Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 27 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the America: Imagine the World Without Her article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Documentary / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States History This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}} Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

References

• The Paranoid Style in Conservative Politics at U.S. News & World Report
• Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Will Have Some Conservatives Yearning For Michael Moore's at Forbes
• Dinesh D'Souza Is Winning at National Journal'
• D'Souza Nation, Part I, Part II, Part III at National Review (articles also mention a print article "Take Two: D’Souza films again"; not sure if this differs from these online pieces)
• Review: 6 tricks Dinesh D'Souza uses to obscure his bad arguments in 'America' at Metro
• Bill to require controversial documentary in schools gets a House sponsor at Tampa Bay Times
• Lawmaker to Push Bill Requiring Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Be Shown in Schools
• President Obama, Congress Invited to Free 'America' Movie Screening
• Lawmakers may require students to watch ‘controversial’ film to graduate
• Dinesh D'Souza: the man rewriting America's history
• '2016: Obama's America' Filmmakers Making Follow-Up Movie
• Florida lawmakers want to make Dinesh D’Souza movie mandatory viewing in schools
• Imagine the World Without America

References to consider using. I am thinking about how we could cover different sub-topics under "Political commentary" in a way that folds debates into the narrative, such as what different commentators have to say about the treatment of Zinn. This may mean the same source would be repeated across sub-topics, depending on what they cover. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose adding more political commentary, but for the record (in case anyone doesn't know), Nicole Hemmer is a professional conservative basher who thinks the notion of a liberal media was a myth invented by the right, and Tamny is a Libertarian with a perceived interest in relentlessly pushing a "a pox on both parties" theme, just so we're clear on where they're coming from politically. Both those columns are filled with straw man arguments and claims about the movie that simply aren't true, and they both dramatically understate what's going on at modern universities (Tamny in particular sounds totally out of touch), including how widespread Zinn's book is used as a textbook, not that D'Souza ever claimed Zinn was the only leftist historian, but rather one of the prominent ones meriting special focus. The movie isn't about praising Republicans, D'Souza explicitly rejects the "conspiracy theory" label in interviews, and nowhere does he say anything remotely approaching the "slavery wasn't that bad" characterization found in some liberal columns about the film (quite the opposite). If specifics from these pieces are added, as opposed to quotes describing the movie generally, then we'd probably need to add counterpoints on those topics from other sources, particularly if D'Souza is explicitly denying something (like the "conspiracy theory" angle). VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The notion of a liberal media was in fact a myth invented by the right. --NE2 03:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

<INSERT>No, that's your opinion, and not a well founded one. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Watch out, he's going to argue about this with you for the next six months. Gamaliel (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point you're just trolling. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who Nicole Hemmer is, but US News and World Report is a reliable source by Wikpedia standards and I don't see why we should exclude it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

<INSERT>Since this was a reply to me, I'll point out that I didn't say we should exclude it or say anything about RS standards. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I listed that and Forbes as major publications. We need to be careful about involving our personal perspectives. We need to focus on commentary as it relates to the film. Any further, what we can do is provide the necessary links so readers can read about certain political topics in a wider scope. For example, we do not link to A People's History of the United States, though it is mentioned. There are a lot of good links in the "Synopsis" section, but they may be worth repeating in the "Political commentary" section in the context of independent scrutiny (in the sense of being apart from the filmmakers) from various political stances. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I was clarifying those authors' political perspectives, which is relevant for us to do on a Talk Page. I believe you were the one who went so far as to suggest that we add labels like "conservative" and "liberal" to commentators in the article. I'm not sure going that far is necessary, though I wouldn't oppose it either. Explicitly stated or not, I do think editors should have a handle on commentators' ideologies.VictorD7 (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue under discussion here. It's a BLP violation in itself for you to compare Breitbart to others whom you denigrate. Moreover as I stated above, such comparisons are entirely irrelevant to the current issue. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you posted in the wrong section. No one but you mentioned "Breitbart" here, and my comments were on point. It's also hard to tell if you're serious, but, for the record, it is certainly not a "BLP violation in itself" to compare sources with each other in talk page discussions on policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Shapiro quote

Regarding this, I am fine with including it per WP:BIASED ("Common sources of bias include political... beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context") and WP:SUBSTANTIATE ("Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution"). Per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, we can state the nature of Breitbart.com (as well as the other politically slanted sources) when using them in this article. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Commenting further, I've seen two instances where the Shapiro quote was removed via dubious rationale. One revert cited WP:QS & WP:SPS and the other cited WP:BLP. None of these guidelines applies. Breitbart is certainly not SPS, so that does not apply. It might be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT source, but it not being used for factual assertions so QS does not apply. Finally, Shapiro does not refer to any particular people so I cannot see how BLP would apply. (Consider an extension of the BLP argument – the film reviewer summary webpages actually refer to particular reviewers, but these sources don't violate BLP.) Whether editors like or dislike Breitbart should not impact editing decisions. The Shapiro comment is WP:NOTEWORTHY and proper for inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? I'm surprised you've chosen to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors here. We have a quote from an extremely poor source with a negative reputation in the required areas or reliablity and factchecking, written by a known fabulist (google "Friends of Hamas" for Shaprio's "reliability" regarding the individuals he opines about, I won't repeat his libel here) who is casting aspersions on the motives of individuals cited in the article. Any one of those things should make a conscientious editor think twice about including this material at all, much less edit war to include the material without consensus or discussion in violation of WP:BRD. Gamaliel (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, you should read SPS because it applies to both self published sources and questionable sources. So it does apply because Breitbart.com is a questionable by multiple metrics defined by WP:QS. Furthermore, nothing in WP:QS or WP:Aboutself limits the policies to statements of "fact". They apply to all claims made by questionable sources and that includes opinions. The very nature of the word "contentious" is something that isn't verifiable as fact, and is therefore arguable/argumentative. So his opinions are his argumentative viewpoints about critics who disliked the movie and are therefore not allowed by WP:QS. Furthermore, WP:QS specifically addresses how questionable sources are heavily reliant on personal opinions, meaning that the limits on QS applies to opinions as well. WP:Abouself specifically says "it does not involve claims about third parties". This is not restricted to facts but to all "claims" which includes opinions. Is Shapiro making claims about third parties? Yes. Therefore it's a violation of WP policy to include it.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Off topic - For the record, Erik, the balancing material on the bio/legal issue is neither "SYNTH" nor "OR", as it consists of direct source quotation, any more than the background legal sentence in the old version of the previous paragraph was, which was sourced to an article that didn't mention the film, or than the current background legal clause/link is. It's irresponsible for this article to omit any mention of D'Souza's claim having serious support, which it does, if we're going to have some hack partisan blogger say it doesn't. If you're trying to make a distinction between Dershowitz and the WT commenting on the actual case while the HP bloggers are merely commenting on the film not supporting the claim, that's a fine, convoluted tightrope to walk considering the HP quotes used don't make that clear. If balancing material is banned here, at the very least it would be wise to add a clarifying paraphrase along the lines of "...embarrassing and without support" in the film. after the closing quote, lest readers be misled. VictorD7 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have NOT cast aspersions on the motives of any editors. My commentary has been towards the rationale given. Gamaliel, given that you said (above) "We need a pretty compelling reason to employ a contemptible source like Breitbart...." I think IDONTLIKEIT applies, but I AGF as to your motives. As for edit warring, please note that two editors commented here on the edit and you did your reverts without discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dismissing the policy-based reasons offered for not including the material as IDONTLIKEIT is not compatible with AGF. How many times do we have to identify the policy based reasons we object to inclusion before you people actually accept that policy based reasons are being offered? You don't have to agree with them, but to pretend they haven't been offered again and again and again is preposterous. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

At Erik, WP:Biased strictly applies to reliable sources. "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." It does not apply to questionable sources. Questionable and self published sources have their own stringent guidelines that have to be met. Those sources can be biased, but they can not include claims about third parties. So WP:biased does not override or bypass the guidelines in place regarding questionable source or SPS. WP:biased goes on to say "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." This, again, proves that sources still have to meet WP requirements for being a reliable source. If the source is not reliable, then it can not be included under an argument of WP:biased.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Try reading the RfC from not long ago - where the consensus was that Breitbart is absolutely RS for opinions cited as opinions here.

Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Which rather seems to end the arguments ad nauseam. Once a WP:CONSENSUS is found, it takes a bit of chutzpah to reargue the exact same issue. (proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This dispute is not about the same question. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)source for opinions expressed by its writers?

It is precisely the same question: Is Breitbart a Reliable Source for opinions cited as opinions? I would trust you concur that film reviews are, indeed, opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The issues are a bit different than those brought up in the RFC. Mainly the RFC did not address BLP concerns. In the recent Shapiro edits and reverts the argument is made that because Shapiro is talking about unnamed critics, BLP should apply. But does Shapiro talk about any individual or about any individual's politics? Well, since we do not have individuals named, the most pertinent policy is at WP:BLPGROUP. But what is the "group" of persons we seek to protect? In this case it is those critics that Shapiro sees as liberals. But are they a "group" in the BLPGROUP sense? I don't think so – they have not identified themselves as the "Association of Film Critics who Don't Like America" Indeed, they don't even qualify as a Neighborhood Watch. They are simply an assortment of critics that Shapiro describes as liberal. And we do not know if they identify themselves as a group. Bottom line – the BLP argument is not applicable. If it were, then any critic who said "The filmmaker(s) has/have created a dud/masterpiece." would not be acceptable because of BLP concerns. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I actually like Breitbart, but it is currently considered in general a questionable source by WP. That said, it can be a source for itself reliably. The RfC doesn't really apply in this new case, because the RfC was as to if Breitbart can be a reliable sources as to its own commentary on the film (through the Christian Toto review), this is a straightforward application without any BLP issues involved that a questionable source can be a source for its own views about itself. If there is no BLP issue, then Breitbart can be trusted to reliably report its own opinion. The question then becomes with this more recent quote by Shapiro, is there a BLP issue? Had he said "reviewer X cant separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones" then I would say there is. In this case though he does not single out any individual critic, and instead refers to movie critics in general. I don't think this qualified for BLP under WP:BLPGROUP. The question is the group he is talking about so small that "it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." In this case "movie critics" in general is a broad enough term that I don't think WP:BLPGROUP applies. And while consensus cannot override policy, that doesn't mean it can't decide where the dividing line is in close cases. So if consensus is that the group is too large for WP:BLPGROUP to apply, then it should be added back in. Obsidi (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When you present four critics by name then shortly after that you present a quote directly attacking unnamed movie critics, the reader is going to interpret that as Shapiro attacking Martin Tsai, et al. So BLP issues definitely come into play here, and as a result we have a responsibility to consider the reliability of the criticism and criticism's source. Do we want to use Misplaced Pages's voice to present an attack from a publication known for fabrications and vicious attacks (e.g Shirley Sherrod) written by a known fabulist and character assassin (e.g. "Friends of Hamas") and present that attack as directed at four named living individuals? Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge that it is a debatable question (I think the core question) would a reasonable reader come to the conclusion from reading the article as a whole that Shapiro was talking about the movie critics named on this page, or movie critics in general. I come down on the other side of that question. --Obsidi (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here you admit that Breitbart is a questionable source. Yes, a questionable source can be reliable for it's own opinions, but the second part of the policies surrounding questionable sources is that they should only be used on articles or topics about themselves. If a writer for Breitbart decided to review a scientific research paper about global climate change, that doesn't mean we get to include quotes from Breitbart.com expressing a dissenting opinion, even if it's directly attributed to BB. It's because the article "global climate change" is not about breitbart.com and it is considered a questionable source which is not suitable or reliable enough to include for opinions on other subjects. Furthermore, both WP:QS and WP:Aboutself say that questionable sources can not be used to make contentious claims about others/third parties. Is Shapiro making claims about others? Yes. Is Breitbart.com a questionable source? Yes. Then it is WP policy that the quote can not be included and as you said "consensus cannot override policy." This is really very simple.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is he "making claims about others"? The answer to that question must be based on WP:BLPGROUP, and as that policy says "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis." So its not so open as shut as you are trying to make it out to be. --Obsidi (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:QS and WP:Aboutself are not restricted by BLP guidelines. They specifically speak to claims about third parties and those parties can be dead or living. Furthermore, BLP guidelines apply to reliable sources that make claims about others. This is from the lead of BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a **reliable**, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."(emphasis mine). The WP:BLPGROUP you reference only applies to a reliable source that makes those claims, they do not apply to questionable sources, poorly sourced sources, tabloids, or self published sources as is explained throughout the entire article. So if a source is considered questionable, it is automatically disqualified from the same protections that WP:BLP gives reliable sources with the exception of sources that are written by the subject because then they act as a primary source. As BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." However, I didn't need to read WP:BLP to know that because it's already specifically outlined in WP:QS and WP:Aboutself which both take precedence since they are part of one of the 3 pillars of WP policy. So, "Yes", it's as open and shut as I make it, even more so. Trying to find some loophole on BLP wouldn't override WP:verifiable or WP:reliability guidelines which specifically state that questionable sources can not make claims about third parties. BLP guidelines offer additional clarification for sources that already meet WP reliable/verifiable standards. They do not give extra permissions to questionable sources or unreliable sources not covered by WP:verifiable or WP:reliable.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So who is this "third party" that you say the Shapiro quote is about? You can make the argument that because of how we have put other quotes near by that a reader might think he was talking about them specifically (that's a reasonable argument, one I disagree with, but reasonable). But if it is not them, then who? --Obsidi (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The third parties or "others" would be the critics that he's directly commenting on. It doesn't have to be a specific third party, hence why the policies don't say "a specific person". It would be the same as if he was commenting on "Jews" or "Blacks", when a QS makes contentious claims about third parties they can not be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you direct us to the policy which says that criticism about large groups of unnamed people needs the sourcing you aver, noting that the claim is opinion cited as opinion, that the source was found to be RS at WP:RS/N and that other material from the same source were found by consensus at a very recent RfC above to be usable in this article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC only found Breitbart to be reliable as a source for its own opinions. This doesn't stop it from being a questionable source as defined by WP:QS. Yes, WP:QS states that such sources can be used as reliable sources for their own content but should only be used on articles/topics about themselves. This is because they can act as "primary" sources for their own content and those primary sources are only applicable on articles about that source/person. For example, on the Shapiro page I can use a Breitbart.com article written by Shapiro to quote something Shapiro as said. Also, both WP:QS and WP:Aboutself both explain that questionable sources can not be used to make claims about third parties and a group of unnamed people is still a third party. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a problem for keeping it in the article currently, this quote was added on 5 November 2014, the next day Gamaliel reverted do to WP:UNDUE (this could be valid claim of BRD at this point), VictorD7 reverted complaining about 1 sided reverts for undue, Gamaliel reverted linking to a video of monkey sounds, really somewhat unbecoming of an administrator, which is why I think Gamaliel self-reverted 2 hours later. That was this diff and so it sat for a month until December 3rd when Scoobydunk removed it again and we got the current edit war. That month in-between established consensus for inclusion, and so now it cannot be removed without consensus or a valid policy reason. If there is consensus that BLP issue is not valid, it should be put back in as soon as protection is over (or sooner if the consensus is very clear through an edit request). Unless you can get consensus that it should be removed for non-BLP reasons. --Obsidi (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So because I was unwilling to prolong an edit war, the most stubborn edit warrior gets his edits in the article permanently? That's no consensus, that's providing an incentive for playground-style bullying. Multiple editors object to inclusion, so it should be discussed on talk until real consensus is achieved. That's how Misplaced Pages works, and the rules don't change because I linked to a monkey video. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you turn around after he added it back and discuss it on the talk page and get consensus for its removal? Because if so we can keep it off, but you didn't. You decided to walk away, which is fine if that's what you want to do. Someone else could have removed what he added. But we cant have a situation in which things are sitting live on the page for a long time and then removed long time down the road for lack of consensus. How is anyone to know what the current consensus is otherwise? Had someone else removed his addition, everyone would know that it wasn't the consensus. But as is the other editors were left to believe you changed your mind, agreed with him that it should be included, that in isolation maybe it was undue but with the other stuff on the page balancing it out that it wasn't undue. Maybe that's not what you meant at all, but it is what the other editors on the page have to assume to be the case. Otherwise it encourages people to get into disagreements and if they think the consensus is currently against them just go silent until everyone else leaves and then come back and claim no consensus for adding it. I'm not saying that is what you did, I am saying that is the incentive that would be created if we interpreted the rules as you are suggesting. --Obsidi (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair interpretation of the potential pitfalls of that approach, but then I could justifiably point out that it provides an incentive for editors to be as obnoxious as possible to run off other editors, and whoever is left standing gets their edits in as the "consensus" version. This is exactly what has happened here. I wished to remove myself from the objectionable behavior of a certain party for a time instead of further escalating the situation. That other party's behavior should not be rewarded. I understand what you are saying at that we want to avoid editors gaming the system by dropping in and out at strategic intervals. But we also want people to be able to take wikibreaks when they need to. All of that, though, is secondary. The fact is that right now, multiple editors are objecting to certain material, and there has never been a consensus for that material to be included. At that point, regardless of how long the material has been in the article, talk page discussion should occur instead of edit warring to restore the material. Gamaliel (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

