notable. And the fact that Breitbart has a conservative bias only reinforces the argument that the source should be included, as it represents a certain space in the sphere of movie criticism, one that is especially important when covering a conservative political documentary. Now, {{u|Gamaliel}} says we shouldn't single this critic out above the others who are not currently included. That may or may not be true but it's a ] issue, not a verifiability issue, and is beyond the scope of this discussion. --] (]) 19:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::<small>''Shameless plug:'' Now that I've contributed to this discussion, please consider contributing to ]. Related subject matter. --] (]) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''In this case yes''' I agree with with Dr. Fleischman in this instance. For any other subject- Brietbart.com is in no way a reliable source. ] (]) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' Any editor could write a review and post it on facebook and it would be a reliable source for what they said. The real issue is whether is notability. Have any news media mentioned it? Since Christian Toto is not a prominent film critic, it would be hard to justify its inclusion. You might find a source however that says something like, "the film was widely panned by critics, although a number of right-wing bloggers praised it." ] (]) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The person is a member of the "]" , giving reviews on WTOP, WBAL (Hearst radio), writing for the Washington Times, and commentary for the "Dennis Miller Show". Seems to be a professional film critic and not a random "right wing blogger" as most of the films are not actually political. He even got mentioned by ]. Colorado Parent. Film Slate Magazine. Etc. So -- not a "random right wing blogger" but apparently an actual film critic who belongs to professional associations of film critics. Cheers. ] (]) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Critics organizations are plentiful and do not confer any particular notability. See the talk archives, we've discussed that issue extensively. ] <small>(])</small> 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Toto spears to be a member of ''at least five professional organizations'', which places him a tad ahead of the "right wing blogger" meme. And got mentioned by William Safire in The New York Times, which is something I doubt has happened to you <g>. He is on RottenTomatoes list of "Tomatometer critics", and is credited with 665 reviews on that site. The reviews appear unrelated to whether the movie is political or not. ] (]) 01:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am a member of five professional organizations in my field. Can my blog be quoted on Misplaced Pages now? ] <small>(])</small> 01:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Articles for which you have been paid and which are published by reliable sources absolutely can be used. No prolem at all. The material at hand is not from the person's "blog" however, so that part of your comment is not actually germane here. ] (]) 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You seem to be saying that my professional memberships do not confer upon my writings any notability and they can't be used here unless they are published by an RS. That is exactly what I have been saying about Toto and Offer from the beginning. ] <small>(])</small> 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, Collect was not saying that, and this is getting petty and IDHT-ish. Let's move on please. --] (]) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There are 100s of members of these associations and no reason to choose this one except for a misguided desire to balance the overwhelmingly negative reviews with one good review, creating a false parity. ] (]) 01:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I believe you implied he was merely a "''right wing blogger''" and the fact is that a person ''earning his living'' in a profession, and a ''member'' of multiple professional organizations, is ''generally regarded'' as being a person in that profession. Clearly you think these organizations have ''zero'' requirements for membership, but that is hardly a valid reason for discounting multiple such professional organization memberships, and, apparently, some awards for work as a professional in such a field. ] (]) 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' Dislike of the site for their conservative views is not a valid argument for dismissing the site. Considering well known liberal sites like MMfA are regularly used, it is hard to argue that Breitbart can not. ] (]) 01:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:* Strawman. No one is making that argument. MMFA is not regularly used, and even if it was, that fact is completely irrelevant. ]. ] <small>(])</small> 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Considering your argument against, it is perfectly relevant. ] (]) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
There is no need for this encyclopaedia giving undue weight to a silly uninformed comment from Film School Rejects. Editors should be able to properly explain what CinemaScore means if necessary. There are plenty of ways to dump on this partisan polemic in other ways without resorting to a "suspect" source that does not seem to understand how CinemaScore works. This encyclopaedia would be better if it chose not to quote this misinformed comment from Film School Rejects. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