False. I'm not the one who has repeatedly resorted to trolling via giant pictures or links to youtube videos instead of replying with reasoned comments. You are. Regardless, despite you not being the only editor here, the material stood without revert for a month, so it's the consensus status quo. Removing it requires a consensus for doing so. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that your understanding of the RFC is incorrect. The RFC didn't address the content of the article from Breitbart.com, it only addressed whether it was "allowable" on this article. This doesn't mean there was consensus for "inclusion" as that was outside of the scope of the RFC. There are still a multitude of other WP policies that address whether or not a specific quote should be included and those weren't discussed under the RFC. For example, many secondary sources are allowable on any number of articles, but when the majority of sources are from scholarly journals or academic presses that undergo peer review, then those less reliable secondary sources no longer merit inclusion. Regardless, the RFC didn't give a free license for any and all material from breitbart.com to be included, it only determined that it was reliable for it's own quote and was allowable. However, WP policy clearly states that questionable sources are not allowed to make claims about others and the RFC consensus doesn't override policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There are many potential issues you might raise, but current consensus was to include the Shapiro quote because it didn't violate any policy, Consensus Can Change however, and if you would like to make the argument against including the Shapiro quote that is fine, can I ask that you place your arguments in a different section so we don't mix the QS/BLP potential issues that we have been talking about in this thread with any other potential problems you might object to. --Obsidi (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus to include the Shapiro quotes. The RFC dealt with a quote from Toto, not Shapiro. Furthermore, the closer as admitted that his closing consensus only pertained to the aspect that breitbart.com is a reliable source for it's own movie review, not that it automatically merited inclusion. I'm merely correcting your misunderstanding of the RFC. Since you and others keep asserting that it gave consensus for inclusion, when it didn't. The RFC covered what was allowable, not what should/shouldn't be included. So if you want to argue inclusion, I suggest you make another section relevant to those claims.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim the RfC gave consensus for the Shapiro quote (it did create consensus for the Christian Toto review). The 1 month of it sitting on the page without being reverted by anyone created the consensus via editing as per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. --Obsidi (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you claimed I removed a review after the RFC and I only remember recently removing the Shapiro quote. Since this discussion is taking place under the Shapiro quote section, that also lead me to believe you were referring to the Shapiro quote. Regarding the Toto quote, the month of it not being removed does not imply consensus since I've been actively seeking a closure review. So that's not consensus, I merely waited until the review was closed.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it is a significant opinion and therefore not worth including. TFD (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel: I am not dismissing the policies offered. I have considered them and presented analysis as to why they do or do not apply in this case. Regarding the placement of the Shapiro quote after the 4 named critics, that bit of unintentional and incidental synthesis can be resolved when the article is unlocked. We simply move the quote or clarify what was said. Next, there will be no permanent version of this article. Everyone can change it and consensus can change. The comment about Breibart being a "publication known for fabrications" is ad hominem because this allegation is used to attack Shapiro & his opinion. Fabrications have been seen in the NYT and just today Rolling Stone is in the news because of a possible fabrication it published recently. Besides, Shapiro is offered for the opinion he provides, not for any factual issue. Regarding BLPGROUP, my point is that the critics are not "a group". If they were, and if comments about them fell within BLP restrictions, then we could not use material about the critic aggregator webpages. Since Metacritic & Rotten Tomatoes are acceptable RS for the information they post about living persons (e.g., for the opinions they hold and publish) we cannot exclude Shapiro on BLP grounds. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, please review the meaning of "ad hominem." You are misusing the term. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarified. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You're dismissing the policies offered and you didn't present an analysis, you merely just asserted that Breitbart.com wasn't a questionable source and also said that WP:aboutself only applies to SPS, which is blatantly wrong. So you haven't substantiated your first assertion and have ignored a rebuttal informing you that ABOUTSELF applies to questionable source as well. So, at this point, you are effectively ignoring policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The QS issue was thoroughly hashed out in the RFC above. The RFC closure was discussed and there was no decision to reverse the RFC closure. While consensus can change, there is no reason to change the RFC result here. As far as QS is concerned, it it time to WP:MOVEON. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the same issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The QS aspect was **not** discussed thoroughly as I'm looking at how no one responded to or refuted my arguments regarding QS. The only person who actually responded with intent to refute one of my arguments was Documenterror and he said my response was "too long to digest," while it was only 100-200 words longer than his previous post. Clearly he refused to research pertinent WP policies regarding the situation. So, "No" the QS issue wasn't "hashed out" as most people who contributed their comments completely ignored this aspect of wp policy. The RFC itself was an attempt to bypass WP policies regarding questionable sources but consensus on an RFC can not override policy. Your referencing WP:Moveon is what should have been told to Victor the third, fourth, or fifth time he participated in a noticeboard/dispute resolution discussion about the use of breitbart.com and this is another example of you dismissing WP policy and only referencing it when it's convenient. So are you going to actually try and offer a rebuttal to the arguments made, or are you going to tell us more about how WP:AboutSelf doesn't apply to questionable sources?Scoobydunk (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. People didn't respond to your arguments because they were clearly not valid, and different policy applied. The RfC was for there to build consensus as to how the policies applied to this specific instance from the wider community as there was local disagreement not to override policy. Its time to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass as far as the RfC, you can argue that it doesn't apply in this situation, which I think is true. --Obsidi (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi, you are denigrating Scoobydunk and stating that you disagree but you are not responding to the policy issues Scoobydunk or Srich32977 have raised. It would be helpful if you could address these issues so that the issues can be resolved. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on the substantive issues of the potential policy problems of the Shapiro quote here. And I stand by that. I didn't disagree that it is currently considered a QS, but that doesn't mean that it can never be used (just limits its use especially as applied to third parties). In this case, I don't think there is a BLP problem however, and as such I am fine with using it (as long as it is properly attributed). I object to this sentence:"The RFC itself was an attempt to bypass WP policies regarding questionable sources but consensus on an RFC can not override policy." and his allegations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If he wants to make those in the currently still open review of the closure, that's fine (and I have explained THERE why I don't think they are valid). This is not the place to try to undo a closure of an RfC, and continuing to do so is disruptive. If he succeeds in getting the closure reversed at WP:AN then we can talk about what to do, but until that happens its time to WP:DROPTHESTICK about if RfC closure was valid or not here (bring those arguments to WP:AN). --Obsidi (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we be clearer about this matter? We are discussing whether or not to use Breitbart.com as a reference, correct? The RfC discussed whether or not to reference a film review published at Breitbart.com. The conclusion was that it can be used. Now here we are talking about a passage that is more general commentary. In this article, we are dealing with political opinions, so we are attributing every statement to the appropriate source. Per WP:YESPOV, we are not stating opinions as facts; the opinions all have specific attributions that Misplaced Pages reports and that the readers can take however they wish. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The current discussion relates to specific article content, not only to the website to which it's sourced. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion established that Breitbart was WP:RS for opinions cited as opinions. Thus the website issue is moot. On what actual grounds would you excise this opinion cited as opinion, and noting it refers to "film critics" in general, thus is not a WP:BLP issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous and you just admitted that people ignored the argument which means they ignored the policies. You admit that Breitbart.com is regarded as a questionable source, and WP:QS and WP:aboutself specifically limit where questionable sources can be used. They can not make contentious claims about others, period. This is also part of the reason that QS and self published sources aren't quoted when discussing "global warming", "physics", or "historicity" of historical figures, an aspect you and others seem keen on ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Every RS publication - Rolling Stone, The New York Times, etc. - has published stories which turn out to be false, but those publications still in general have the required reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It is a false equivalence to equate that situation with publications like Breitbart which have zero reputation for factchecking and accuracy and instead have the opposite reputation, one of falsification and character assassination. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed at WP:RS/N as well as in the RfC above, with the result that opinions are scarcely likely to be faked by their own authors. Here we deal with general opinions, correctly sourced and cited as such. Thus usable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. No doubt that Breitbart has made mistakes over it's 7 year existence so far. The biggest of which is the whole "Friends of Hamas" incident. They posted what a senate aid told them, and they posted it as such ("A senate said told us..."). They should have also gone to independently confirm everything they could (like the groups independent existence), but they didn't in that case. But the Rolling Stone is basically guilty of the exact same thing with this recent UVA rape story. Stupid not to do the ground work to confirm the story they were told was actually true (like that there was a party that night or that the "Drew" even exists). --Obsidi (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider Rolling Stone the gold standard, but at any rate it is not relevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Above you note that Breitbart is considered a questionable source. Obviously questionable sources like Breitbart should not be treated as the equivalent of generally reliable ones like Rolling Stone, The New York Times, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly, Breitbart has been found to be RS for opinions cited as opinions. Have you failed to note that? And specifically the RfC above found Breitbart to be usable for opinions cited as opinions. IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disheartening coming from an admin who has acted as an admin on this article (17:11 19 Aug), (19:47 26 Aug). Collect (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I hear it just fine. We can use it, I got it. However, that finding does not mandate that we must include those particular opinions in the article, nor does it eliminate all other considerations like BLP, notability, etc. As for the rest of it, since you didn't include diffs, I'm not going to dig through the edit history to figure out how whatever forgotten edits I made months ago are somehow relevant to this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave the times -- one is hard-pressed to give a "diff" on a revdel by an admin, or a move by an admin. They were specifically admin actions to be sure, but you definitely acted in that role. Collect (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The dates and times don't seem to match anything in the edit history I can find. On the 19th I deleted a personal attack in an edit summary in an edit with a different time stamp, and on the 26th I can't find anything I did to the article at all. I fail to see the relevance of any of this. Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Inasmuch as they are in your log, I daresay that they do not "show up in the edit history." Special:Log/Gamaliel is the place to look. In one you moved the article archive as an admin, in the other you "changed visibility of a revision on page America (2014 film): edit summary hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material) " which is also an admin action. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The latter was the action of the 19th I already mentioned in my comment, the action of the 26th was a page move of a talk page archive which obviously wouldn't appear in the edit history of the article where I was looking and a page move is not an admin action in any case. Still waiting for the relevance of this. Perhaps we should move this discussion to my talk page since it has nothing to do with the Shapiro quote. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's extremely inappropriate to use admin powers in a dispute in which you're a heated participant as an editor, especially in strictly one sided fashion. Were you the one who deleted my innocuous edit summary while ignoring the personal attacks coming from your side, and the trollish material in your own edit summaries? I had my suspicions, but charitably assumed you had at least talked another admin into doing it. VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times and Rolling Stone are not good examples for comparison. We reference the online-only sources Daily Kos and Salon for political opinions. How is Breitbart different from these to disqualify it for referencing? Is it strictly a BLP concern, since we already reference it for a film review? Erik (talk | contrib) 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Salon is an RS, not a questionable source. I don't think Daily Kos belongs here either, but if a questionable source like Breitbart is included, then the same relaxation of standards should apply to both sides of the debate. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Salon is a left wing opinion blog, even more questionable for most situations than a news/opinion site like Breitbart that employs professional reporters, editors, and critics, and RS depends on context. Here both sources are acceptable because we're merely covering attributed, quoted opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is no more "QS" than Salon, the Daily Kos, or the HuffPo bloggers personally attacking D'Souza on a sensitive legal topic are. The RFC is pertinent here in rejecting dunk's argument because it found Breitbart RS for its film review here on the basis of it being an attributed opinion. scoobydunk incorrectly stated above that no one had engaged him on his policy argument. I certainly did extensively, refuting it (he tellingly dodged the question about whether his reasoning would also apply to the section's other sources, gutting Misplaced Pages review/opinion sections in general, repeatedly insisting that his only focus was on trying to get Breitbart removed), and when he pushed the RFC closer on his talk page the editor replied, "The bottom line here is that it's my role as closer to assess community opinion. In this case, a clear majority of the community did not follow your interpretation of QS." It would be an extreme NPOV violation to allow political commentary from a hodgepodge of leftist sites but prohibit it from the internet's most prominent conservative one, this particular piece from a notable best selling author with his own Misplaced Pages page at that, and there is no compelling, rational basis for doing so. VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disallowing opinions from reliable sources, but BB is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it's not my "interpretation" of QS, the policy says it explicitly. Furthermore, for the closer's assertion is incorrect, because the "majority" didn't address QS and ignored it outright. Also, in the RFC you didn't refute QS policy, you only made a snide comment that I misinterpreted QS which is absurd because I quoted it directly and that' requires no interpretation.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC explicitly rejected your claim by finding Breitbart RS for its opinions here. If it's RS for a film review there's no logical reason for it to not be RS for an attributed political opinion in the political commentary section. We're covering opinions in this section; we aren't using the sources in question for facts in Misplaced Pages's voice. Also, there was nothing "snide" about my rejection of your QS argument in the RFC. At the top of the RFC I also linked to the discussion (archived in Nov.) where you and I extensively discussed your QS argument, and where its contradictions and other flaws were exposed. Clearly the policy can be interpreted in multiple ways, as can most policies, which is why most people disagree with you, here, on the RS noticeboard, and even on the Verifiability talk page itself, where the editor most familiar with that page's construction over the years indicated my position was correct, and said QS wasn't supposed to be about automatically disqualifying sources or excluding opinions (in the comments I quoted for you in the discussion here). The problem is that your interpretation, if applied consistently, would gut review sections across the board and prohibit us from covering opinions currently covered (some of them of extreme historical relevance) throughout countless articles. Your failure to answer my repeated questioning about your stance on the section's other sources is likely a major reason why your arguments have fallen flat. Now you're reduced to insisting the RFC closer was incorrect. The closer was correct, because your QS argument failed to persuade the community, and Breitbart was deemed RS here (at least) because we're attributing its quoted opinions in the appropriate section. VictorD7 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There weren't contradictions, you merely engaged in multiple logical fallacies in the forms of red herring arguments and false equivalencies. You just did it again literally 2 posts up. Furthermore, my arguments weren't addressed or refuted in the RFC, they were ignored. Also, your interpretation about what others have said have proven to be incorrect. You've misinterpreted me on multiple occasions and also misunderstood TFD when you admitted you were confused about his position. I debunked your findings from forumshopping multiple talk pages as well. I never said that being a QS made a source automatically disqualified. As a matter of fact, I explained multiple times how WP:QS allows a questionable source to be used a reliable source for its own content on articles/topics about itself. I also explained that it can be used in such a way because it would be acting as a primary source for its own opinions. However, as WP:QS and WP:Aboutself clearly state, these sources can not be used to make claims about third parties and should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. There is no interpretation there, that's explicit WP policy that's reinforced and upheld across multiple WP pages. Also, the closer admitted to ignoring policies relevant to the RFC and demonstrated a number of times that they didn't understand the scope of the RFC which included a question about it being allowable. But that's a completely different subject. The fact of the matter is, consensus can not override policy and the policy is very clear about how and where questionable sources can be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything you asserted about me and my commentary in your post above is false, and you haven't "debunked" anything I've ever said. Since you failed to provide any specifics, I'll leave it to honest third party observers to read our exchanges and judge for themselves. Even if one accepted your interpretation of sourcing policy, the RFC explicitly concluded Breitbart was RS here for its attributed opinions about others, meaning it's not QS. You've certainly done little to argue that it is questionable, other than repeatedly asserting it is, and claiming that hosting ads (as does every media outlet used) somehow gives it a conflict of interest (you only mentioned FNC ads, which have nothing to do with this movie). You ignored my posts explaining to you why that's not true. The only QS criteria we can agree on Breitbart meeting is the heavy reliance on opinion, but that sentence starts with "Such sources include..", and, as someone observed on the Verifiability talk page, doesn't necessarily mean all such sources are QS (inclusion isn't necessarily comprehensive). If they were, then most of the sources currently used in the section would be QS, especially those that rely heavily or entirely on personal opinion like Kos, Salon, The Atlantic, Media Matters, etc.. In fact Misplaced Pages film reception sections are typically filled with heavily opinionated sources, which is a hazard of covering opinions, and countless articles would have to be substantially altered to fit with your interpretation.

Regarding your QS interpretation, you also mischaracterized what policy actually says, despite being corrected repeatedly (in the past you literally misquoted it). It says "especially in articles about themselves", not "only". The word "topic" doesn't appear in either section you cite. It states that questionable sources can be used for "material on themselves". It's certainly not only possible but extremely reasonable to interpret an attributed quote capturing the source's own opinion as material on itself. In that case we aren't using the source to support facts in Misplaced Pages's voice, but rather we're directly covering a source's opinion as material in its own right (the "topic" here being political commentary). You say that the section doesn't explicitly mention quotes as an exception, but it doesn't state that it's referring to quotes either, nor does it clearly define "material on themselves". Context guides us. The page is Verifiability, the focus of which is making sure that the sources used can be trusted to support the material they're supporting. Content decisions, by contrast, are properly guided by factors elsewhere like NPOV and DUE. Note that quotations are mentioned in a couple of places in the Verifiability page's first few paragraphs (intro and first section), where they're lumped in with other "material" and the concern is making sure they're properly sourced, not whether the view contained within the quote is appropriate. You would have an easier time making a sourcing argument against Breitbart for quoting someone else, like a leftist (though I'd still disagree with you), than claiming that Breitbart isn't RS for its own opinion.

In a vacuum is there room for differing interpretations of QS and some other Misplaced Pages policies? Sure. That's true even with laws or rules written entirely by one person or a small group with a shared agenda, much less ones constructed gradually by many over time in Wiki fashion. But my interpretation is more reasonable because it better fits the context of the page's primary purpose, and consistently applying it wouldn't require us to substantially alter countless articles, including this one. By contrast, slavishly following the alternative interpretation as a perceived technicality would prevent us from covering noteworthy opinions in sections ranging from film reviews to political commentary to the views of historical figures. Selectively applying it would constitute a gross and unacceptable NPOV violation. More saliently, the community has already rejected your interpretation. VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My claims are not false and I've explained precisely how you've engaged in multiple red herring arguments by making false equivalencies. Furthermore, I don't interpret WP:QS, I quote it directly. In the RFC my position wasn't rejected, it was ignored, which are 2 completely different things. The Supreme Court ignores cases all the time, that doesn't mean it rejected a position or previous ruling in the case it ignored. Furthermore, I haven't "misquoted" WP:QS sine quoting is literally a matter of copying and pasting. WP:QS says "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". Is this movie/article about Shapiro or his article from Breitbart.com? NOPE. That's not a policy interpretation, that's literally what the policy says. Now, I have said "topics" because that would be synonymous with "material" but if you want to take the policy literally, then we can just limit the inclusion of questionable source to "articles about themselves," and then the inclusion of Shapior's quote would certainly not apply here. Everything you did above with discussion what "especially" meant and all that nonsense, is what actually qualifies as interpretation. WP:QS says they "SHOULD ONLY" be used as sources of material about themselves and this film/WP article about this film are not materials about Shapiro, Breitbart.com, or his article. The RFC didn't address this AT ALL and the "consensus" of the RFC can not bypass WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything you asserted about me here is false again. I even quoted where the closer (the SCOTUS opinion writer in your analogy) explicitly told you that the community had rejected your QS argument. In what universe would interpreting "especially in articles about themselves" "literally" (your word) mean only articles about themselves? Again, you and I literally disagree about what precisely "material on themselves" includes, so yes, interpretation is involved. Regarding the RFC, explicitly finding that Breitbart is reliable for its own film review here (that's contentious material about others) is logically a rejection of your argument (which was addressed by me and others), as the closer correctly concluded. You opposed the film review's inclusion based on the same flawed rationale you're using here, and there's no meaningful difference between the cases. As explained before, the interpretation of the community here is superior to yours because, unlike yours, a consistent application of ours wouldn't require most of this section's sources to be purged, wouldn't cause countless articles to be gutted, and wouldn't prohibit editors from covering historically important and other noteworthy opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, per WP:QS, are you considering Breitbart.com to be either "extremist" or "promotional"? Is it the political slant itself or something else? Erik (talk | contrib) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." I've argued that Breitbart.com is a questionable source for nearly all of those aspects. It has a poor reputation for fact checking and has an apparent conflict of interest. It can be considered promotional towards Fox news since it runs advertisements for Fox and uses multiple fox news polls in their articles. I do believe it is considered extremist and it relies HEAVILY on personal opinion. There are multiple aspects as to why it's considered a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing to treat the commentary as truth. We are attributing the statement so it is clear where it comes from, a conservative source. The same is done in the article with Daily Kos. We could add modifiers to all sources that mention a political slant in their respective Misplaced Pages articles. Being politically slanted is not grounds for excluding the opinion. Commentary is rarely objective, hence the need for attribution. Per WP:YESPOV, we're not trying to describe opinions as facts, we're reporting opinions. Per WP:DUE, for this political (not scientific or historical) topic, there is strong liberal and conservative bases, so including such commentary is warranted and should also be folded per WP:STRUCTURE. I'm looking for more commentary about the political slant of reviews as they apply to this film. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik, please: In this thread, are not discussing Daily Kos or anything other than the a particular bit of text sourced to Breitbart. Policy clearly does not provide a safe harbor for WP text to present derogation merely because it such derogation is called opinion. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If we are focusing strictly on this passage, a conservative commentator is saying that the mainstream film critics have a liberal slant in their reviews. Are we concerned about this because of BLP concerns, or undue weight, or both? Erik (talk | contrib) 16:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik, treating the commentary as "truth" has nothing to do with it. There is nothing in the QS policies that make a distinction between opinions or factual statements or statements made in WP voice. The policies regarding questionable source are clearly defined and they CAN NOT make claims, especially contentious claims, about third parties. That's it, end of argument. This is further reinforced on nearly every other policy that has been cited so far, that explicitly restrict the inclusion of questionable sources. WP:Biased only applies to reliable sources and you've yet to refute that. That's directly inline with what WP:QS and WP:AboutSelf say. WP:BLP also limits it's application to reliable sources and specifically says to remove material from sources that are not reliable, poorly sourced, or are quesitonable/self published. There is no inconsistency or ambiguity with how these policies are applied. They apply to opinions and statements from sources considered reliable, and they do not apply to sources that are questionable. Every time I quote how the policies explicitly state this, it gets ignored by editors trying to include opinions from questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, you stated above, " has a poor reputation for fact checking and has an apparent conflict of interest. It can be considered promotional towards Fox news since it runs advertisements for Fox and uses multiple fox news polls in their articles. I do believe it is considered extremist and it relies HEAVILY on personal opinion." We know that reliable sources can be biased, so a relationship to Fox does not matter, since this is unsurprisingly a conservative outlet. However, beyond having a conservative bias, why do you think it has a poor reputation for fact checking? I just used a Breitbart reference to provide some details in "Production". Is where it filmed questionable? How is the website more "extremist" than National Review? I'm not seeing a distinction between these conservative outlets. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be biased, but that is a completely different issue than a blatant conflict of interest which is outlined on WP:QS. So WP:Biased doesn't excuse or absolve things from being identified as having a conflict of interest. The "extremist" claim in WP:QS isn't up to editors discretion but up to other sources that consider the outlet to be extremist. So your inability to differentiate its extremism is irrelevant. If you want to open up a noticeboard discussion about BB being a questionable source, then feel free and I'll happily post everything relevant. However, it should be noted that this has been discussed multiple times before and Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source. You also seemed to overlook the part about it being heavily reliant on opinion pieces.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course RS is context specific, but I haven't seen any noticeboard discussion conclude that Breitbart "is not a reliable source". Certainly the recent round of such discussions have found it RS. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Except the RFC explicitly found Breitbart RS here, for its attributed opinions about others, so that's a settled issue. Your "QS" argument has been rejected for multiple reasons. Perhaps you should move on to challenging sources that haven't been approved as RS here via RFC, like the entirely opinionated Salon, Kos, Media Matters, etc.. I'd disagree with you there too if you applied the same type of QS argument, but at least it would advance the discussion from the dead horse. VictorD7 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the RFC found BB to be a reliable source for its own opinions. This didn't even need an RFC because WP:QS and WP:Aboutself already say that questionable sources should only be used as reliable sources in ARTICLES/TOPICS about themselves. This wasn't covered or addressed in the RFC nor in the RFC closing consensus statement. Yes, you can use a BB article to act as a reliable primary source for something that Shapiro said, but then it would only have relevance on an article about Shapiro or Breitbart.com. This does not allow it to be used on other articles that aren't about the source in question and those policies explicitly say that those sources can not make contentious claims about others. The RFC didn't address any of this and it wouldn't matter because an RFC consensus can't override the policies that strictly prohibit using a questionable source like BB.com from making contentious claims about others.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The RFC explicitly asked if Breitbart was RS for its own film review to be placed in this article, not an article about itself. The consensus was "yes", because Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed opinions, even if they're about others and arguably contentious, as film reviews inherently are. The RFC closer specifically responded to you to say that your QS argument had been rejected. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not wrong and the "consensus" and the closer can not override WP policies regarding questionable sources. You can not choose to simply ignore policies when it benefits your position. Just because you choose to ignore an applicable policy, doesn't mean that policy goes away. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and its usage is clearly limited by WP:QS. You and the closer have admitted to ignoring relevant policies and, unfortunately, that's not how consensus is determined.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've "admitted" no such thing (neither did the closer from what I've seen), and I've proved that assertion wrong with quotes and links. It's getting to the point where virtually every sentence you type is false, which is extremely disruptive. VictorD7 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You're the one typing the falsities and you have been doing it since before I entered this dispute resolution.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, and let honest observers decide. I'll add that between us I'm the one who actually posts evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Every news outlet runs ads (even blogs like Salon.com do). It would be absurd to single out one and claim it has a "conflict of interest" simply because it runs ads. The COI described in policy is contextual (as is QS in general, per long time Verifiability policy page editor BlueBoar), and has to do with a reporter covering a particular story where he or she has a personal financial and/or familial conflict of interest. Biased sources are explicitly allowed even for news coverage, and certainly for attributed opinion coverage. Even if Breitbart was QS, which it's not, that wouldn't prohibit us from merely covering its opinions where appropriate, as such opinions would constitute "information about" itself. VictorD7 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel says "numerous" editors are objecting to the Shapiro material. Who are they? Presumably Gamaliel – who considers Breitbart contemptible, and Scoopydunk – who (unsuccessfully) brought up the QS issue in the RFC and in the closure review. I'm not sure about Specifico – who makes comments about what the issue is or is not, but does not seem (in my reading) to discuss policy or guidelines. TFD simply says the piece is not noteworthy, but does not present policy or guideline rationale. On the other hand, we have VictorD7, Erik, Collect, Obsidi, and myself who favor (or who do not object to) adding this WP:NOTEWORTHY material. The arguments about BLP and UNDUE have been addressed. The argument about QS was brought up in the RFC and settled. So, it seems to me that the NOTVOTE tally comes up in favor of inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm counting myself, User:Scoobydunk, User:The Four Deuces, and User:SPECIFICO as against. Gamaliel (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see. The count is two definite against !votes, supported by two Mugwump#Origin_of_the_terms (no offense intended) !votes. Your !vote is weakened by IDONTLIKEIT. Scoobydunk's is weakened by the fact that the QS issue was resolved. My !vote is a ILIKEIT vote; however, at the same time, I have addressed the QS & BLP concerns. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, why cite 'not a vote' and then get into a discussion of vote counts?" Your ad hominem is particularly puzzling, in light of your earlier remarks above in this thread. There's clearly not consensus at this point. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the segment stood without revert for a month, consensus is required to remove it. If there's a lack of consensus the status quo reigns, and clearly there's no consensus for removing it. VictorD7 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You're still on this IDONTLIKEIT bullshit? No matter how many times policy is cited in objections? At this point you're just being a troll. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you said that you did not think Daily Kos should be included in the article either. You said if it is being used, then the same relaxed standard should be used for Breitbart as well. Both are basically stridently political outlets, but each outlet's politics are prevalent in the United States, and I think including their commentary meets the due-weight standard. At the same time, I've added commentary from other sources that either have print-publication roots or are nominally nonpartisan or both. So Daily Kos and Breitbart are increasingly just a part of the general field of commentary. If it is a question of the content, referring to film critics as politically biased, we could link to Media bias in the United States#Liberal bias to reflect the roots of Shapiro's particular commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we're elevating non-notable comments from fringe political outlets from both sides to significant commentary. There is plenty of commentary out there about the movie, from mainstream film critics and mainstream political commentators and news outlets, for our purposes, both apolitical and representing all relevant political viewpoints. We should not give undue weight to insignificant, extremely problematic commentary because a few editors with ideological agendas are willing to argue about it at length. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree about mainstream commentary, which is why I've referenced U.S. News & World Report, National Journal, and The Guardian in the article body. I plan to add Forbes soon. I don't think that means commentary from the political outlets should be excluded entirely, though. There is not a political consensus like there can be a scientific consensus or a historical consensus. We know per WP:BIASED, "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." Liberal and conservative viewpoints are both prevalent in the U.S. so it is not unreasonable to reference them, just that we should not detail them as much as the mainstream references. I think that meets the balancing-aspect of addressing NPOV concerns. To reference socialist or libertarian viewpoints would be more in the fringe territory, I think. I'll continue adding whatever other commentary I can find, but I think the more we add, the less prevalent the liberal/conservative commentaries will be in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not object to those sources because they are political, I object to them because they are insignificant fringe sources which are extremely problematic for us to use because of the numerous specific issues raised above. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What are the specific issues again? (Not trying to be pedantic, just trying to nail down the underlying arguments.) And are you applying WP:FRINGE here? Erik (talk | contrib) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro is literally "notable" in the Misplaced Pages sense, meaning he rates his own article, unlike almost everyone else quoted here. When a best selling author who's an editor of the internet's most prominent conservative news/opinion site writes an entire article about the reception to a movie, it's noteworthy, even without the recent expansion of the section. With the expansion, it would be criminal for us to exclude it. VictorD7 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Criminal" -- really? Please cite the statute. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an expression meaning extremely wrong or inappropriate. Obviously in this context it doesn't literally refer to criminal prosecution. VictorD7 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use words to refer to their clear English meanings and refrain from inflammatory characterizations of other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please learn to utilize context clues and refrain from wasting other editors' time. VictorD7 (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Referencing Breitbart.com

I'd like to start a new thread since we have quite a wall of text above. The disputed source is Breitbart.com, and there are currently four different uses of this source in the article: (1) Production details from filmmaker interview with Kevin Williams, (2) Film review by Christian Toto, (3) political commentary by Kate O'Hare, and (4) criticism of film reviews by editor Ben Shapiro. (This is among dozens of mostly mainstream sources, aside from National Review, Daily Kos, and a couple of others.) The first three are being referenced in the article body currently. #2 was discussed in an RFC, and the determination was that it could be used. While #4 has been debated, I am not sure if anyone takes issue with #3. Based on my inquiries above, Gamaliel says that Breitbart.com is a "fringe political outlet" (in addition to Daily Kos) and that we should avoid "undue weight to insignificant, extremely problematic commentary". Scoobydunk says Breitbart.com is a questionable source per WP:QS (there is also WP:QUESTIONABLE) and that the RFC in support of referencing the review does not mean that other references from Breitbart.com should be used.

However, I think that WP:BIASED should be taken into consideration: "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." This is backed by WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier." I feel like we have an abundant amount of secondary mainstream sources that the use of political sources will be relatively marginal and satisfy the due-weight standards that Gamaliel was concerned about. Across the board, we attribute all statements and link to the respective publications as well. In the matter of the source being questionable, WP:QUESTIONABLE says, "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Is Breitbart.com more extremist than National Review? U.S. conservatism is prevalent enough that conservative opinions about a work are warranted in a limited sense, per WP:DUE. It seems that WP:QS is best applied to broad topics -- counterarguments to evolution, vaccinations, etc. This topic of the film is very narrow in comparison.

To focus on #4, it appears that Ben Shapiro and his commentary has been scrutinized in mainstream media, and he has written articles for National Review as seen here. (I am assuming nobody has a problem with National Review since it is a circulated print publication.) I continue to add more content and more sources to the article, so it is hardly the same as it was when this dispute first started; even more now, it fits the balance of opinions -- mostly mainstream, with explicitly liberal and conservative ones in the margins. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition, this is being discussed at WP:RS/N#Breitbart again and WP:BLP/N#America: Imagine the World Without Her, for those interested. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, except for differentiating between "political" and "mainstream". Every source in the article has some kind of bias, and every opinion piece written about this movie has an identifiable political slant. The "extremist" thing is silly. Breitbart is well within the conservative mainstream, and indeed is the highest trafficked conservative news/opinion site. Gallup polling has consistently shown over the years that about twice as many Americans identify as "conservative" as "liberal" (roughly 40%-20%), so it would be absurd to dismiss conservatism itself as "fringe". If anything, Breitbart is less fringe than far left outlets like Kos, Salon, and Media Matters. If one is trying to define a "fringe" view as something other than not having widespread popular following (which would be odd in a political context; this isn't a scientific issue), there's still the question of why allegedly being "fringe" would even matter to our coverage of such opinions if the views are directly pertinent to this article, which they clearly are since it's a conservative documentary.

If our task is to cover the political reception to a film, then we can't ignore the elephant in the room (so to speak). The noteworthy political views should all be covered with attribution. It's especially silly when only one Breitbart inclusion is being singled out by an editor for removal. Does he not oppose the others? VictorD7 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Page is now protected for two weeks. I suggest that we do a new RFC on this particular matter to finalize this debate. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether this makes sense in view of the recent posting of a thread at RSN. There's no rush about this, so why not let the matter play out there before starting another thread in parallel? SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the necessary difference is that the new RFC will have an explicit conclusion. I don't think an RSN discussion does that; it is still to easy to meander in dissatisfaction of whatever answers are given there. Erik (talk | contrib) 04:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to do another RFC or noticeboard discussion. The old RFC settled the sourcing issue. Yes, Breitbart is RS for its own writers' opinions. This is just a case of a few editors who didn't like the outcome ignoring it and edit warring without anything resembling a cogent, legitimate rationale. VictorD7 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, WP:Biased only applies to reliable sources and doesn't apply to questionable source. You seemed to miss from your quoting of WP:Biased "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Multiple other noticeboard discussions about Breitbart.com have concluded that it is not a reliable source for those very same reasons and others. WP:RSopinion speaks to sources that can be considered reliable for their author's opinion, which would make them a primary source for their author's opinion. The primary source for a Shaprio quote has no relevance to this article about a film. The only primary sources relevant to this article would be sources directly written by the director, the script, or things of that nature. Yes, just about anything can be used as a reliable primary source, that doesn't mean it's reliable for inclusion into articles that aren't about that specific source or its author. That's part of the reason why we don't take tweets from Ken Hamm and include them on the article about Global Climate Change.

Lastly, as per WP:Questionable "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." This specifically says that even when citing a questionable source, it is unsuitable for making contentious claims about third parties and more ill-defined entities. The entities don't have to be well defined, they can be ill-defined and Shapiro's criticisms of leftist critics would be included as ill-defined third parties/entities. Furthermore, it says that the use of questionable sources are very limited. This is the opposite of trying to include questionable sources wherever you want so long as you attribute it. That wouldn't be very limited at all. Luckily, multiple policies clearly express how questionable source are limited and how they can be used. They should only be used in articles about themselves or authors and can't be used to make contentious claims about others. Scoobydunk (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your quote from Biased doesn't mention attributed quotes, so if one is using such a source to support statements in Misplaced Pages's voice of course one should consider whether it meets the normal requirements like editorial control and fact checking. WP:RSOPINION is the only section you cite that explicitly mentions attribution, stating: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states that, "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." Multiple policy sections make it clear that attributed, quoted opinions have different standards for inclusion than facts presented in Misplaced Pages's voice. Indeed such an inclusion is described as a factual statement "about" the opinion, as opposed to the opinion's contents being presented as facts, the former making inclusion okay.

The Quotations section, just a couple of paragraphs above WP:RSOPINION, reads, "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article.

Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.''" Policy goes so far as to say that quotes should ideally be cited to the original source being quoted, and only to a "reliable secondary source" as a last resort if the former isn't possible (but preferably one that at least includes a citation to the original). Unless one's premise is that only the opinions of people whose work would normally be considered RS for general fact support can have their opinions quoted in Misplaced Pages, which excludes countless historical figures, critics, and pundits currently quoted throughout appropriate Misplaced Pages sections, then sources not normally considered RS for general fact support (e.g. film critics, historical works like Hitler's Mein Kampf or Marx's Communist Manifesto that could be relevant to a multitude of historical articles, the Bible, a press release by a politician or famous actor on the topic in question, an expert professor's blog, high profile political pundits commenting on a topic where coverage of opinionated reaction is deemed appropriate) are being endorsed as sources for quotes when coverage of such quotes is appropriate (as governed by NPOV and DUE). As in the other sections, policy recognizes a difference between the sources usable for general fact support (in Misplaced Pages's voice) and those usable for attributed opinions, with the concern being the "accuracy" of such opinions' transmission, not the nature of the views themselves.

Your Ken Hamm example fails because such inclusion decisions are properly controlled by WP:NPOV and due weight, not Verifiability. There's no need to invoke the latter. The RFC rejected your QS argument, concluding that Breitbart is RS for its own film review (inherently contentious commentary about others) in this article (not one about Breitbart). If we're covering political opinions, then we should cover political opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Ken Hamm example doesn't fail because the logically fallacious arguments you and others are presenting would equally apply to adding Ken Hamm's opinion in science based articles so long as it was quoted and attributed to him. Again, WP:Biased only applies to sources that are already considered reliable and the same goes for WP:RSOPINION. HINT!!! The "RS" in "RSOPINION" stands for "reliable source", meaning that RS:Opinion applies to reliable sources, not questionable ones. Again, stop trying to ignore the WP policies by pretending your RFC did anything to address WP:QS. It didn't and it wouldn't matter if it did because "consensus" doesn't override WP policy. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and its content is explicitly and specifically limited by WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's called WP:RSOPINION because it discusses opinion on the RS page, even explaining that sources not usually considered "reliable" can be used with attribution (as I just quoted; the opposite of your characterization here). Your assertions are growing increasingly desperate and hysterical. I'll add that another section on the same page discussing attributed quotes, WP:NEWSORG states that, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." This implies that in some cases expert material from an op ed can be used to support statements of fact, but even non-experts can be cited with proper attribution. Of course Shapiro is an expert when it comes to political commentary and media analysis, but yet another example of different standards applying when attribution is used is still worth noting.

The RFC did reject your QS argument in finding Breitbart reliable for its own attributed opinions on others in this article (the closer directly told you as much), and there has never been a consensus finding Breitbart QS anyway, your flawed interpretation aside.

And no, as I've already explained and you've ignored, the Ken Hamm analogy fails because the inclusion of such content is properly controlled by WP:NPOV and due weight. If someone's scientific views are outside the mainstream then sourcing policy isn't required to exclude them from articles simply presenting the mainstream view, rather than the controversy. In fact WP:NPOV, due weight, and common sense editorial judgment have proved sufficient to keep countless opinionated quotes from non "QS" sources from inappropriately littering articles, something you certainly can't credit QS policy for. The same policies, guidelines, and judgement are sufficient in your Hamm scenario. Of course there are numerous science related and other types of articles where Hamm's comments might be appropriate, especially if they're covering the controversies involved, further underscoring how your erroneous QS interpretation would cripple Misplaced Pages. And, of course, your analogy also fails because Shapiro is firmly in the mainstream of prominent political commentators, and isn't fringe. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You quote WP:NEWSORG and completely ignore the part where it cites WP:EXCEPTIONAL that says exceptional claims should have multiple high quality sources supporting them, shouldn't contradict the prevailing view within the relevant community, and shouldn't have a conflict of interest. A person giving a movie review that criticizes other movie reviewers is a conflict of interest as described by the citation in WP:QS. All of these requirements also disqualify the use of Breitbart.com and Shapiro's quote since it's not a high quality source, doesn't have multiple other high quality sources supporting it, is a conflict of interest, and rails against the prevailing view of the high regard that necessitates the existence and profession of film critics. Furthermore, we already know that a questionable source can be used to reliably quote the opinions of the author. However, this is still restricted to the rules of WP:QS and WP:Questionable that specifically say that " Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Sorry, but your Shapiro quote violates multiple WP policies and NOTHING you've quoted addresses the numerous policies that such a quote violates. Also, regarding Kenn Hamm, all of those policies you cite also apply to Breitbart.com and Shapiro....as well as WP:QS, WP:Questionable, and WP:Aboutself. There are multiple policies that prohibit the use of both and all of those policies equally apply to both. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I quoted the portions that clearly dealt with attributed opinions, and refuted your position. The only portion of WP:EXCEPTIONAL that explicitly deals with attributed opinions, rather than facts or claims in Misplaced Pages's voice, is the bullet point, "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended". In that case the concern is accurately reporting the person's statement, not necessarily that person's claim itself being authoritative or credible. That treatment further supports my argument. I'll add that, regardless, no one has even presented a view contradicting Shapiro's, much less proof establishing that the opposing view is "prevailing within the relevant community" (which would be political pundits, btw). Certainly no evidence of "conflict of interest" has been presented, and it's unclear whether that would matter with an attributed opinion since we've quoted some involved with making the film (presumably we should just disclose the COI if Shapiro helped make the film, which he didn't). Also, Breitbart is a generally higher quality source and more prominent source than most of the others currently used for the section's opinions, which is obviously why you keep refusing to answer whether you consider the other sources, including the blogs your added, "QS". At least you're finally backpedaling from the notion that your interpretation of QS is necessary to prevent articles from being indiscriminately flooded with quotes, though the rest of your repetitive claims are nonsense that has already been debunked. VictorD7 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Exceptional speaks entirely to "statements" and "claims" and says nothing about whether those statements/claims are made in WP's voice. This is a poor attempt of you trying to exclude opinions from policies that clearly address all claims and statements regardless of whether they are made as a matter of fact or opinion. It also doesn't exclude "attributed opinions" and covers anything in the form of a "statement" or "claim". WP:QS also addresses contentious "claims" made about others and doesn't limit this to WP voice. Also, the prevailing view is the whole reason the profession of film critic even exists. They generally considered reliable and capable of evaluating films, which is why they are oft quoted and referenced. To have a single person try and undermine the credibility of an entire institution is laughable and clearly goes against the prevailing view regarding the role critics play in society, their capability, and their professionalism. However, one doesn't even have to consider the logical implications implicit with the profession to come to this conclusion as it's supported by peer reviewed scholarly journals. According to Dean Keith Simonton in his Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry "the opinions of film critics regarding the relative merit of various films correlate positively with the views of consumers" and "critical evaluations appear to be valid as well as reliable." So, movie critic reviews are generally considered reliable and valid and Shapiro's comments about them being "absurd" and "unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones," fly in the face of the general expectations and studies regarding critics' ability to reliably evaluate films. Oh, I'm not backtracking, there are just numerous policies that prevent the usage of questionable source in the manner in which you're trying to use it. Just because I cite a few other policies, doesn't mean I'm backing away from my original argument.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. As I just quoted, part of WP:EXCEPTIONAL does deal with whether statements/claims are made in Misplaced Pages's voice; particularly the one dealing with "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character...". That clearly refers to attributed statements (as opposed to statements or claims of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, which is the norm), and, again, the concern is that the statement was really made by the person, not its accuracy. Again, your interpretation of policy (which trumps guidelines), if honestly and consistently applied, would require us to label virtually every source used in these sections "QS". Of course I, not you, have been quoting all the sections that do focus on quoted/attributed opinions, and your response on that score has been weak to nonexistent. Moving on, setting aside the absurdity of you trying to cite a "peer reviewed scholarly journal" here, people on your side in this debate have repeatedly stressed the disconnect between critics' and audiences' opinions. Of course there's some correlation. No one's denied that, so your argument is a straw man. But it's nowhere near a perfect correlation. Clearly there are many hugely successful films that are critically panned even in purely entertainment genres. Shapiro's quote dealt with the intersection of film and politics, and most movies aren't that political. That this one scored so high with audiences and so low with liberal critics adds enormous credence to his comments. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, however, it's a major opinion that we must cover if we're covering political opinions at all. Remember, the "community" whose "prevailing view(s)" we're gauging aren't those of pro film critics, but rather political commentators. The pro critics have their own section all to themselves higher up. And Ben Shapiro is often quoted and referenced too, much more than most of the others quoted here. And you are backtracking away from your earlier claims that without QS articles would be flooded with opinion quotes. But don't worry, at least those clumsy steps are in the right direction. VictorD7 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for the opinion of Ben Shapiro

However, like most contentious RfCs, the matter's not quite that simple. There's a discussion on WP:RSN about Breitbart, as of now, at which a number of experienced editors in good standing express concerns. I conclude that everything sourced to Breitbart.com in this article must be hedged with in-text attribution (i.e. including a phrase such as "according to Breitbart.com"). It's important that Breitbart.com's claims are not repeated in Misplaced Pages's voice.

I think the best and pithiest summing-up was by Collect in another discussion about Breitbart here: "Opinions are always citable as opinions."

I hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro in an opinion column at that site stated:

It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”

1. Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?
2. Is the statement violative of WP:BLP per se? 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

These appear to be the issues regarding . Collect (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong question. Are Shapiro's writings in the site a reliable source that he says the left controls Hollywood, critics are biased, universities brainwash children, the U.S. president is a criminal, global warming is a hoax? Yes. Should we post Shapiro's views to every article about every topic he writes about? No. TFD (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that Shapiro can be referenced per WP:BIASED? The RFC is just for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 04:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This RFC doesn't address whether the Shapiro quote should be included, is what I believe TFD, myself, and others are saying. This RFC is another poorly structured attempt to try and include material from a questionable source into an article, thus effectively ignoring multiple WP policies. Furthermore, Shapiro's writings could be referenced per WP:Biased if they are written in a source that is considered reliable. Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source and therefore WP:Biased does not apply to the quote currently in dispute.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes - Obviously Breitbart is RS for its own attributed, quoted opinions, just like the last RFC found. The section is dedicated to covering attributed, subjective opinions, and contains such quotes from sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc.. No rational basis has been presented for singling out Breitbart and trying to exclude its author's opinion (which is shared by a massive chunk of the population), especially since Ben Shapiro is actually notable enough to have his own Misplaced Pages article, unlike most of the other pundits quoted. Doing so would make this article fail in its task to honestly cover the reaction to the movie, and would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation.

2. No - It's not a biography of a living person, but a subjective opinion about the state of a profession, used in a section full of subjective opinions about people and other things. It's certainly not libelous or defamatory. The sleazy personal attacks on D'Souza regarding his legal issues (and marital ones in the sources) by the Huffington Post bloggers currently featured in the same section come far closer to being a BLP concern. VictorD7 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable as opinion of notable person, and
• Does not make any "contentious claim" about individuals, but about a large class of people Clear. The opinions of notable persons are allowed even if in a "self-published source" which this is not. BLP protects individuals and small groups from "contentious claims", but the group involved here is a large group. And averring bias is not specifically a "contentious claim" in any event. Collect (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the statement that professional critics are not competent to have written their published works could reasonably viewed as contentious. In the context of this article, WP readers could take that to be an expert judgment as to the professional qualifications of specific individuals whose reviews are cited here. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting claim if that were what Shapiro said. As it is not what he said, it is not precisely on point here. What he said is that they seem to carry a political bias into their reviews. I seriously doubt anyone actually demurs that such occurs. Collect (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of this thread, we can use your paraphrase if you prefer it to mine. The issue and the policy concern remain the same. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate BLP. First it is about a group and second we can report negative things that people say, even if they are untrue. There is a very good reason to exclude the source (weight) and we should not get distracted about every possible policy that can be used to exclude it. TFD (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a sensible statement of the issue, TFD. Given context and credentials of this writer, the statement is basically a casual opinion and not noteworthy enough to include in the article. It's also a bit off topic, really. The article is not about the state of what passes for film criticism in the mass media and at any rate that's not an area of expertise for Mr. Shapiro. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. If Shapiro really said something of significance, it might be worth considering, but this statement from him is about as significant as stating that "people open their mouths when they speak." It's a "duh" statement which applies to everyone, especially Shapiro himself, who makes it his business to engage in exactly that behavior. Did he get up in the morning, look at himself in the mirror, describe what he saw, and then replaced "I" with " movie critics"? It's just one of his typical attempts to poison the well and not worth including. The attempt to include it says more about the shallow thinking of those who favor its inclusion. It worries me that they think it really has any deeper meaning. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Broken RFC. The question should be whether there's a consensus to include this quote that I've been told is not specifically about this movie. A number of people have stated that the quote is about movie critics generally, and how Breitbart thinks they're too liberal to do their jobs. This is just embedding a shot at "liberal" movie critics in an article about a specific individual movie. Asking whether Ben Shapiro's words on Breitbart.com are verifiably his own, does not answer if the material is suitable for the article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I second the objections to the wording of this RFC. It's clear that this is another attempt to game the system, which is exactly what happened with the last RFC. Editors are asked if something can be used, then their affirmative answers are used by ideologues to claim a mandate that their preferred material should be used, despite the multiple policy-based objections voiced by numerous editors. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on motivation are completely false. You tried to delete both segments based on specific policy claims, and in both RFCs those policy claims are put directly to the wider community. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You may not like the question presented in the RfC but that doesn't make it broken. The Shapiro's quote ALREADY had consensus and was removed because of an accusation of BLP problems. If the BLP problems are not valid then a consensus will be needed to remove the quote (not to add it), because it already had consensus to add. --Obsidi (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

When there are more people objecting to the worth and wording of the RfC question than !voting, then it is broken. If this was supposed to settle whether to include the material in the article, it should have asked that question. When the wording was questioned, the proposer insisted there would be no negotiation. It looks like this quote wasn't in a single stable form for an entire month, so it's not correct to say there was any kind of stable consensus to include it. It looks like it was challenged by multiple editors, citing policies not covered by this RfC. No one can point to this mess as a mandate to include it now. Any closer should see that a question of whether something is verifiable does not speak to whether it has found a consensus to be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I count ( at most) four actual opposes here -- but they account for 80% of the verbiage <g>. And which policy based argument do you have against including an opinion from a notable person? Policies count for more than "IDONTLIKEIT/HIM" last I checked in closing any RfC. As opposed to six short supports. Collect (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Misleading numbers. Since you seem to be including people who would prefer to exclude the source as "supports" in the RfC, I'll take that as an admission that this RfC isn't about whether to include the material. It's patently obvious that the material is verifiable as the opinion of someone, but that has nothing to do with its inclusion. Asserting that people haven't made multiple, specific policy-based objections to the material at this point in the discussion, is pretty brazen.

Multiple RS/N threads have found this source challenged as questionable source. WP:QUESTIONABLE says that questionable sources shouldn't be used for contentious statements about groups, even ill-defined ones, with people living or dead. This is true no matter how verifiable the opinions may be. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'll repeat a bit of basic perspective on the issue I made further down in the discussion, if someone wanted to add the opinion, "All negative reviews were because those reviewers were conservative", to any individual Michael Moore film, we'd require a lot more than a single opinion piece in a highly challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw man argument - the quote is from a notable person and is not comparable to your example, nor to your example of "'Mr X eats children" either. Can we stick to the quote at issue instead of ridiculous and inapt comparisons please? Collect (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to stick to a pertinent issue, then you can explain why you weren't open to modifying the question used in the RfC, despite multiple editors saying your wording was "poorly structured", the "wrong question", created a "broken RfC", and that this focus distracts from a straightforward discussion on inclusion. This RfC is about bare verifiability, not appropriateness or consensus to include, and that's why there's so few clear !votes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The issues stated in the RfC were the issues stated clearly by those opposing the material. The purpose of an RfC is to determine whether there are legitimate policy-based arguments against the material. It is not a popularity contest for the material, and one may note the exact same people who objected to any use of Breitbart in the article at all are still the only ones objecting here. And the wall-of-text "this is a bad RfC" is used frequently in Misplaced Pages, and is justly derided when the same people !vote the exact same way for any use of the same source - it is clearly IDONTLIKEIT in extremis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an AfD so adding material in bold or caps that everyone is using one of the arguments to avoid in AfDs is silly and distracting. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a fair assessment of the multiple policy objections you've clearly seen, and explicitly responded to and argued against in this thread. It's WP:IDHT behavior to act like you haven't been in discussions you clearly have been in. Your argument admits that including this material is contentious, and has been contentious. It's contentious for more reasons than your argument admits here. If the RfC is supposed to address people's objections, then it should have covered more of people's policy-based objections, instead of structuring it as a question of simple verifiability. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has already been decided on this very talk page to be usable for opinions cited as opinion. So much for that. Nor have I said the material is a "contentious claim" covered by WP:BLP - and, in fact, I had thought you already conceded that point above. Now what actual policy based objection is there? The one that Breitbart is extremist? Failed already. That is is not a reliable source for opinions from notable people? Already failed. The claim that I have not participated in discussions here? Absurd. What is left? IDONTLIKEIT is the only one. Collect (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Theoretically usable in some contexts" is not equivalent to "guaranteed usable in all contexts". No source is considered blanket usable for all of its "opinions cited as opinion", in all future contexts, and for different opinions, with different authors, to support different material. This is a clearly unsupportable argument. Now, you bizarrely say The claim that I have not participated in discussions here? Absurd. as a weird response to my statement that you've clearly participated in discussions. Do you understand how this is a 180 degree misreading? You're repeating your arguments, and adding new misreadings into the mix, so, again, since this seems to be devolving into more badgering by you when I was responding to another editor, I'll disengage.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and it is getting quite old to keep trying wear down the opposition in this manner. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the Shapiro quote be included in the article? would be a more neutral and non-useless question to request comments on.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The question was precisely stated in accord with your posts at the appropriate noticeboard. Changing your mind as to what the issue is when the RfC was clearly called for by your stated position is "moving the goalposts" a bit too far. You stated that the source was not a "reliable source" and that the quote violated WP:BLP so that is why the issue is so stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The framing of the RFC question has no direct correspondence with any post I've made at any noticeboard, and was not negotiated previous to opening the RFC. As written, it doesn't answer whether it's suitable for the article. And you are misrepresenting what I said and ascribing words to me I never used. I never said the source could never be a reliable source for anything ever. It's patently obvious that any website is a generally reliable source for verifying what it puts on its website. Forum posts are "reliable sources" that someone once made a forum post. A subject's website obviously verifies what's found on a subject's website. Asking this in the form of an RfC is completely time-wasting and useless for determining if it's appropriate as a reliable source for the specific material in the context of this article. Maybe someone could make an argument that this might be a valid reliable source to find material for the article Ben Shapiro, but this is a different article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is neutrally worded, and RfCs are not "negotiated".

Quoting from your posts: There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials which is specifically a denial of it being RS for its opinions expressed as opinions.

This is an article about a specific movie, not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally, or adding material criticizing named movie critics because the questionable source, breitbart.com, doesn't like their politics. (And BLP applies everywhere, not just in specific biographies again states that you deny Breitbart is a reliable source for its own opinions expressed as opinions, and that you find the quote to violate WP:BLP.

This does not look like a high-quality source for article material. It's political invective from a minority source aimed at named people.) again states that it is not RS and that it violates WP:BLP.

The citation of opinions from questionable sources about living people is still subject to BLP and RS. An opinion about a movie is simply a different thing than an opinion about people. If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." is again your precise quote stating that Breitbart is not RS for opinions cited as opinions, that it violates WP:BLP and you imply that saying critics can be biased is the same as saying "Mr. X eats children." which I find to be a quite entertaining form of argument.

You further opined "Breitbart was not determined to be a reliable source for all claims. It's questionable for claims about living people." Again raising the issue of whether it is RS for anything at all, and also that the quote violates WP:BLP.

Now I have shown you repeatedly making the precise same arguments which you appear to disremember making. This RfC was specifically written to determine whether those repeated arguments are, in fact, supported by a consensus of editors here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand by all of those quotes. Your repeated interpretations that they somehow mean I said that Breitbart could never be used as a source for its own opinions is completely mistaken, however. You ignore that I actually said It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. You are repeatedly painting my opinion that this source shouldn't be used for certain claims as a statement that it could never be used for any claim at all.

You seem to have a serious problem with the concept that sources aren't automatically found to be reliable or usable for all claims if they happen to be considered usable for one. You're acting as if it was decided that we can use all opinions on Breitbart about people when that clearly isn't true or advisable. You also ignore this thread where I say it's possible it could be a reliable source for an article more specific to Ben Shapiro. Saying you somehow tailored the wording to my concerns is clearly wrong, as the RfC question is essentially asking whether we think Breitbart impersonated Ben Shapiro or something equally unlikely and equally useless for the purposes of discussion. Other editors have expressed problems with your wording along these lines. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm surprised you seem opposed to wording an RfC based on a direct "Should we use this material in this article?" I don't see what possible objection a person could have to this, as the first wording does not address the other significant issues raised about this material. An answer to your proposed RfC question still wouldn't indicate whether we'd choose to use the material in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I cited what you said you did not say. The issues you raised were specifically about whether Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions stated as opinions and whether the opinion at hand violates WP:BLP. Which is what this RfC is about. As for your claim that Breitbart could fake Shapiro's opinions or the like or whether he could say Mr. X eats children - I regard such arguments as being useless on Misplaced Pages utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You cited what I said, then said it proved I said something else entirely, and that it was more extreme then what I actually did say. As for your claim that Breitbart could fake Shapiro's opinions Ha, that's silly. I never claimed this. Nobody could reasonably believe this. That's why having an RfC about how verifiable Shapiro's words are as Shapiro's words is a waste of time. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your exact words: If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." The source has repeatedly been found to be a reliable source for opinions cited as opinions. Repeatedly - including on the BLP/N noticeboard, the RS/N noticeboard, and on this talk page. And the accusation that averring bias in reviews is equivalent to saying "Mr X eats children" is a mighty fail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That was a theoretical example you're misrepresenting as if I said it was more than that. So twist, twist away, but policy, WP:RS, still treats opinions about third parties differently than opinions about less sensitive topics. You're saying Breitbart has been found usable in articles for all of its "opinions cited as opinions", and that's patently false. No source can be whitelisted for all contexts, and especially not when it involves third party people. You can't eliminate the question of context. As far as the noticeboards, you are cherry-picking a few supportive comments to represent a non-existent consensus, and ignoring the obvious policy challenges.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting someone exactly and precisely is not a "mischaracterization" by a few miles. And the RS/N results and the result on this very talk page are clear - that you aver I said something "patently false" is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and I urgently suggest you redact those offensive words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The mischaracterization of my words took place in your added editorial, not in the quotation of my words. Saying that you have said something I believe is not true is not a personal attack by any standard, on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else. Nor does it mean I said you were acting in bad faith without an honest motivation of trying to make a better encyclopedia (from your own point of view) when you asserted it. You are reading arguments into my words that are not supported by the words themselves. I think you are wrong in asserting that sources that many editors believe questionable can be used for any opinion they have, including commentary on third party living people. There are long-standing limits, and this is partly covered by WP:QS. You repeated on multiple occasions here that any word I uttered meant that I was saying that sources could never be used for "opinions cited as opinions". This isn't true. (It's not a personal attack to say this isn't true) I pointed out that I had argued against that interpretation of policy, but that still doesn't mean they can be used for all opinions cited as opinions, without regard to context. Breitbart is not whitelisted for any opinion they publish in articles not about Breitbart; this is supported by policy and shouldn't be a contentious point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You made a personal attack on me. I cited your exact words, which is more than I can say for you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying that I thought you were wrong is not a personal attack. (If it was, you'd have made a lot of personal attacks.) Disagreeing with you is not against policy. You added personal interpretations and commentary on my words beyond the quotes. I feel that added interpretation mischaracterizes my arguments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You specifically wrote: And you are misrepresenting what I said and ascribing words to me I never used which seems to be clearly a personal attack on me. Any words I "ascribed to you" were, indeed, your exact words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And? This is still not a personal attack. I can think your arguments are based on a false characterization (and say so) without it being a claim about you personally. We're all wrong sometimes. You said You stated that the source was not a "reliable source" and that the quote violated WP:BLP... I certainly never said the word "violated". You do later ascribe that word to me in connection to all quotes where we're talking about what BLP says. I also never said the source could not be used as an RS in all contexts. This is an essential point that you omitted from your later characterizations of my argument. Arguing that I'm taking an extremist or absolutist stand is a mischaracterization, whatever your motive, assuming both good faith and the possibility of error. Pointing out your mistaken ascription is not a personal attack. I can assume that maybe you confused me with someone else when you wrote your first sentence regarding "violated", and none of your later quotations prove your assertion that I think the source could never be used as a source sometimes, in other contexts. Your characterizations of my arguments are directly contradicted by what I said, explicitly, at the start of this, It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. It wasn't correct to suggest my position was otherwise.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Might you cite my precise words where I said you took an "extremist stand"? I do not recall so characterizing you at all, and I would like to see my exact words making that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Yikes) Your edit summary indicates that your standards for what constitutes a "personal attack" do not correspond with any policy you linked to. Criticizing your arguments is not a personal attack. If re-explaining where I think you've made an error would only be misinterpreted as further "attack" and lead to additional accusations of bad faith, then the discussion and Misplaced Pages is probably better off if do not engage you further on what I think are your mistakes. This remains a flawed RfC that doesn't address whether the material should be included.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:QS already says that questionable sources can be reliable for material about themselves, that doesn't mean it can be included onto articles not about themselves. For the second question, "Yes" it violates multiple parts of WP:BLP which is not the only policy relevant to its inclusion or omission. Here are the multiple parts of BLP that apply to this quote directly:

"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies" This specific quote does not strictly adhere to WP's three core content policies which specifically state that questionable sources can not make contentious claims about others.

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Here Breitbart.com can be considered as poorly sourced just like tabloids are considered poor sources.

"When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Breitbart.com is certainly not a high-quality source and shouldn't be used to make claims about others.

"Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for making contentious claims about others.

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Breitbart.com fails to meet many Verifiability standards.

Many of these policies are repeated multiple times throughout the article and the Shapiro quote only needs to satisfy one of them to be a violation of WP:BLP, let alone numerous other policies that the inclusion of the Shapio quote violates.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All of the above claims have been found wanting both at the appropriate noticeboards and on this very talk page - twice now. I rather think they are dead issues by this point, even if presented in walls of text. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on what's "wanting" is not relevant to the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source by nearly every standard outlined by WP:QS. Making baseless assertions is not constructive to the conversation. So, if you're not going to bother making logically valid arguments and insist on just dismissing policies and proof, then I suggest you move along. Cheers.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Scoobydunk, your QS arguments have been rejected by an RFC and refuted in discussions in above sections, but your BLP claims are especially comical since you were the one who added the partisan Huffington Post bloggers personally attacking D'Souza over a sensitive legal issue and (falsely) claiming his assertions had no support. Also, you apparently support the inclusion of far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, and Media Matters, and have dodged every attempt to get your answer on the record as to whether such sources are allowable here under your interpretation of QS. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they haven't been rejected, they've been ignored since you and other editors think you can completely ignore WP policy and forumshop until you get the answers you want. Furthermore, I don't need to entertain red herring arguments. We are currently discussing Breitbart.com and it's individual merits or lack thereof, not any of the other sources. I don't entertain logical fallacies, while it's clear that's all you have to offer.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I've already linked to my own arguments refuting your QS argument and quoted and linked to the RFC closer stating that the community wasn't persuaded by your argument. Also, a discussion of the other sources is extremely vital here for consistency (neutrality), especially since you personally added the Huffington Post quotes (and possibly some others), and since due weight depends in part on context (e.g. How much coverage have we given other views?). Your continuing dodging and false accusations against other posters only undermine your assertions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments did nothing to refute my arguments and the RFC closer doesn't dictate WP policies. I don't have to persuade others with my argument if it is supported by WP policy and IT IS. Also, "No", other sources are not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS defines a source as questionable based on comparing it to other publications, but defines based on it's own actions and merits. So you're making a red herring argument while also entertaining a false equivalency. I do not undermine my own argument, as it's been logically consistent and inline with WP policies since the beginning. However, your constantly changing the nature of your arguments, forumshopping, and misrepresenting what others have said do undermine your own arguments. Scoobydunk (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether your arguments have been refuted, whether your interpretation of policy is incorrect, and whether your continuing refusal to answer whether you think the section's other sources are QS, including the blogger quotes you personally added, is relevant from an WP:NPOV standpoint and for fully assessing the merits of your position. VictorD7 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If the so called policy arguments (RS and BLP) have evaporated, and this is merely a question of weight and editorial judgment, what legitimate argument against inclusion is there? Here you have a notable best selling author and editor of one the internet's most widely read news sites author an entire article about the reception to this movie, so of course it's relevant, especially given the massive expansion of political commentary coverage undertaken in this section. That coverage mostly features "contentious" political commentary from sources more fringe and pundits less noteworthy than Shapiro. The belief that most pro film critics are leftists and this colors their reaction to movies is almost universally shared by conservatives, and frankly not something I've seen many liberals or film critics themselves deny. The reviews of this film themselves are invariably political. If we're covering the political reaction to this film at all, which we undeniably are (the section set aside for this is explicitly titled "Political commentary"), this perspective carries enormously significant weight and must be represented. There's no evidence that it's a "minority" view, much less a view so fringe that it doesn't merit coverage at all. It's also common for Misplaced Pages film articles, especially ones with some controversial aspects, to include pundit opinions about the reception itself, as I've shown on this talk page before. The claim that there's something wrong with supposedly commenting on the reception rather than just the movie per se is wrong and without basis in policy. The vital policy at play here is Neutrality, which would be grossly violated by heavily quoting from leftist sources, as the section currently does, while excluding noteworthy conservative commentary. Are we going to start holding RFCs on whether to include controversial quotes from far left sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, the Huffington Post, etc..? Is every quote and proposed new addition now going to be challenged for months on end? There is simply no legitimate reason to exclude Breitbart or any other prominent source of opinions here. Let's provide complete, honest coverage of opinions relating to this movie from across the major components of the political spectrum. Be open minded. Live and let live. Purging the page of cherry-picked views in one sided fashion would prevent this article from ever stabilizing or accomplishing its task of providing full, encyclopedic coverage of the issue. VictorD7 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Breitbart.com is a political website. There is no reason to include a quote from the a source like breitbart, rather they are reliable for their own quote or not. The movie should be covered with sources that are like other movies. WP:Deadhorse Casprings (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This does not answer the question presented in the RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a worthless RFC as it does not get to the point of if it should be in there or not.Casprings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC directly addresses the policy reasons given for attempting to delete it. Besides, an alternative RFC along the lines you suggest would have to ask "Should it be removed?", since the last consensus was to include it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

But the movie itself is a political one. (The same is true for the book.) And both the movie and book have had some measure of impact on the political landscape. With this in mind the opinion of Shapiro is WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A far right wing guy being mad a far right wing movie is panned is not noteworthy. And if it was, it would have been picked up by another source that isn't like same as his own.Casprings (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

IOW, the viewpoint of the person whose opinion is being used overrides whether that viewpoint is from a notable person? Source in policy for that position? And why would another source have illegally printed a copyrighted column? Collect (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think other people beside Misplaced Pages can use fair use. If the quote was imported, it would have been covered.Casprings (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Casprings, WP:BIASED says that sources can be reliable in the specific context, including a political one. WP:RSOPINION is also applicable here. It may seem "obvious" that a conservative commentator would challenge reviews of the film, but it also could have been the opposite where the commentator could have stated that the film was not representative of U.S. conservatism. Ben Shapiro is a conservative figure who has written for the National Review about conservatism and media (film/TV), so his opinion is worth referencing to show the conservative viewpoint here. Per WP:DUE, Shapiro's passage is marginal compared to the mainstream passages that have been added to the article in the past month. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION gives the example of opinions sourced from "mainstream newspapers". That's not this. WP:BIASED still says When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Adding a view described as "marginal" and non-mainstream is discouraged by WP:DUE, not encouraged. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro is editor-at-large for Breitbart. I'm not sure how fact-checking should be applied here, though, since it is political criticism of art criticism. When I say "marginal", I mean a minority view. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." This is why I'm supportive of including the Shapiro quote in a very limited sense, especially when we have covered the mainstream viewpoints in major detail. The Shapiro quote is only part of the big picture. So in other words, I am saying that Breitbart is a representative viewpoint of U.S. conservatism. Would we be okay with including the passage if it was published at National Review or FOX News? Is it the nature of the website itself? I see that it has been called "fringe" and "far right", but I am not seeing it as different from the aforementioned sources. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to stick to the subject of this encyclopedia article. This is an article about a single film. Whatever the merits or noteworthiness of Shapiro's opinions, inserting them here creates a kind of WP:SYNTH suggestion that the unfavorable reviews cited here should be disregarded as biased or otherwise flawed film criticism. Shapiro's views might be cited in an article about film criticism, politics, mass media, or other relevant topics, but they are not suitable for this article. Neither, for example, would the opinions about an optical engineer about the lamentable state of local theater digital projection systems on which the film was shown. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested in a Misplaced Pages article about the political ideology of film criticism. :) Coverage in regard to Zero Dark Thirty would definitely be part of that. However, WP:SYNTH does not apply here. The article is full of mainstream viewpoints (balanced their way, obviously), and the Shapiro passage would be a small part balance-wise. I expanded the sampling of the reviews to flesh out each critic's response since the political and art criticism are sort of blended together, and readers can see why the mainstream thinks the documentary is not a good one. The presence of the Shapiro quote does not mean that all the heavily-emphasized viewpoints are to be dismissed. If there is a concern about Shapiro coming across as too much of an authority on the matter, then we can identify Breitbart as a conservative outlet to be more clear-cut, so readers can draw whatever conclusion they want from a partisan's opinion that is placed on the back-end of the commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Anything that goes beyond "What people thought of the movie" and is instead "what people think of the state of movie reviewers generally" is arguably tangential to the scope of this article. If we add what Shapiro thinks of movie critics generally, do we balance that with what mainsteam reliable sources think of movie critics generally? I don't think the balanced common view is that movie critics should be disallowed from reviewing whole classes of movies on ideological grounds. You can't balance that fringe viewpoint with reviews of the movie. That could only be theoretically balanced by even more off-topic discussion specifically about the state of movie criticism from multiple RS who represent the non-fringe view.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you saying there needs to be counter-criticism to Shapiro's criticism? In addition, how do you assess Breitbart in comparison with National Review and FOX News? Are they considered "fringe" viewpoints too, or just Breitbart? Erik (talk | contrib) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think it needs off-topic meta-criticism on either side at all. It would require counter-meta-criticism if it were included, to be balanced, but that's why it's not helpful for it to be included in the first place. The "fringe view" I mentioned was contained in the specific quote; publishers aren't "fringe views". I think the usability of a source is often dependent on three things, (content, author, publisher), in context. A reliable publisher can often be more easily relied on to have chosen more representative and considered opinions. A questionable publisher might publish the least useful commentary from an otherwise arguably useful source. If Stephen Hawking does a guest bit on South Park, I wouldn't rely solely on the reliability of the author, and ignore the venue or context of the material.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And to put this into this some kind of perspective, if someone wanted to add the opinion, "All negative reviews were because those reviewers were conservative", to any individual Michael Moore film, we'd require a lot more than a single opinion piece in a highly challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Erik. I disagree. Readers can reasonably be expected to relate Shapiro's view to the specific critics/reviews cited in the article. That is SYNTH. If Shapiro had given explicit rebuttals to the cited reviews, that would be entirely different. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Can you write what conclusion you think a reader could take away? The reviews panned the film, period. Shapiro says the negative reviews are politically biased, period. Is it a matter of placement that causes the implication? Shapiro could go into "Political commentary" instead. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already given one example of such an inference above. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Readers can reasonably be expected to relate Shapiro's view to the specific critics/reviews cited in the article." Is this what you mean? We can specify the reviews that Shapiro mentions -- the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and McClatchy news service. Like I said, it can also be placed in the "Political commentary" to avoid any intra-section comparing. Is that not feasible? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim of "SYNTH" is absurd. No material is being combined from different sources in the quote. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Stating that an alternate analysis is "absurd" does not promote resolution. If the combination were "in the quote" that would not be synth. Please review WP:SYNTH and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You clearly need to read it. WP:SYNTH concerns implying something not said by the source, either through combining different sources or mixing and matching material from a single source in a misleading way. The segment in question, from a single source, does neither. What do you allege the quote is implying that Shapiro didn't say or imply himself? VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Victor, I have already explained that twice above on this page. Please read and reload. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You claimed readers might infer he was talking about the specific reviews in the above section, and that readers might infer they should disregard them due to Shapiro's comments. Our only concern regarding SYNTH here is to make sure the meaning of Shapiro's comments aren't distorted. They clearly aren't. As Erik pointed out, Shapiro was talking about negative reviews in general for this film, saying they should be taken with a grain of salt due to the politicization at play in the reception. Whether that causes readers to place credence in what Shapiro says and maybe take the critics with a grain of salt or not shouldn't be your concern, and has nothing to do with SYNTH. Shapiro cites several specific examples, but not most of the critics named in the above section. Claiming that a reader might mistakenly assume Shapiro is discussing a specific critic named above and that the segment is therefore "SYNTH" is beyond a reach; it's wrong because we're using Shapiro's general commentary about the profession's leftward tilt. If we had quoted from some of his specific commentary about a certain critic (complete with pronouns like "He"), but left out that critic's name and placed it under a different critic's quote, then you might have a SYNTH argument, since we would be misleadingly implying he was discussing someone other than whom he was. But we didn't. Shapiro's general comments cover the reception in general (including the negative reviews we use), and stand accurately transmitted on their own. No SYNTH. VictorD7 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, no evidence has even been presented establishing that Shapiro's view is a "minority" one, since I've seen no one dispute it (certainly not his claim that most critics lean left), and I could produce sources agreeing with it (WND, Newsbusters, etc..). As for opinion on the film itself, the "mainstream" view of pro critics is mostly negative, the "mainstream" view of political pundits (a group which includes Shapiro, as well as the writers/guest writers at The Atlantic, Forbes, The National Journal, USNaW Report, etc.) is likely roughly split in half along party lines (the coverage is currently skewed heavily left, which I intend to correct through additions in the long run), and the "mainstream" view of almost everyone who actually watched the movie is overwhelmingly positive (hence the historically rare high CinemaScore grade and strong box office showing for a documentary). VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you plan to "correct through additions"? The current sources are mainly mainstream. There's still the National Review pieces by Jay Nordlinger to discuss for inclusion, but beyond that, I was not finding any more additional commentary about the documentary. In addition, audience reception should not be used as a factor to "balance" the article. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How are you defining "mainstream"? I'm not sure how "mainstream" applies to political commentary outside of being widely read and/or prominent. You've quoted several specific political commentators, most of them liberals. There are many prominent conservative commentators who have given views on this film too (I already mentioned WND and Newsbusters as sources, you cited NRO; I could mention The Blaze and others) and almost none of them are included. The set of political commentators is different from the set of pro critics; in the former the majority view is not negative, at least not clearly so. Our coverage should therefore reflect more balance in the Political commentary section than we do in the Critics' section. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• 1. Yes Brietbart is a reliable source for its own opinions cited as opinions when it does not involve BLP issues. WP:BLPGROUP specifies that this is not a BLP issue as the group that is being talked (movie critics) is large. As such Brietbart is a reliable source for this statement as it is attributed to Brietbart.

2. No This is not a BLP problem as WP:BLPGROUP for which BLP applies to small groups but not large groups. This is a large group being talked about. --Obsidi (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Question Why insist on using a source that has a poor reputation and a quote from the editor of the source with a bad reputation? If the point is to get the opinion of conservatives on the movie, there are plenty of options. I don't grasp the need to include a source with such a bad reputation for fact checking and then have the comment come from the editor in chief. Why not include what Rush Limbraugh said, which was picked up by the hollywood reporter, for example. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/audio-rush-limbaugh-predicts-dinesh-716217 Casprings (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the content of the Shapiro quote. Shapiro is saying that the film has gotten negative reviews because of liberal bias. Limbaugh's not saying that here. We already have some commentary from Breitbart (Christian Toto and Kate O'Hare) as well as National Review (John Fund), but they do not say anything about a liberal bias behind the negative reviews. The "Reception" section also already highlights that conservatives are "thrilled" with the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is the larger point. So we already have the minority viewpoint represented. Prehaps over represented by WP:UNDUE. Now we are going to add a quote by an outlet that has a terriable reputation that bascially says, "they only reviewed it that way because they are partisan hacks." If one include something by them commenting on the reviews of others, is media matters okay to point out that conservatives endorced a film based on a book that openly says blacks are better off because of slavery? http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/07/09/five-media-figures-who-endorse-dinesh-dsouzas-r/200046 Casprings (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart doesn't have a "poor reputation", especially compared to most of the section's other sources, and, as Erik said, our job is to cover the salient contours of opinion, not simply repeat ourselves with different sources. There are other sources making the point Shapiro does, but he's the most noteworthy pundit on the most prominent platform to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorD7 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that any source that is not explicitly conservative is inversely liberal? You seem to be dismissing everything in the article body that is not conservative. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that all views should be represented by WP:Weight. I think if anything, there is an over representation of positive reviews. I think we should simply have text that is representative of the overall reception of the film. Keep it simple. That said, if you are going to include a source that has such a negative reputation that basically says, “everyone that reviewed this movie badly did so because they were liberals”, is it not fair to also include a viewpoint about the motive or meaning of those who reviewed it positively? Is it not fair to also include the commentary from media matters? Casprings (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was directed at VictorD7, not you. I added commentary to the article from mainstream sources, but these seem to be dismissed as liberal. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Commentary from Media Matters is included. And no, we can't prohibit a view from the article just because no one disagrees with it. If anything, that bolsters its case for inclusion. But at a more nuanced level most of the quoted opinions included don't have direct counterpoints, so a consistent application of your principle would require us to wipe out most or all of the reception sections. And no, while the pro critics' reaction skewed negative the "overall" reaction to the film was positive, and the political pundit reaction was roughly half and half. VictorD7 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone has some type of political viewpoint, especially if they're writing political commentary. And I'm not "dismissing" anyone, but I want the landscape of political reaction to the film to be properly covered per NPOV, rather than heavily skewed. The politics of the people you chose to quote aren't exactly hard to discern. You didn't reply to my above comment, so I'll repeat that I'm still not sure how you're defining "mainstream" in this context. For example, the National Journal, a liberal leaning political magazine, has a circulation of about 15,000 and is ranked 3113 in the US by Alexa internet traffic monitoring. National Review has a circulation of about 166,000 and is ranked 1166 in the US by Alexa. Breitbart is ranked 494 in the US by Alexa, and the author in question is a notable best selling author whose views are considered to be in the American mainstream. In fact the liberal outlets currently quoted include The Guardian, Salon.com, National Journal (Simon van Zuylen-Wood in particular used to write for the The New Republic and Salon.com), Daily Kos, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, Nicole Hemmer (a professor whose entire career is dedicated to marginalizing and defining conservatives in ways more palatable to liberals than themselves), The Daily Beast (a sampling from Andrew Ramona in particular), and Gabe Toro (just read his review, or his Twitter feed; his next to most recent Tweet refers to the "dimwits at Fox News"; for the record, Alinsky praised Lucifer; D'Souza didn't raise the issue on his own, contrary to Toro's idiotic and misleading piece). I don't want to derail this section, but at times you seem to be implying a difference between "mainstream" and "political", so I'd appreciate clarification on how you're using these terms. VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• NO breitbarts sorry history makes it an inappropriate source for any content, opinions or otherwise, reflective of claims about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC) *Yes, it is "reliable" for authentically representing the views of its editor at large. NO- it is in NO WAY shape or form reliable for any comments even tangentially about any living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unless you have some evidence that Breitbart isn't accurately relaying its own editor's words, like Shapiro saying so in another venue, then the correct answer is "Yes". Do you have any such evidence? If not, your comment amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and should be dismissed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

no, for BLP content, ie calling out other reviewers by name and making aspersions about them, there is no question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Um -- the names are accompanied by direct quotes from reviews. In what way are the quotes "aspersions" about the individuals? In simple point of fact, Shapiro makes absolutely no "contentious claim" about any individual, and we should put the "aspersions" bit to rest. Collect (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• YES Shapiro writes for Breitbart, and if they were not an accurate source, Shapiro would have mentioned it.--TMD Talk Page. 00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@TMDrew: What is it that you believe Shapiro would have mentioned? That his employer's website was not accurately stating his opinion? Could you rephrase your view on this in a way that doesn't entail your view as to what Shapiro would do under a hypothetical scenario? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

His statement seems clear to me. VictorD7 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Question 1 – Yes – Shapiro simply offers an opinion that seeks to describe the political leanings of other critics and thus undermine their objectivity as reviewers. Breitbart has an Alexa (international/US) ranking of 1,508/495, which is comparable to the other websites we see cited in the article. Mojo's is 3,048/1,622; Fandango's is 1,138/270; Metacritic's is 1,188/603; Salon's is 1,157/379. The fact that Breitbart per se is the vehicle for his opinion is immaterial in the RS analysis. Every media outlet has had problems with thruthiness, some more than others. (Outlets often have "corrections" features.) Their failures, and even distortions, in other news stories does not keep this particular opinion from being WP:NOTEWORTHY.

Question 2 – No – As I stated before this RFC was posted, Shapiro may be critical of a certain "group" of critics, but WP:BLPGROUP is not written so that any "group" of people with similar characteristics comes within BLP restrictions.

With regard to E L A Q U E A T E's question – "Should the Shapiro quote be included in the article?" – my response is Yes. The movie is a political one, and political commentary is appropriate. Shapiro serves to "show" that some movie critics are "leftist", their leftiness skews their reviews, and their leftiness has skewed their reviews as to this particular movie. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, we don't use Alexa eyeball counts to determine what's noteworthy, nor to asses due weight or SYNTH. Web traffic counts certainly have nothing to do with the criteria for WP:RS references. Reciting alphabet soup wiki-links of inapplicable or miscast policy doesn't help resolve the issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk

• No to the first question; Breitbart's poor reputation for fact checking alone would make it a questionable source, although I would also argue that it falls under a few other criteria, and the question of whether this opinion is relevant or not (which is part of what, in this context, we would be citing Breitbart for if it were the sole source) clearly amounts to a contentious claim about third parties. Yes to the second question; although, as WP:BLP says, applying BLP to groups must be done on a case-by-case basis, in this case it is clear that he is referring to a comparatively small group of people (specific critics, I believe). Some people (above) seem to be focused on whether a Breitbart commentator can be cited to show their own opinion in a context where that opinion is relevant, but this is only part of what WP:RS requires; we would also need a reliable source to show the relevance of that opinion, and as I mentioned, Breitbart itself is a textbook questionable source and therefore cannot be used for that in this context. Even beyond these issues, I concur with the numerous posts above indicating that this quote would be out-of-place in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLP states that "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons", so the notion that these general comments would apply to the far bigger category of an entire profession is untenable. That said, even if they singled out one person, simply critiquing a publicly published work doesn't violate BLP anyway. If it did then the entire Reception section (, ) would violate BLP, as even (more like especially) the pro critics' statements are contentious, and certainly the other political commentary is. You presented no argument that Breitbart is any more "questionable" than the other sources used, which include blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc., or for that matter The Atlantic, Indiewire, Slant (the very name is a red flag!), etc., nor did you explain why an alleged reputation for fact checking matters when we're merely quoting properly attributed, subjective, political opinions. Have you even read the sections? Removing one but not the others would be a huge WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No is not a relable source as per our policies WP:QS and the fact not even Fox news thinks the site is relaible.. On Fox Shep Smith Slams Breitbart as an Untrustworthy Source -- Moxy (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Shep Smith's personal opinion doesn't speak for "Fox News". You should see what FNC employees have to say about CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NY Times, and PBS, let alone blogs like Salon.com, or for that matter the good things other employees have to say about Breitbart. Also, while Breitbart certainly is reliable for sourcing its own authors' opinions (the issue here), the obscure liberal blog you linked to is likely not reliable for covering the Fox News Channel, and what it calls FNC's "party line". VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

if "We on Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons. Among them, we didn’t know who shot it. We didn’t know when it was shot. We didn’t know the context of the statement. In short, we did not, and do not trust the source." does not represent Fox News approach to sources, then that is a clear sign that they truly deserve the epitaph Faux News. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Studio B" was Smith's own show, and he and others have said similar things about NBC and other outlets I listed above. Breitbart has been extensively cited by FNC and other outlets for other news stories, however, and certainly for mere opinions. Here's the NY Times itself citing and quoting Breitbart's Ben Shapiro as a representative conservative response to a Biden comment last year. As for the extremely witty (no really) "epitaph" (? Did you mean epithet? An epitaph is a posthumous description, like on a tombstone.) "Faux News", it's only used by a small group of childish partisans. An editor using such dimwitted rhetoric only succeeds in exposing his/her hopelessly biased agenda. It certainly doesn't contribute to productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?

1. Should content sourced by Media Matters be removed from the article? 2. Should content sourced by Breitbart.com be removed from the article? 3. Should content sourced by Daily Kos be removed from the article? Casprings (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes/Yes/Yes as the creator of the RFC. I started this because I think the above RFC misses the point. This article should be sourced by the same standards as any other movie related article. All of these sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE and there is no reason to include them as other sources can and should be used. do not meet the standards of independence and reliability. As such, they all should both be removed.Casprings (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• The standards of independence and reliability section you link to deals with determining whether film related topics should have their own article (notability), and has nothing to do with regulating subjective content in a reception section.VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Same point. Uses WP:QUESTIONABLE now.Casprings (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please restore your original "...standards of independence..." wording that I substantively replied to, so that my response doesn't look inexplicably out of context and people can follow the discussion. You can then draw a strike through the old language if you want, or simply leave it and state that you're changing your rationale below in a subsequent reply. VictorD7 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. As for your new QS rationale, leaving aside the fact that Breitbart hasn't been established to be QS, QS deals with statements supporting facts in Misplaced Pages’s voice, not directly with quotes. Attributed opinions would fall under “material about themselves”, regardless of the quote’s internal content. Otherwise, virtually every source used in the section, most relying mostly or entirely on opinion (and with shady reputations among the opposite political camp), would be unacceptably “questionable”. Besides, the first RFC already established a consensus that Breitbart is RS for their professional critic’s statement here because it’s properly attributed, and as a pro critic Toto is explicitly considered RS by film guidelines anyway (as a published and widely cited political/media expert Shapiro is similarly also acceptable to quote regardless of where his particular article has been published). QS is a red herring. The pertinent sections are--WP:RSOPINION Sources not suitable for supporting facts in Misplaced Pages’s voice may be reliable if attribution is used.--WP:NEWSORG Non-authoritative statements of opinion (from non experts) aren't suitable for supporting statements of fact, but may be used if attributed.--WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Biased statements of opinion that can’t normally be used can be included with attribution. The policy concern is verifying that the source is accurately relaying the quote, not the merits or validity of the quote’s internal content.--WP:BIASED Politician Barry Goldwater, feminist activist Betty Friedan, and Marxist economist Harry Magdoff, all people not normally considered RS for facts in Misplaced Pages’s voice (except maybe some information about themselves), are listed as examples where attributed quotation makes inclusion ok.--Quotations Quotes should ideally be sourced to the original source, with a reliable secondary source being relied on only as a last resort if the original isn't available. Again, the concern is that the quote is accurately relayed, not the merits of the quote's contents.--WP:CONTEXTMATTERS “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.” No one seriously disputes that Breitbart is RS for its own authors’ views, or that a section titled "Political commentary" should include the salient political commentary. And last but not least--WP:NPOV Our duty is to fully and neutrally cover the salient sides of a controversy, without excluding views from sources just because we dislike or disagree with them.

If Barry Goldwater, Betty Friedan, and Karl Marx, or for that matter Simon van Zuylen-Wood, Joe Leydon, Gabe Toro, and Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig can be quoted for their views on various topics, then so can Ben Shapiro, Christian Toto, and Kate O'Hare. No compelling, rational argument to the contrary exists. VictorD7 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. All articles should use high quality sources. Ample sources exist for general opinion on this topic from both sides of the political divide. Neither source provides something that can't be found elsewhere. However, if quality standards are relaxed enough to allow low quality conservative sources like Brietbart, then a similar relaxation should be allowed for sources from the opposite political position per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note Added Daily Kos to RFC

• OPPOSE for the record, since absolutely no basis has been established for excluding Breitbart while leaving in opinions from blogs and opinionated, partisan sources like The Huffington Post, Salon.com, The Daily Beast, Indiewire and the others currently used, and since we should be covering the political reception relating to an explicitly political documentary, of which Breitbart, as the internet's most prominent conservative news/opinion site, is an indispensable part. I also oppose the question wording for reasons given in the below subsection. We can't remove the primary conservative source while leaving the many leftist sources. I'll add that there's a lack of clarity as well. Does this RFC just cover the Political commentary section, or would the professional critic (Breitbart's Toto), whose inclusion has already been explicitly approved by an RFC, be removed as well? Would the more mundane use of Breitbart as a source elsewhere be purged too, requiring part of the article to be rewritten? Update: You just added "from the article", so unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you're including the review already explicitly approved by RFC, despite Toto's extensive credentials as a professional film critic and the innocuous comment used. I oppose even more strongly then. VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ill Defined All of these are reliable sources for "opinion expressed as opinion". The article includes material which is cited as opinion, which is reasonable. MMFA, HuffPo and DailyKos etc. are primarily editorial in nature, while Breitbart also includes reportage. No RfC can redefine "reliable source" as that is a Misplaced Pages policy which RfCs may not override. The editorial claim here that Breitbart is not WP:RS is marginal, as, like all sources, the nature of a claim enters into whether it is reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes. On the basis of Misplaced Pages policy, none of the sources violate WP:RS for opinions cited as opinion, which would be the only way we could disallow them. Collect (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. I do not see how any of those sites even begin to meet our content standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• What content standards are you referring to, Thargor Orlando? These are properly attributed opinions in a section explicitly dedicated to covering such opinions. Have you read the section? Would you leave in comments from bloggers at Salon.com, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, and the others that would remain? If not, then I'd respectfully suggest that you at least attach conditions on removing Breitbart, the primary conservative source used in a section already unreasonably skewed with leftist opinions, something like only if the other sources are removed as well. If so, then I'd suggest you read WP:NPOV. I'll add that this RFC is also a sneaky attempt to remove the professional critic quote in the above section dedicated to pro critics, despite it being explicitly approved via an earlier RFC. As a professional, widely cited film critic, Christian Toto's review certainly meets all the film content standards I'm aware of, and the political commentary by others is appropriate in covering the reaction to an explicitly political film. Don't be suckered by a vague, tactically slanted RFC that doesn't even link to the sections in question (at least three would be impacted by Breitbart's removal, and any pretense of neutrality would go flying out a 100 story window). VictorD7 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes/Yes/No No/Yes/Yes Media Matters can be treated as a reliable source, but Daily Kos and Breitbart cannot. The purpose of Media Matters is to monitor problems with the US right wing media. That involves activities like fact checking, so that one can expect that if Media Matters went significantly beyond the realm of facts into the realm of advocacy, it would get into trouble. Breitbart and Daily Kos on the other hand are all about advocating particular political views, so I am surprised that there is even a question about whether they can be treated as reliable sources by WP. Daily Kos is ostensibly progressive and Breitbart is conservative, so eliminating both of those should be acceptable to everyone in the spirit of compromise. There are plenty of sources cited in the article without those two. I see that Salon, which represents a liberal point of view, is cited. Unlike Daily Kos, Salon is a serious political news and opinion outlet. I understand that all of this is about opinion, so that it may appear not to be clear what is a reliable source here, but I think that everybody should be able to agree that the Atlantic or National review is a higher quality source than breitbart, or that Salon is a higher quality source than Daily Kos. – Herzen (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Media Matters is a leftist propaganda outlet, as evidenced by its exclusive purpose being to "monitor" the "problems" with the "right wing media" (a "particular political view"), and it's routinely condemned and called out for misleading stories and outright lies. If anything, it's less legitimate as a source of prominent political punditry than the other sources are. Only hard core leftists take Media Matters seriously, and it's not a significant source of original news/opinion coverage like Breitbart is. Breitbart employs professional reporters, editors, and critics, while the Daily Kos is simply a group opinion blog. So is Salon. The section currently includes numerous opinions from leftist blogs and only a couple from conservative outlets, Breitbart being the most prominent. One of the professional film critics quoted even writes for Breitbart. So no, tossing out both the brief Kos quote and every Breitbart use is in no way, shape, or form an equitable or acceptable compromise. It would be a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, I have struck through my vote in response to your comment. I never visit any of those three Web sites, so I am willing to assume that your opinion is more informed here than my own, I am also willing to accept your claim that the "section currently includes numerous opinions from leftist blogs and only a couple from conservative outlets", and I have no problem with conservative opinion being equally represented with liberal opinion in this article. Even though the only piece I intend to read about this movie is the one from Salon.

P.S. I have changed my vote, to delete Media Matters and Daily Kos but not Breitbart. I am doing this out of Obama fatigue and as a gesture of good will, so that you know that some of us leftists are willing to reach out to people who think differently than we do. – Herzen (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant YES/NO/YES then. I don't necessarily support removing any of them, but I appreciate your gesture. VictorD7 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of the three are good encyclopedic sources; all three are questionable and should not be used. Breitbart is the worst, in that it has a well-documented track record of repeatedly damaging people's lives by publishing ideologically driven lies, and I seriously question the competence and judgement of any editor who finds this source appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The other two sources, while not quite as abysmal, are likewise partisan websites and should not be used except in rare and carefully circumscribed situations. MastCell  04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? Daily Kos is a hate-fest. Arzel (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes to Breitbart utterly unreliable source for anything. Artw (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Context matters when judging reliability... even repugnant sources like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamph can be a reliable source in limited contexts. Essentially the entire "reception" section can be summerized as: "Liberal reviewers generally panned the movie, while conservative reviewers generally praised it."... In that context, the sources do reliably verify the statement.

That said... Does the article really need to say much more than that. I don't think so. Certainly there is no need to quote the various individual sources (whether liberal or conservative)... at best, the quotes should be relegated to the foot notes. Essentially, the issue here isn't one of reliability... its one of WEIGHT. By quoting individual sources, the article is giving too much WEIGHT to those individual sources. That is true on both sides of the political spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: I agree with your logic. However, I should note that there is a difference from if a source can be in an article and if a source should be in an article. In a well covered movie like this one, there is no reason to include WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. Use the best sources possible to write the best possible article. Only use these sources when there is a good reason to. Here there is not a good reason. Casprings (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Use the best sources possible to write the best possible article. I would put it slightly differently... use the best sources that cover the various view points to write the best article possible. If there are multiple sources that cover the same view point, by all means substitute one for another... but we can't ignore a significant viewpoint just because the source is not great. Now... if you take my advice and broaden the statement, the "viewpoints" being covered are (or should be) those of "liberal commentators" and "conservative commentators". So... the question is: what are the best source for those viewpoints? Breitbart is actually a fairly good source when you are talking about political opinions and viewpoints. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the right approach. I got briefly involved in this discussion because I saw Daily Kos mentioned and wanted to vote for its deletion, since I view it as faux progressive. I never go to Breitbart, but my impression is that it is fairly reputable, as far as "conservative" Web sites go. (I used scare quotes because I believe that "true" conservatives are people like Pat Buchanan.) But the main point I wanted to make here is that I believe such endless discussions are harmful to the Misplaced Pages community. I really haven't looked at the discussion closely at all, other than to respond to the alleged SPA that people are complaining about here, but my impression is that what is going on here is that people who see themselves as "progressive" are using this opportunity to bash a "conservative" Web site. I think that such activity just leads to a more hostile atmosphere, without really doing anything to build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think it's appropriate to make assertions about other editors after what is self-admittedly only a cursory look at a months-long discussion? The refusal to grapple with the policy-based objections in favor of baseless assertions has been a continual source of frustration here, unnecessarily prolonging the discussion and creating that "hostile atmosphere". Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar and Gamaliel: I again agree with with Blueboar. All viewpoints should certainly be represented, with regard to WP:WEIGHT. The point is, there are much better sources that do "cover the various view points. One should cover the "normal" respected critics. But given that this is a political movie, one should cover the various political viewpoints. But in doing so, why not use sources with the best reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Instead of using The Daily Kos, why not use Huffington Post. Instead of using Breitbart, why not use the National Review. The same viewpoints should and would get covered. However, the quality of the sources used to build the article would be vastly better. As such, the article itself would be much better. With the amount of sources that are out there for this movie, there is absolutely no need to use the sources I have named in this RFC.Casprings (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The same Huffington Post that just spread their interview with the fraudulent "witness" of the alleged police execution in St. Louis whom they found on Twitter? Some fact checking. No, Breitbart is the conservative equivalent of the Huffington Post, and, news coverage aside, both are extremely salient sources for political opinion. This is about opinion coverage, not news coverage in Misplaced Pages's voice, so the focus by some on "fact checking" here is an illegitimate excuse to try and exclude views. VictorD7 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In 2012, The Huffington Post won the Pulitzer Prize in the category of national reporting for senior military correspondent David Wood's 10-part series about wounded veterans, Beyond the Battlefield. and received a Peabody Award in 2010 for "Trafficked: A Youth Radio Investigation." Breitbart has received no such peer recognition for good journalism. Moreover, it doesn't correct itself and has reported multiple false stories, and does so frequently without correcting itself. There is no comparison with regard to WP:RS standards.

Um -- Breitbart expressly corrected itself on the Sherrod case, the Lynch case, and issued a dull discussion about the ACORN tapes and so on. Were you implying they had refused to make corrections in your post above? And one should note the discussions here are not about ascribing facts to Breitbart but to using opinions cited as opinions - for which corrections rarely ever get issued <g>. Even RT is reliable for opinions cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

One ideologically driven Pulitzer doesn't change the fact that it's a partisan blog that relies heavily on personal opinion, and does things like interviewing some dubious Twitter account claiming to have seen a cop execute an unarmed young man in cold blood, posting it publicly with absolutely no verification or fact checking, only to have the video surface showing the decedent pulled a gun on the cop first, and their trollish "witness" publicly mock them later for not checking their sources. HuffPo didn't find their own error through internal fact checking. By contrast, at least Breitbart honestly posted the NAACP video it received, which was authentic and not staged. And, contrary to some false claims here, Breitbart does employ a professional editor staff for oversight. Regardless, as Collect said, we're covering opinions here, not facts, so nothing you said is relevant. VictorD7 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you think you are trying to get the best sources you can in the article, but your casual dismissal of the Pulitzer Prize clearly indicates that your beliefs about what the best sources are differs from the majority of Wikipedians. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We may or may not disagree on the 21st Century relevance of Pulitzers (I doubt many would argue that being tossed one is a magic bullet somehow transforming a low brow partisan blog like HuffPo with loose to nonexistent fact checking into a quality general use news source), but that's an irrelevant tangent since we're covering opinions here rather than news reporting. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly. The proponents are using the previous RFC, which said the source could be used, as a mandate that it should be used, and they want to include at least three different quotations from this low-quality source. Weight issues, which should be the deciding factor, have been completely dismissed by the proponents. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Poorly phrased RfC Arzel (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe/Probably Remove/Probably Remove Media Matters is widely quoted in reliable sources and may represent a significant perspective that should be included. Breitbart and Daily Kos are pretty much just muckrakers and so unless the specific opinionista is being presented from there is widely acknowledged by outsiders as a representative voice of a particular segment or the specific opinion piece itself has been noted by reliable source, the opinions presented within those publishers should probably not be used and DEFINITELY should NOT be used to be making any claims about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• DKOS=Remove/MediaMatters=Remove/Breitbart=Stay Only Breitbart is a news source. Kos is a left wing blog or blog of blogs. MediaMatters is left-wing news media critic. Breitbart is a broad news and reporting organization with professional staff and editors. Their review and interviews are actual news. --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a "news" source in the general meaning of the term on Misplaced Pages for an organization that presents facts that have gone through an editorial oversight process. It is polemical propaganda site.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• NO/NO/NO I see no reason to remove any of these sources. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, Yes, No Breitbart.com should certainly be removed since it's a questionable source by nearly all accounts defined by WP:QS. I'm not as familiar with the two other sources but a quick reading of their respective WP articles doesn't show any misconduct that would qualify either as "questionable" by WP standards. Almost all of the controversies listed on MEdia Matters and Daily Kos have to do with peoples' receptions of articles and aren't about the companies' own misconduct. This is different from Breitbart.com where the controversies in the section of the same name, actually deal with instances where Breitbart.com showed little to no fact checking, published based on rumor, intentionally manufactured stories, or did other actions that would qualify it as a questionable source by WP standards. Furthermore, MEdia Matters is considered a "fact checking" site and is non profit, so that already puts it in a separate tier than Breitbart.com. Using Politifact.com, Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What an absurd metric to use. Selective checking of facts to fit a pre-described purpose is pointless. Perhaps if Politicfact was a non-biased party it would have more weight, but objective real statistical analysis of politicfact shows them to be far from it. They were to begin with, but now are little more than a useful tool for Democrats to use to try and "objectively" prove their point. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I used two different metrics when comparing the articles and I previously used a third metric in determining that breitbart.com is a questionable source called Misplaced Pages Policies. What's absurd is editors trying to falsely equate Breitbart.com to other media sources and these two metrics show exactly why it's absurd. Regardless, it's empirical evaluative evidence that people can use instead of just listening to baseless assertions made by Breitbart.com supporters and that, sir, is not absurd.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• To underscore the hilarious absurdity of the above comments, here's an extended Daily Kos piece from 2011 flatly accusing Breitbart of hacking Weiner's account and faking the scandal. It also attacks CNN and the NY Times for covering Breitbart's report. Of course this was before Weiner admitted he had lied, apologized to Breitbart (after media prodding at the press conference) for lying, and ultimately resigned, vindicating Breitbart. I'll add that guidelines stress Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source for good reason. The respective controversy sections say more about this site's failure to live up to its own neutrality standards than it does about the article subjects, and shouldn't be the primary basis of any editor's research in this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Responding to RFC as someone who has not previously been involved in this article. No the sources should not be removed. A film review is necessarily an opinion piece. In an article about a film it is important to present a range of critics views in order to present a balanced view. Add more well known sources - I googled and saw a review from the Washington Post. Perhaps you can find others. The article is not well written at all and perhaps it should be rewritten with the normal subheadings that one would see in an article about a film - I notice there is no mention of the plot or story line. Isthisuseful (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pieces can be reliable assuming they come from a reliable source and undergo the same editorial oversight that other articles do. If the source has a poor reputation for fact checking and lacks any meaning editorial oversight, then it's not a reliable source and whether the article is objective or subjective it is still limited by WP:verifiable and WP:reliable policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, reliability is always depends on context. In this context we're merely covering attributed opinions, so the only verifiability concern is whether the sources accurately relay the quotes, which they do. Leaving aside the fact that almost none of the opinion sections' sources would normally be considered good for sourcing news or facts in Misplaced Pages's voice, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RSOPINION clearly state that sources and material not normally considered reliable or suitable to use in Misplaced Pages's voice can be used with attribution. The question is one of due weight, not sourcing policy. VictorD7 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:RSopinion is the only one that speaks to reliability and it says "some" sources not "any" or "all". WP:attributepov only applies to WP neutral point of view standards and still says that sources have to meet WP verifiable guidelines which Breitbart.com does not meet as it falls under the questionable source category and therefore has its own limitations. Though context should certainly be considered, there are still sources that categorically fall under different quality standards and they are identified throughout WP:verifiable and WP:reliable, and neither WP:attributepov nor WP:rsopinion override the more specific restrictions set by WP:QS or WP:Aboutself which set additional restrictions for sources that are generally classified as being questionable or self-published. If all you had to do was quote a source and attribute for it to be considered "reliable" then WP wouldn't have 2 entire articles with multiple sub-articles outlining reliability.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:BIASED all deal with what type of material sources can be reliable for (context), and clearly establish that attribution makes material and sources usable that wouldn't be if adding facts in Misplaced Pages's voice. Quotations even stresses that supporting quotes with the original source (likely to be opinionated) is preferred for verifiability purposes, and treats original sources and "reliable secondary source"s as different categories, with the latter being acceptable as a last resort if the original isn't available. Of course not every source is reliable. Napkin scribblings or unverified facebook posts aren't. But the sourcing concern expressed in the links above are with the verifiability of the quotes, not their content, and WP:BIASED gives extreme examples of individuals being acceptably quoted with attribution for their opinions. Of course your QS argument has been rejected at every turn, and would apply to virtually every source in the section. Even if Breitbart is deemed questionable as a source for quoting others (it's not), no one has advanced an argument that it's a dubious source for its own opinions. Most of Misplaced Pages is presented as prose facts, which is why there's so much material on assessing reliability. There's far less on using attributed quotes, but what exists supports the position that Breitbart is RS for its own opinions, as the previous RFC found. VictorD7 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is a NPOV subject/guideline, not one that's relevant to reliability. Furthermore, I've already explained with specific quotes and examples how the other ones apply to sources that are already reliable. Reliable sources have little if anything to do with whether a person actually wrote/said something, and has more to do with the QUALITY of the source from which a passage came. This is why WP:QS identifies multiple aspects of source that wouldn't meet WP's reliability/verifiability requirements, including whether something is heavily reliant on opinion, if it has a conflict of interest, if it has a reputation for fact checking, if it slanders believed peers, etc. If a source does these things, then it is a questionable source and questionable sources have their own specific policies. WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED, and WP:RSOPINION deal with sources that are already genuinely believed to be reliable and they exclude questionable sources. Just because you "reject" WP policy, that doesn't mean your edits get to ignore it. WP:QS also and already supports that sources can be reliable for their own opinion, but then limits the use of those sources to material about themselves and restricts them from making claims about others, both of which your Shapiro quote is in violation of and their has been no rebuttal for that fact.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I've already explained with quotes and examples that reliability "always depends on context", so there is no such thing as a source that's inherently "reliable" or unreliable across the board. I've also shown how these multiple links undeniably establish that a source that might not be reliable for supporting factual material in Misplaced Pages's voice can become reliable for sourcing if attribution is added. And by your own logic QS policy is about verifiability, since it's on the verifiability page, and no one contends Breitbart is questionable for its own authors' opinions. I clearly never said I reject policy, but I and most others do reject your interpretation of it. Even Blueboar, who's edited the Verifiability page for years and helped shape its contents, disagrees with you. QS makes no mention of attributed material ("contentious claims" likely refers to claims in Misplaced Pages's voice, since that's what most of Misplaced Pages is), and I've explained how "material about themselves" can reasonably be interpreted to include their quoted opinions, which is why we're allowed to quote critics and pundits from sources that "rely heavily on personal opinion" (including the bloggers you personally added in contradiction to your own QS position here). None of the sections I linked to mention "questionable sources", and the sole sourcing concern expressed is that the quotes are verifiably relayed. That's the only level of "accuracy and fact checking" that matters in this context, and even you concede that Breitbart is reliable for its own authors' opinions. It's telling that you can't find any policy explicitly discussing attributed quotes and limiting their use on sourcing grounds.

Furthermore, sourcing policy states that we're to treat the author as a source too in our evaluations, which is why the expert exception allows even facebook posts from an established expert to be used, as long as they're verifiably his. Breitbart's Toto is an established professional critic who's RS here by definition according to film guidelines. His review would be usable even if it just appeared on his personal blog. Ben Shapiro is a notable best selling author and political pundit who's been cited or interviewed by countless media outlets. Since he published an entire article on this topic he's ideal for representing the conservative reaction in our Political commentary section. WP:NPOV is certainly policy, and you can't trample over it to get the primary conservative source completely removed while you're keeping and adding leftist sources that rely heavily on personal opinion, especially when most of them also lack the reportage and editorial oversight elements that Breitbart has. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all You yourself said that we have sources verifying everything the sources were there for. We can use them as cross reference. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• No to Breitbart I agree with users above that Breitbart fits all the criteria for a questionable source and should be removed. Dmrwikiprof (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• No All 3 have a stake in this, and are important political sources for commentary on the documentary.--TMD Talk Page. 22:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the question This is not how to determine RS. All 3 RS are partisan/opinionated - all 3 fact check (sorta) - none are perfect. Read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability,_not_truth for your answer. See the 3rd para of the Al Sharpton lead - excellent example of formatting and citing. --Atsme☯ 14:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptably biased question wording

There is absolutely no basis for singling out two of the many sources used, lumping them together like that, and asking if they and only they should be removed. While I support the notion of an RFC here, I ask Casprings to adjust the question wording to something neutral that explains the common basis for removal like "Should opinionated sources be removed?" or "Should overtly political sources be removed?" At the very least more than Media Matters needs to be included. We can't remove Breitbart if we're leaving in the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, and others. Update: I see you just added the Daily Kos, but that's only a marginal improvement. Breitbart is the most prominent conservative news/opinion site and features a notable author and pundit who wrote an entire article about the reception to this film (along with commentary from others), so tossing out only two of the many leftist opinion sources used is hardly a fair and neutral trade. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How much more neutral can you get then "Should X be removed?" I added Daily Kos, as I did not see that and I think it has the same problems as the other two. I do not agree that the others are in question nor do I agree the problem is "opinionated sources". Casprings (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The others, especially The Huffington Post, Daily Beast, and Salon, are very much in question, which is why I listed them and why they've been mentioned all over this page. That you're not including them because you don't think they should be removed illustrates how the current question wording is biased and rigged to yield a particular result that won't come close to resolving the disputes here. Also, clarity is needed on precisely what you want to remove from Breitbart. Just the Shapiro quote? Both the political pundits quoted from it? The professional critic (Christian Toto) who's quoted in the above section and whose inclusion has already been explicitly approved by another RFC? The other, more mundane uses of the source elsewhere in the article (added by Erik I believe), the deletion of which would require chunks of the article to be rewritten? VictorD7 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Those sources you have listed, unlike Breitbart, have long been accepted as RSes on Misplaced Pages, but you are welcome to start your own RFC or RS noticeboard post on the matter instead of complaining about the simple and straighforward RFC here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Of those sources the only one that I've seen a consensus supporting as "RS" is Breitbart. Of course being RS always depends on context, so your claim is nonsensical to begin with. VictorD7 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Again claiming the "Brietbart as a reliable source" was the outcome of the RFC is reading only a very partial aspect. The "reliability" of Breitbart was that the site was reliable for not having made up a review and claiming it was written by Toto. That is as far as the "reliability" goes. There are multiple other occasions such as ANY content about ANY living person, Brietbart has utterly failed as a relaible source due to their repeated history of being exactly the opposite of reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the RFC found Breitbart reliable for supporting the quote in this article, which goes further than you imply. Again, I have never seen Breitbart found "not RS" in any context, and certainly not this one, nor have I ever seen any of the leftist sites I listed above be explicitly deemed "RS" by consensus. They may have somewhere, but no one has linked to such a consensus yet, and they certainly haven't been deemed RS on this article. I'm not opposing their use here, but just illustrating how the assertions I'm responding to are the opposite of the truth. This RFC should include The Huffington Post, Salon.com, National Journal, Daily Beast, and the others I mentioned to be neutral, productive, and worthwhile. People can give different answers for different sources if they wish. VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the close, it does nothing of the kind. "Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. " (emph added) the question was " Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" Period. That you failed to frame the question in the RFC to determine community response your actual question is not anyone's fault but yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

<INSERT>You left out the part of the RFC intro that linked to the specific discussion, linked to the specific article section in question, and ended by saying "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." It was clearly laid out, and the respondents seemed to understand just fine. The misrepresentation in your post is no one's fault but yours. VictorD7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It was clear from the beginning that this was the plan: a narrowly tailored RFC designed to be innocuous and gain acceptance, which was then used as a mandate for edits far beyond the scope of the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What is clear is that you and a few others don't like the result and have been forum shopping the result for months to try and get it removed. It is a little disgusting to say the least. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

These editors clearly weren't forum-shopping for months. This is not true. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the opposite of what happened. The SPA who is the chief proponent of including Brietbart has spent hundreds of edits arguing about it in practically every noticeboard on Misplaced Pages. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you remember the initial discussion, that editor believed that this article was being targeted for purely partisan reasons without regard for WP policy. Efforts to use policy seemed to result in more strongly partisan approaches. The more you fight him on this the more convinced he is that you are doing it for purely partisan reasons. Frankly, you are doing little to prove him wrong given the results of the previous RfC. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to try to mediate this dispute, be my guest. I have tried to engage this user for months, and each time I have been kicked in the teeth for my trouble. He came here with a battleground mentality, and that's obviously not going to change regardless of what any other editor does or doesn't do. I'm not going to stop opposing attempts to fill this article with shitty sources because he's got a chip on his shoulder. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Aren't you the one who added Kos, Media Matters, and Salon to the article? VictorD7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to lower the quality of sources to let Brietbart in, then those sources are fair game. I say we should keep them all out, but whatever is decided, the same standards should apply to all sides of the debate per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So you responded to one source you don't like by adding at least three "shitty" ones (your adjective) to the article. Got it. Looks like you're fine with the section's other numerous "shitty" sources, from Slant and Indiewire to the Huffington Post. Sacrificing a couple of leftist sources to get rid of one of the section's two and only two conservative sources, leaving numerous leftist sources in, is hardly in accordance with employing "fair" and equitable "standards" in covering "all sides of the debate" the "same" way "per NPOV". Just because you don't like Breitbart doesn't mean you can ignore its prominent voice in the realm of political discourse. Covering political discourse means fully and accurately doing so. However, I will say I appreciate your comical hubris in attacking me for supposed hostility, when I've never started (or cheerled) a personal call out section against another editor, and I've never trolled by posting giant pictures or linking to youtube videos. Unlike me, you didn't even start the required talk page sections following the neutrality tags you added. I charitably started one for you that you barely participated in. And on the Costco matter I made good faith efforts and proposals to address your concerns that you never even bothered to reply to. Every step of the way I've been sincerely engaging in productive collaboration, while you've been going through the minimal motions you felt you could get away with while skewing this article as much as possible through sheer edit warring. All I want is a neutral, high quality, encyclopedia article, and I don't oppose using any of the noteworthy opinion sources in the opinion sections since our task is to cover opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that you've regularly cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and accused them of being liars, let's please abandon this pretense that you've been a perfect little angel engaging in productive collaboration instead of systematically alienating anyone you disagree with, and even people who largely agree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You linked to TFD (with whom I almost never agree) claiming I had called him a liar, but maybe you missed my reply pointing out that I hadn't, and had only identified falsehoods in his posts (legitimate to correct). In fact our primary dispute (which stretched for many paragraphs and involved him arguing with multiple editors) was over his confident assertion that, since Rotten Tomatoes had at the time not cited a Toto review since May, they had dropped him as a recognized critic, despite me explaining that gaps of months weren't uncommon at that site. RT has since added over 40 Toto reviews stretching from September to Dec. 20, underscoring that I was correct (still waiting for TFD's retraction, but not holding my breath). As for your other link, SRICH and I have disagreed as often as agreed, and he has yet to weigh in on this RFC. He did, however, condemn and ultimately hat the call out section you supported below as "WP:TPNO". And another editor I disagreed with on content labeled the section "way out of line", disagreeing with the charge. Then there's the fact that the accusation was easily proved false. Your failure to address the evidence I linked to showing me trying to collaborate with you, or outlining some of your trolling, is telling. You've routinely cast aspersions and engaged in other inappropriate behavior (including abusing your admin powers in a personal dispute you were engaged in), which has been commented on by others. Oh I never claimed to be an angel, but your posturing here as some neutral editor merely concerned with article quality while I'm supposedly being mean to you is insanely untrue and demanded refutation. VictorD7 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you, I'm not pretending I'm a neutral editor or that I've been a perfect angel. I have taken a position on this matter which I believe is backed up by policy. You are more than welcome to disagree with that position, and I believe that at time you have actually tried to be reasonable and collaborative with your disagreement, but overall your method of disagreement has often been combative, confrontational, obnoxious, and offensive. It's been a very long edit conflict here, and we all have had moments where we've been less than perfect, but you are the only one standing in a pile of your own bullshit and insisting that you smell absolutely delicious. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You even initiated the personal attacks in this thread, lol, repeating the debunked "SPA" accusation, as anyone can scroll above and read. Unlike yours, my "combative" comments are usually limited to describing content and arguments, and I've backed up everything I've said (e.g. see my above post). I've been less offensive and way less obnoxious than you have, so your whiny claim that you "tried to engage" me "for months" only to be "kicked in the teeth" for your trouble "each time" was laughable and contradicted by the evidence I just posted. Unless you're defining me seeking broader community input that rejected your arguments in an RFC consensus as you getting kicked in the teeth. VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this post has just convinced everyone that your behavior has been completely above board, and that the reason this conflict has gone on for so long and that so many editors are exacerbated by your conduct is because they are all just meaniepants bullies. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What "many editors"? Are these voices in your head? You're the one pretending that those who disagree with you are unreasonably bullying you, despite your alleged attempts to reach out and collaborate, which was what I replied in this line to dispute. I think honest observers can read the evidence and make up their own minds. VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the editor you called a liar and the one who you said should sharpen his reading and critical thinking skills are figments of my imagination. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So the guy who falsely claimed I had called him a liar (telling that you didn't link to anything I said) and the guy whom I gave some sincere advice to on my own talk page, and who condemned your behavior on this one? Just as "many", if not more, have expressed exasperation with your conduct. This personal attack line you started isn't conducive to productive collaboration on content. VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How about limiting it simply to accuracy, which neither Breitbart nor MMfA nor Kos can lay claim to? Not all partisan sources are bad, but these aren't good ones by any stretch. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to what, CBS, the NY Times, or Rolling Stone? Your comment misses the point. These are attributed, subjective reactions to a political film, not facts where "accuracy" enters into it, and we can't cherry-pick the ones we cover in such a way that leaves an indefensible partisan skew. VictorD7 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter that it's "attributed." They're terrible, low-quality, regularly-inaccurate sources. You might have a point about Rolling Stone as of late, but surely there are good sources we can use that aren't the one subject to this RFC. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How do we define "good source" when the topic being covered is the subjective political reaction? I'd say, given that context, the best sources are the most prominent and influential outlets. Certainly Breitbart is an indispensable such source on the conservative side for gauging opinion on a broad spectrum of issues. I'm not sure how "accuracy" enters into it if we're merely covering opinions, apart from being confident the opinions are accurately relayed to us by the source. The specific authors must be considered too. Do you not think a widely cited, read, seen, heard, and accomplished, notable pundit like Ben Shapiro is worth quoting here when he pens an entire article on the topic? Also, are you aware that the vague RFC's author is apparently trying to remove the https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her/Archive_4#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review.3F previously RFC approved] quote from Christian Toto, a well credentialed professional critic (now feature film critic for Breitbart, previously for the Washington Times for years and other outlets , , ), and currently the supplier of the Reception section's only positive quote? Should we really do that just because he now publishes his work at Breitbart? Film MOS Guidelines establish pro film critics as reliable sources for quotation regardless of outlet (a personal blog would acceptable).VictorD7 (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has largely been attacked because of one specific instance. If the same standard was applied to Rolling Stones, and now New York Magazine then they would have to be black-listed as well. I really do find it amazing how such a small section in a small article on WP has continued to be such a flash point. It really goes to show you how much some people despise this movie and the movie-maker. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

One specific instance? Here are at least four major egregious violations regarding living people for let alone the general fact stretching. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The RS standard is not perfection, it requires a general reputation for factchecking and accuracy which Breitbart lacks and the other sources have. The constant comparison of Breitbart to the occasional mistakes of otherwise reliable sources is a false equivalence based on a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You will need some citation that Breitbart is worse than other news sources. All the references I've seen also had similar issues with virtually every source for news. Even the Breitbart article's references for inaccuracy on selected topics highlight the same inaccuracy in other sources. If you have a specific fact that you believe Breitbart is reporting inaccurately, then RS Noticboard is a guideline for resolving. Otherwise, it meets our criteria for reliable sources: It's published, has editorial oversight and professional journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TRPOD has already provided such citations. Regardless, the standard on Misplaced Pages is that those advocating for inclusion need to prove that their desired source meets Misplaced Pages policy criteria, not that it automatically gets in until others prove that it is a crappy source to your satisfaction. Gamaliel (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart (and O'Keefe) are "post-objective". "One of the prime components of post-objective journalism is the understanding that the accuracy of a story is likely to be secondary to a story's impact. If the story does what it was intended to do (destroy or harm an organization, generally), it does not matter if it is later shown to have been a fabrication". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The other name for it is "investigative journalism." Regardless, this would be a story by story and journalist by journalist assessment - not a broad accusation against every byline (and it would be a BLP violation to broadly paint each reporter in that category). The other name for it is "the scientific method" where a hypothesis is created and then investigated. Surely, the scientific method's use of a "post-objective" hypothesis is not thrown out on that basis. The problem with your statement is that there is no evidence that Breitbart fabricates anything or is incorrect any more than any other organization. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT - "investigative journalism" is based on getting FACTS right - you dont get Pulitzers for stories because they the reported story took down an organization/person you didnt like based on false reporting. 06:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So everyone that has had a Pants on fire rating is not reliable? Absurd, not to mention the pure stupidly non-scientific validity of such ratings to begin with. Arzel (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a consistently poor rating for factual accuracy, then that is certainly a point to consider when we are talking about the reliability of sources. I really can't believe that I have to explain this to people. Gamaliel (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

But they don't. Politifact is one organization with a left-wing bent according to studies by the University of Minnesota. It has a criticism section even larger than Breitbarts. Media Research Center is also a fact checking organization that I doubt you would consider. It's pretty obvious that most of these so-called "fact checkers" are interpreting from bias and whence why they are all generally criticised. Breitbarts history as a news source is not any worse than any other media outlet. We can find just as many discrepancies with facts in NPR, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, NY Times, CNN or Washington Post. One of the film critic assessments above stated that correlation to box office and audience was indicative of how reliable a critic is. If that's the case, this film did pretty well at the box office. The critics that match that are reliable. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC

Once again, the standard isn't "all sources are bad, so we should treat them all as equally reliable." The standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. So far, the case for Brietbart hasn't been to demonstrate that it fulfills this requirement, it has been to attack everything that isn't Brietbart. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And once again you are incorrect in stating that Breitbart has not a met an invisible standard that you haven't established for any other source. They are reliable, published and professional journalists with editorial oversight regardless of how much foot stomping you do to impugn them. Breitbart has the same reputation for fact checking as any other source and this is supported by other reliable sources. We don't gauge reliability on miniscule variations whether it's a difference between CNN and MSNBC or Breitbart and Boston.com. We certainly don't base it on the WP article about them. --DHeyward (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My "invisible standard" can be seen by everyone at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. What remains invisible is any proof that Breitbart meets that standard. Despite months of assertions, the only "evidence" offered has been Alexa rankings and attacks on other sources that are not Breitbart. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes it eve less visible since there are those that disagree with you. "Context matters" in case you didn't get passed the nutshell version. "Everyone" that reads Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources doesn't agree with your interpretation that it is inherently unreliable or that its history is significantly different than other sources of news. There is no reason to believe that in this article and context that Breitbart is unreliable. You've offered no proof except pointing your narrow interpretation of a guideline - one that supports context based sourcing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you don't remember the ample proof offered earlier in this discussion, please scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That rating is statistically worthless. See conformation bias. Arzel (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been multiple pieces of evidence presented that breitbart is not considered a reliable source. there has been no evidence presented that it is considered a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, stop edit warring immediately. You made this edit right after the page protection expired. This is the same edit warring behavior on your part and others' that led to the page being protected twice. I will request a third page protection if you or others continue this behavior. I strongly recommend that no edits related to this passage be made until the RfC closes. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just read your post, Erik. I restored the material because the last consensus was for inclusion, and we shouldn't just roll over and reward Gamaliel for edit warring to have it removed. An entire section was recently included over active opposition by multiple editors through sheer edit warring, and now the same couple of editors are trying to have their way in removing this segment through sheer revert persistence. I won't revert it any more until this RFC closes, but I will ask you to note that there is no consensus for removing the segment. If it's deleted again, it's an act of edit warring without consensus, and shouldn't prejudice discussions on the matter. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The content gained consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS after you re-added it and no one reverted it or mentioned it on the Talk Page for a month.VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved through discussion, not edit warring. This material is in dispute now, it was in dispute then. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also achieved implicitly through editing. You restored the material and it stood unchallenged and without complaint on the talk page for a month. The material wasn't disputed then, but your recent edit warring to remove it is certainly disputed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, that is no excuse to resume contentious editing after a second page protection was lifted, especially with a pending RfC discussion. There was zero need to re-initiate edit warring. The page existed without the passage for two weeks, and it can exist without it through the duration of the RfC. There is always a "wrong version". Discussion should be had until it is finalized, and whatever the outcome may be, I assume all editors will respect it. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As predicted, Erik, Gamaliel continued to edit war with a hotly opposed alteration that lacks consensus. You should be calling him out if you want to retain credibility here. The page only existed without the passage for two weeks due to the page protection, which does not mean admin endorses the current version. Establishing the last consensus matters because the RFC asks if the segments/sources should be removed. A failure to gain consensus for such a change means the status quo remains. By policy we don't need a new consensus to retain the material, but one is needed to remove it. Gamaliel is trying to alter the status quo through sheer edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You could stop this matter by simply showing us where this alleged consensus was established to keep this contentious material in the article. You could have stopped any matter of arguments on this page by simply providing evidence, evidence that Breitbart is a reliable source, evidence that Avi Offer was a notable film critic, etc. Instead you argue and edit war, and that clearly illustrates who is looking to collaborate and who is here to use this article as a battle ground. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Already shown above, and Breitbart was found to be a reliable source in the RFC at the top of this page, though that hasn't stopped your arguing, edit warring, and projection laced personal attacks on the talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts to manipulate this discussion are clearly illustrated by your leaving out of the key part of the RFC, "for its own film review", which has absolutely nothing to do with quotes from O'Hare and Shapiro, nor does it mean that you can use it as a mandate to include whatever you want from Brietbart anywhere in the article. You want people to believe that this RFC wasn't a transparent attempt by you to game the system and that you are attempting to edit this article in good faith, then you should not claim the RFC says what it does not say. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Casprings' RFC trying to get rid of the specific Toto film review in question too (important question; don't dodge)? Regardless, everything I said is true (you asked for evidence of reliability and I provided it), so your latest attack is as desperate and false as your previous ones. And an RFC on this very article establishing consensus that Breitbart is reliable for something because it's RS for its own authors' opinions is relevant as a precedent when discussing the other quotes too, especially since no consensus exists finding Breitbart non-RS for anything, and no consensus here has been established finding any of the section's other sources RS for anything. VictorD7 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not evidence for reliability, that is gamesmanship. The question, for months, has been simple. Is Breitbart a reliable source for Misplaced Pages? Does it have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy as required by policy? Instead of providing evidence for that question, you've answered "Yes, it does because you can't prove it doesn't." That's not how it works, but your attempts at trying to make it that way have dragged on this edit war for months. All you have to do to win this argument is to provide that evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

From the Identifying reliable sources FAQ: "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual." So your question is nonsensical. The real question is whether Breitbart is RS in this context, and the RFC at the top of this page was clearly and productively constructed to answer that question (I've already "won" that argument). Dismissing the RFC as "gamesmanship" without coming close to supporting your charge is absurd and disruptive. You also failed to answer whether the new RFC applies to Toto's film review or not. That's a reasonable and vital question. Talk about lack of transparency and gamesmanship. BTW, loads of evidence supporting Breitbart as even a quality news source has been posted by multiple editors over the past few months, but that's a red herring since we're only using it for its own authors' attributed opinions in this context. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your keen interest in collaboration, would you mind pointing us to that "loads of evidence" please? Gamaliel (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it's a red herring, no, especially since you refuse to answer whether the current RFC applies to Toto's pro film review or not. But to satisfy your personal curiosity look for the paragraphs in various connected discussions here or on noticeboards providing evidence that Breitbart employs professional reporters and editors with extensive experience, is classified by others (like Alexa) as a "news" source, and has broken high profile stories (including but not limited to Weinergate). But what matters here is only Breitbart's or Shapiro's ability to represent attributed conservative opinion, or Christian Toto's credentials as a professional critic (if that's even at stake in this ridiculously nontransparent RFC). VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't refuse to answer, I have no idea what the answer is. I imagine that would be decided by the results of the RFC, like every other RFC ever. I don't see the point of your question or your insistence upon it. Would you elaborate in the interests of collaboration and transparency? As for the evidence, I do not believe the items you noted (popularity and employment background) directly address the issue of "a reputation for factchecking and accuracy as required by policy". Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful, since the RFC doesn't clearly ask the question and most respondents haven't indicated that they've read the article or are familiar with the uses in question. You admit you don't even know the scope of this RFC. Shouldn't you be asking for clarification from the RFC author, in the interests of transparent collaboration? As for reputation, links to hostile partisan blogs or off the cuff editorial comments by one commentator aren't decisive either. You left out the multiple examples provided of various media outlets citing Breitbart, meaning they do view it as reliable, especially for its own opinions. If it's good enough for the New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, and other outlets, it should be good enough for us. VictorD7 (talk)

I'm not sure why I have to ask somebody else the question you want the answer to, sorry. Can't you just ask? Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you want the answer? I did ask the RFC op, and received no reply. VictorD7 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't make Casprings answer you, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You could answer me yourself. I asked why you don't want the answer. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This needs to go to WP:ANI. This is getting silly.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow

The above is just awful, and flies in the face of WP:BALANCE, WP:AGF, & WP:NEU. Banning one of the few right of center reliable sources from usage in this article, coupled with what is going on in RSN, and than shooting the messenger, but turning to a discussion in an attempt to curtail the editing (if not outright ban) a editor whose political views may not be in sync with the left leaning members of the editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Calmes, Jackie (February 20, 2013). "Biden Shotgun Advice Draws Quizzical Response". New York Times. Retrieved 29 December 2014. Ben Shapiro, a columnist for the conservative Web site Breitbart.com, noted...
2. "Beyond The Battlefield: From A Decade Of War, An Endless Struggle For The Severely Wounded". The Huffington Post. October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
3. "2012 Journalism Pulitzer Winners". The New York Times. April 16, 2012. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
4. 70th Annual Peabody Awards, May 2011.
5. "Christian Toto BFCA membership profile". Critics' Choice. Broadcast Film Critics Association. Retrieved 29 December 2014. Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist and film critic with more than a decade of experience in newspapers, magazines and the Web. He is a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the Denver Film Critics Society. He covers entertainment at HollywoodInToto.com.
6. "Christian Toto". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 29 December 2014. Publications: Big Hollywood , ColoradoParent.com , Denver Post , Donne Tempo , HollywoodInToto.com , PajamasMedia , PopMatters , Washington Times , What Would Toto Watch? Critics' Group: Washington, D.C. Area Film Critics Association Total Reviews: 708
7. "ARTICLES BY CHRISTIAN TOTO". Washington Times. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
8. "Books by Ben Shapiro". Amazon. Retrieved 29 December 2014. Ben Shapiro entered UCLA at the age of sixteen and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated Harvard Law School cum laude. At seventeen, Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate, becoming the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. He has appeared on hundreds of television and radio shows and is the author of the national bestsellers Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future, and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House. Shapiro is married and lives in Los Angeles.
9. III, Burton St. John; Johnson, Kirsten A. (2012-03-15). News with a View: Essays on the Eclipse of Objectivity in Modern Journalism. McFarland. pp. 38–. ISBN 9780786491117. Retrieved 23 December 2014.

Editor behavior concerns

Edit warring

VictorD7 has resumed edit warring in violation of policy, which says, "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." I have requested full protection of the page but it may be necessary to file an edit warring report. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said on WP:RFPP, I really don't know how to proceed in this situation. If I leave it in, he claims there's "consensus" to include it because no one is taking it out, and if I take it out, then I'm "edit warring". When I previously stopped trying to remove the material, he has claimed that my refusal to edit war meant that there was "consensus" to keep the material, despite it being the subject of heated discussion on talk by numerous parties. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." I support inclusion of the material but can wait until the conclusion of the RfM. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, you just edit warred by immediately reverting both my tweaks to different parts of your unilateral reversions of long standing material, and you've been rewriting most of the article with a never ending string of larger, mostly undiscussed alterations, so be very careful about making threats. You don't own this page. Regarding the Shapiro quote, Gamaliel initiated the edit war when he tried to remove long standing material through repeated reverts against opposition by multiple editors. And no, the segment was consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS precisely because it went unchallenged for a month. Contrary to Gamaliel's claim of "heated discussion", I checked and found ZERO mentions of the Shapiro quote in talk page posting during that time. The segment isn't "contentious matters related to living people" as defined by policy. The phrase "living people" in the above quote predictably links to BLP policy, and WP:BLPGROUP it states that "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons". No individuals are mentioned in the segment. If BLP doesn't apply to specific companies, in what universe does it apply to a general political opinion about an entire profession? BLP could be abused as an excuse to remove any quote in the article; there's no legitimate basis for singling out Shapiro. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is gamesmanship, pure and simple. Instead of using the talk page to achieve consensus, you claim consensus because nobody wanted to edit war with you for an arbitrary period of time despite widespread opposition to this material on the talk page and multiple noticeboards. This is controversial material that multiple parties object to and you want to keep it in the article through sheer stubbornness. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There's gamesmanship involved here alright, but not by me. Despite your attempt to pretend that I'm the only one opposing you, most editors involved here want to keep the segment. I wasn't even the first to point out the established consensus here, Obsidi was (, ). During the month it stood unchallenged, neither you nor anyone else mentioned the segment on the talk page. Then you and another editor suddenly start edit warring to remove it, despite opposition by multiple editors. The only reason it vanished for a while was because the keep side stopped edit warring while the latest RFC was ongoing, and for a while when page protection just happened to come down after you had removed it, which doesn't prejudice the discussion and is most certainly not a consensus for removal. You have tried to change the page to your liking through sheer stubbornness; there has never been a consensus for removal at any point. VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus for inclusion. Controversial material should be discussed on the talk page before you edit war to include it despite multiple objections. We achieve consensus through talk page discussion, not gamesmanship. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you reverted yourself to restore the segment, and it remained unreverted and unmentioned on the talk page for the following month, WP:EDITCONSENSUS disagrees with you on whether there was a consensus for inclusion. It's not like you weren't around. About the same time the segment was restored you added neutrality tags. You failed to address your own tags on the talk page until I prodded you, and when you replied you only complained about Toto being included in the pro critic section. No mention of Shapiro's quote in the other section. The material didn't become "controversial" again until dunk suddenly removed it weeks later, and you pitched in to help him edit war. Controversial deletions should be discussed on the talk page before you edit war to implement them over objections by multiple editors. We achieve consensus through talk page discussion and uncontested editing, not repeated reverts until the other side gets sick and stops. VictorD7 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I was unwilling to continue an edit war where we were both reverting three times a day, you get to claim "consensus" despite the fact that there continue to be unresolved objections months later? Ridiculous. If you were not trying to use this to your advantage and the situation were reversed, you would be loudly proclaiming how absurd and offensive it was. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep leaving out the part where you failed to complain about or even mention Shapiro on the talk page in the weeks after you restored the segment. That no one else did either was telling, and established the consensus for inclusion. And no, when the situation has been reversed I have discussed my objections here, including by creating talk page sections that my NPOV tags (when I posted them) linked to. I'm always willing to discuss disputes in good faith. VictorD7 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Victor, my concern is that persistent attempts to restore the material creates animosity and makes it harder to reach a consensus. I am fine with including the Shapiro quote and have even tried to expand the article so that quote would be marginal in relation, but I have not tried to put the quote back in. I do not agree with the WP:BLPGROUP argument, but it has some traction with an independent assessment at WP:BLP/N (and one that I do not agree with). This being the case, I'm fine with waiting until later. The RfC has not been very productive since it has been dominated by already-involved editors going back and forth endlessly. New editors should have been engaged in discussion since everyone else is entrenched and being circuitous. We'll see how the RfM goes; hopefully it will be more precise in assessing arguments and counter-arguments. However, continuing to edit in the debated passage is edit warring, as I quoted above from the policy page. This is you alone over the same passage:

1. diff (January 19)
2. diff (January 18)
3. diff (December 29)
4. diff (December 29)
5. diff (December 27; resumed after page protection expired)
6. diff (December 12)
7. diff (December 12)
8. diff (December 12)
9. diff (December 9)
10. diff (December 9; resumed after page protection expired)
11. diff (December 5)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Me alone, again. Interesting. Here are examples of Gamaliel alone edit warring over the same passage.

1. diff (January 19)

2. diff (December 29)

3. diff (December 29)

4. diff (December 12)

5. diff (December 12)

6. diff (December 10)

7. diff (December 10)

8. diff (December 9)

9. diff (December 5)

10. diff (December 5)

11. diff (December 4)

12. diff (December 3)

13. diff (November 6)

14. diff (November 6)

"13" was when he self reverted, restoring the segment, which led to a month of stability as the material stood unchallenged, and an implied consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS since no one complained about or mentioned it on the talk page during that span. Your own reverts in recent weeks are far too numerous to list, some of them constituting edit warring. One person's edit warring isn't a defense for another's, but you singling me out in this call out section given the clear evidence above is disruptive bad behavior on your part. I'm adding perspective for the record. Just be careful about swinging that plank in your eye around. You're welcome. VictorD7 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Victor, each time the article was no longer page protected, you initiated edit warring. The latest case is when it looked like the RfC was no longer underway and the RfM was being set up, you initiated edit warring yet again. Gamaliel has engaged in edit warring, but you persist in initiating it to keep the debated passage in the article while the debate is ongoing, even though WP:NOCONSENSUS is a concern (that you and I do not agree with). Policy says, "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." The only edit warring that has taken place here is in regard to the Shapiro quote, and you and Gamaliel are complicit. I really would like to see the RfM through without this contentious editing. The RfM is "a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process", so after that, if it is in, it is in; if it is out, it is out. Can we not do without this passage and make our policy- and guideline-based case at the RfM? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Page protection does not endorse or establish a prejudice in favor of the article version at that time. It's supposed to provide a cooling off period during which the dispute can hopefully be resolved. Since the dispute wasn't resolved, I reject your premise as to its importance, and I was restoring the segment per the most recent consensus. WP:NOCONSENSUS doesn't apply as it's based on BLP, which doesn't apply to subjective general political opinions about an entire profession, as I've shown. The mere fact that someone invokes a policy like BLP (or SYNTH, or the other frivolously, often seemingly random policies dropped here as rotating excuses for deletion) in an edit summary doesn't mean everyone else has to sit back and let long standing material be removed. Otherwise almost anything on Misplaced Pages could be deleted by a determined minority or individual. The policy citation has to be reasonable. That doesn't mean we can't still discuss the matter at the RfM and elsewhere, though I'm not sure why you're assuming a clear resolution. For the record, edit warring having nothing to do with the Shapiro quote has also occurred here, including your recent multiple reversions to your preferred versions mentioned in part below (e.g. , , ), though I appreciate that you're now working with me on that. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, it takes two to edit war. How about you stop reverting Victor's edits?--TMD Talk Page. 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I quoted from WP:EDITWAR, "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Victor made two separate edits, and I reverted each one with an explanation. I revised the wording further in one exchange, and I agreed with his proposed wording in the other exchange. These reverts of mine do not come anywhere close to the edit warring over the Shapiro passage. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're forgetting your initial posts, which were reverts of long standing material, but I agree that afterwards you've been working with me on the issue in the below section. Per TMD's comment, however, you shouldn't have singled me out in your op here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is remarkably churlish of you to complain about my edit warring, then to use the fact that I ceased edit warring as a pretext to claim a nonexistent consensus. I have no idea how to register my continuing objection to this material without edit warring in light of the fact that any time I stop edit warring you claim I am consenting to this inappropriate material. No sane and honest reading of WP:NOCONSENSUS would allow for this sort of gamesmanship. I will not continue to edit war, but for the record my objection to this material stands until I post otherwise on this talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Every time you toss out this straw man I'll swat it away. You didn't just cease edit warring. You restored the segment and then proceeded to not talk about it at all for the next month. Neither did anyone else. I even gave you an opportunity to raise Shapiro if you wanted to by nudging you into commenting on the tag you added, and your only complaint was about Toto. Any sane and honest person would conclude that's consensus for Shapiro, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I no longer have your youthful stamina and I am unable to respond to every one of your many, many comments made over the last six months, nor does WP:EDITCONSENSUS require me to do so to maintain my objection to the material. Gamaliel (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Guess you missed the part where I just said you were still responding, just not about the Shapiro quote you had restored to the article (which no one complained about). VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Is our encyclopedia turning into a tabloid filled with Misplaced Pages:Attack pages and WP:COATRACKS as a result of partisan opinion winning over WP:PAG? What happened to balance? Where is NPOV? Why am I not seeing more common sense discussions relating to this article instead of argumentum ad hominum? I can actually answer the last question - it happens when an argument lacks substantive rationale. For Pete's sake, people - just look at the Reception section and tell me why you think it doesn't fail miserably with regards to NPOV, BALANCE, UNDUE. It's an embarrassment. Atsme☯ 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. The relevant policies and guidelines have been discussed throughout this talk page. In regard to the "Critical reception" section, the consensus as reported by mainstream sources is that the film has been panned by professional film critics. As WP:DUE explains, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." In film articles, critically acclaimed films will reference positive reviews in much more detail than negative reviews, and panned films will reference negative reviews in much more detail than positive reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New lede problems.

Erik, when I made a couple of minor tweaks for clarity and neutrality to your recent, massive alterations you immediately reverted without adequate explanations, so I'd appreciate them here. First, you say "Mainstream film critics panned the film as partisan." I changed that to "Most professional movie critics panned the film as partisan." You reverted. In this context, especially given the political commentary that immediately follows, "Mainstream" could be misinterpreted as a political qualifier. What's wrong with saying "professional movie critics", or adding "most", since there are noteworthy film critics who praised the film? It's a clear, precise description that's not denigrating in any way. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I added "professional" instead of "mainstream". I was seeing them as the same thing. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But you also deleted 1990'sguy's qualifier "majority of", saying in your edit summary that you "removed "The majority of" since one non-reliable blogger ID'd at RT does not break the overall consensus". RT cites two critics who praise the film, RT is apparently reliable enough for us to cite its aggregation, and that doesn't include the review from Toto, a very well established pro film critic who wasn't cited for that particular movie by RT for some reason (it's a non comprehensive sample) but routinely is cited by RT (and his review for this movie was cited by other media outlets). Those are three pro critics right there who didn't "pan" the film, and there are others. The current sentence makes it sounds unanimous, which is misleading. I'd ask that you restore the qualifier "Most..." for accuracy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I made the change. Reporting critics' consensus even for non-political films on Misplaced Pages is a pain anyway. I do disagree that saying something like "Film critics liked the film" or "The film got negative views" implies totality of that opinion. It is extraordinarily rare for a film to accomplish true universality in positive reviews; even Toy Story 3 has 4 negative reviews out of 280 total. It would be odd to say "most" professional film critics liked the film. However, here we do not have a big sample anyway, so I'm fine with restoring the conditional wording. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Now moving on, you also reverted my expansion of the political commentary segment because you objected to the "liberal" qualifier. That issue has been resolved since you altered the sentence's "critique" language, but that revert also wiped out a clause I added to the conservative commentator sentence that read, "...while critiquing what they perceived as political bias on the part of film critics." Reception to this movie clearly broke down mostly along party lines, and the film critics aren't immune from that, as anyone can see by actually reading the reviews. This political dynamic at play in the reception, or at the very least the perception of it, needs coverage here. This view is most saliently (but by no means exclusively) represented by the Shapiro article. Here's an article by notable conservative media analyst and nationally syndicated columnist Brent Bozell about it. Here's a piece by Christian Toto on it (a different article than his review) that includes a quote by producer Gerald Molen on the issue: "“In our film we talk about the shaming of America and how progressive elites attempt to silence the average American,” says America producer Gerald Molen of Schindler’s List fame. “True to form, some critics have attacked the film in ways that I’ve never seen before and yet actual filmgoers have given it the highest rating of any film this year. The people have spoken and we’re thrilled with their support and look forward to America’s continued rollout." World Net Daily ran an article on it called "Left 'comes out screaming' against D'Souza's America", which in part quotes D'Souza himself making similar arguments. And a slew of conservative blogs have repeated the same theme (e.g. , , ). Since not every conservative pundit explicitly commented on the pro film critics, I could compromise by qualifying the segment along the lines of ".., with some criticizing what they perceived as liberal political bias on the part of film critics." Or maybe a statement about D'Souza and Molen doing so, with conservative commentators agreeing. But the widespread (essentially unchallenged) conservative view that most pro film critics are leftists, and that this colors their reviews of explicitly conservative political films, needs coverage in this article, and I'd ask you to consider restoring some type of mention of it in the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So why are you continuing to argue? Misplaced Pages represents the mainstream subject matter experts. If as you say, the mainstream subject matter experts on films are "leftists" and the article represents the mainstream subject matter film experts. We are done. Appropriate presentation achieved per WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we're allowed to cover pro critics' opinions but guidelines explicitly make it clear that we aren't restricted to only covering their opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I changed "critiqued" to "analyzed" to get away from any perceived negative connotations, as I sort of see where you were coming from. As for the clause, the lead section is supposed to be based on the article body. Therefore, using only the Shapiro passage to make the claim that " conservative commentators... critiquing what they perceived as political bias on the part of film critics" is weasel wording. Other sources would need to be included in the article body to support that claim. In addition, considering that the Shapiro passage is under debate to be included in the article body at all, if it cannot even be included in a marginal sense, it does not by itself meet WP:LEAD to be part of a summary of the article's most important points. (If you have issues with other sentences in the lead section, we can discuss them.) I would prefer that we see how the RfM concludes before going beyond the mere inclusion of that passage. As for the other sources, we can discuss these as well as this that I found today. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This by The Washington Post states, "'America' was widely panned by critics and those on the left, while making $2.75 million its first weekend." Sort of tangential, but including this with the other sources would help frame it accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Even though D'Souza and Molen themselves comment on the issue of political bias among critics? I also linked to Brent Bozell doing so, so that's two notable third party commentators doing so without counting the WND article, and Toto, who's already quoted in the article, wrote an article about it too. When I get more time I'll dig up some others. The article is supposed to represent the various viewpoints, not include every single example of each one, but I'd be fine with adding more of these examples to the article if you feel that's necessary to justify a lede mention of the obvious political dynamic at play (liberal pro critic bias and/or the conservative perception of such). The page is under protection now anyway, but if Shapiro's quote remains when it's lifted would you consider agreeing to a lede mention? VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is wp:weight. You have three far right sources saying, "well they just reviewed it that way because they are liberal". These are three people. This isn't some major point of the American right. It shouldn't be included because it does not have enough significane to be included.Casprings (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bozell, Shapiro, Molen, D'Souza, and Toto are more within the American political mainstream than most pro film critics are, but that's just an aside in reply to your "far right" label. Those are just a few notable examples. They represent the conservative consensus that most pro film critics are leftists, and that this bias predictably colors their reaction to explicitly conservative documentaries. That consensus makes it more than significant enough to warrant our coverage. It's not even clear that leftists disagree with the bias part. Do you know of any sources that dispute that most pro film critics are left wing? VictorD7 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Casprings that it would be undue weight. On a summary level, it is problematic to state that film critics panned the film, then to immediately follow that with the conservative claim that negative reviews were essentially because the critics were liberal. This is false balance: "Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." I find it an "extraordinary claim" that has not risen to mainstream attention. The mainstream sources have essentially said that the film got negative reviews and that conservatives praised the documentary. In the article body, I support the Shapiro passage because it is in the margins of the coverage of critical reception, which is appropriate per WP:UNDUE, "The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." This is why I fleshed out individual reviews that fall under the mainstream consensus of the film being panned; it gives readers a better look at what each film critic had to say about the film.

When it comes to the lead section, WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis applies: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." This is why the false balance of the two sentences should be avoided. The article body has enough detail to achieve a balance of coverage mainly for the consensus view, but the lead section does not. I think the only plausible approach to have is to have a paragraph committed to critical reception where it is a more detailed summary of the relevant section, followed by the conservative claim. However, I'm not sure if we can strike that balance since this particular film has not gotten as much of a consensus breakdown as other films do. (For example, an overview of the critics' consensus may conclude that the visual effects were stunning but that the story was lackluster.) Erik (talk | contrib) 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik I Basically agree. However, I don't think the whole quote. This a minority voice within the American Right. This does not require the whole quote per WP:Weight. All that needs to be said is, "Certain columnist on the American right such as ______ and _______ stated the negative reviews were the result of the political bias of the reviewers." That's all that is needed.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about covering this in the article body? Replacing the Shapiro passage with that? Erik (talk | contrib) 15:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry that was not clear. But I think that makes the point and also gives it the relative weight in the article.Casprings (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, given how much the reception sections (plural) have been expanded, including five large paragraphs of negative critics' quotes, not counting the paragraphs dedicated to quoting liberal pundits, we can and should quote this conservative view advanced by multiple notable pundits and the filmmakers themselves about the reception even if it is deemed a "minority" one, though it's still unclear at this point whether it's even disputed. I don't know any conservatives who disagree, or any published liberals who would dispute at least the part about most film critics being left wing. No one has presented any such examples. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact a topic of this importance should really have its won subsection, like the ones Erik has added (perhaps along the lines of "Conservative criticism of critic bias"), quoting Shapiro, Bozell, and possibly D'Souza and/or Molen. That would be 3 or 4 figures notable enough to have Misplaced Pages articles all being quoted on the issue, which is more than any of the other subsections currently enjoy. Of course if someone can find a counterpoint disagreeing with them I'd be happy to include that too. It's unclear why this view on the reception dynamic itself, which is more fundamental than coverage of a few opinions from mostly non notable people (except Fund) on niche issues like Zinn or Alinski, is less deserving of emphasis than those various niche issue are. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, Erik, we have to return to the questions I asked you before. For clarity, how are you defining "mainstream" here? Also, keep in mind we're quoting subjective opinions here, not scientific consensus. False balance would only apply within the pertinent set, like if we're covering the set of pro critics and we imply as many liked it as disliked it, which the article has never been in any danger of doing. It does not apply in a cross set sense. In the set of political pundits, where the breakdown was roughly 50/50, we can't say that praise for the film or criticism of the pro critics is a "minority" position simply based on the opinion distribution of pro critics. The pro critics aren't everything. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream sources are the non-partisan sources used in the article: The Times-Picayune, The News-Press, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, The Hollywood Reporter, and USA Today. The Washington Post that I linked above is another. These collectively report that the film was panned, with some saying that conservatives praised it. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They report that it was largely panned by pro film critics, not by most people to have seen the film (the opposite is the case), nor by most notable commentators to have seen the film. Follow up questions: 1. Where do you get your definition of "mainstream" as meaning "non-partisan"? Is that definition provided in Misplaced Pages policy somewhere? 2. Does that mean you're assuming the pro critics are "non-partisan"? 3. Are you aware of the fact that all those sources you list, but particularly the Washington Post, USA Today and The Hollywood Reporter, are widely seen as partisan? VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Seen by partisan by who? It's not like this movie was only panned by professional critics. Conservatives also panned it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/07/20/dinesh-dsouzas-america-will-have-some-conservatives-yearning-for-michael-moores/ . Casprings (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tamny is a Libertarian party activist, as I've pointed out here before, and not a mainstream conservative in the sense that D'Souza, most writers at Breitbart and National Review, and many Republicans are. Most conservatives who commented on the film praised it, and virtually every conservative sees the above old media sources as liberal, but so do many non-conservatives. Look through this huge list of quotes from media insiders, most of them liberal, admitting that their outfits have a liberal bias: . Heck, the Washington Post started regularly endorsing candidates for president in the 1970s, and has never endorsed a Republican. Washpo even endorsed Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan. Reagan won 49 states (and came a few thousand from winning his opponent's home state to capture all 50) in the biggest presidential electoral landslide in US history, but he didn't get the Washington Post's endorsement. Polls have also consistently shown that far more Americans see the old media (Gallup asks about "newspapers", "tv", and "radio") as too liberal than "just about right" or too conservative, with about three times as many (roughly half the country) seeing it as too liberal as too conservative, and in 2013 74% of Republicans and 50% of independents seeing it as too liberal (only 5% of Republicans and 12% of independents said too conservative), while a majority of Democrats said it was just about right (57%; only slightly more Democrats said too conservative than too liberal, 21% to 19%). That partisan split among the rank and file alone is telling, as is the significant minority of Democrats who agree with Republicans. VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not constructive for any WP editor to offer a personal opinion which applies a label to a published source. In fact, it's on the verge of a BLP violation with respect to the author. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So you're opposed to editors using labels like "reliable", "partisan", "mainstream", "conservative", "liberal", "fringe", etc.? Gee, and here I thought source evaluation was part of our job as editors. VictorD7 (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is extensive documentation of the WP standard as to "mainstream" and "reliable" as those terms pertain to our editing here. That is not the case with the tags you attributed to the Forbes columnist. Please don't raise straw man arguments here and don't attribute red herring views to other editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. So, to be clear, your problem was that I described him as a "Libertarian", based on the link I provided of him raising money for the Libertarian Party? VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that reliable sources in the mainstream report the news that film critics, in their profession, panned the documentary. WP:SOURCE says, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include... magazines mainstream newspapers." The sources used here are well-established news outlets that have reported this kind of critics' consensus for all kinds of films. They collectively represent the significant viewpoint of how the film has been received by critics. It is an exceptional claim to state that the film only got bad reviews because the critics were politically biased. That is why it is a false balance to follow this significant viewpoint with the extraordinary claim. WP:VALID states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Erik (talk | contrib) 14:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No one's suggesting we don't cover critical opinion (or even give it the highest, most prominent placement), but, with respect, you didn't answer my questions, Erik. Where in policy does Misplaced Pages draw the distinction between "mainstream" and "partisan" that you did above? We certainly aren't limited to only covering pro film critic opinion, especially when there's a controversy involved in a movie. There's a consensus that we cover the general political reaction to this explicitly political movie; heck, you've been the chief agent in adding such material to the article. The view that pro film critics have a leftist bias is a mainstream view in the world of political commentary, and far from an exceptional one. So far neither you nor anyone else has produced a single source even disagreeing with it. Nothing in policy makes pro critics sacrosanct or free from criticism, especially when our coverage has expanded to a set of reliable sources much larger than pro film critics. Reliable sources are allowed to disagree with one another. If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that conservatives are right on this and liberal reviewers are largely letting their political sentiment color their judgement, then we would be grossly derelict in omitting that view from this article, and would be guilty ourselves of peddling leftist propaganda, using bloated, hostile critics quotes to essentially say "DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!!!" in flashing letters. That's not what this encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Even if conservatives are somehow wrong, and the fact most pro critics are leftist doesn't color their reviews in any way, that so many people think they do is a vital part of this subject we need to cover. Remember that we're merely quoting opinions here, not describing scientific theories in Misplaced Pages's voice. This isn't an issue for most movies, but clearly the prospect of political bias merits addressing when the subject is an explicitly political film, especially when multiple notable commentators have published entire articles specifically making such claims. What's the harm in doing so, unless one has a vested interest in hiding the issue? VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That last crack at Erik is exactly why so many people have a problem with your behavior. Was that really necessary? Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the last one to talk about people having problems with one's behavior, but I honestly didn't mean it as a crack or a shot at Erik. I meant it as a hypothetical and asked because I'm confident Erik doesn't have such an interest. VictorD7 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by "non-partisan" are sources that do not primarily engage in politics. For example, National Review has a political modifier to it, and so does Daily Kos. The mainstream papers do not have them. Per WP:SOURCE, such sources determine the significant viewpoint. We have been discussing whether or not to have the "exceptional" conservative claim in the lead section. I was saying that in the "Critical reception" section, the Shapiro passage is appropriate (though I see now that it is actually in "Political commentary" for some reason) because it fits WP:DUE, "...the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." In the section, that "sufficient detail" is the fleshing-out of individual film reviews since we know that the significant viewpoint as reported by mainstream sources is that film critics panned the documentary. In the lead section, we do not have this "sufficient detail" to flesh out the panned-by-critics viewpoint. If we report just the consensus in brief and then the conservative claim, then it is equal validity, which is problematic per WP:VALID. Like I said earlier, the claim could only fit if we have more detail in the lead section (e.g., a paragraph focusing on critical reception) about the negative reviews, followed by the exceptional claim. I'm not really sure if we have enough aggregate detail for that. One possible example to use in the lead section would be referencing Rotten Tomatoes's statement about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik, I don't see the words "partisan" or "political" anywhere in WP:SOURCE, and "mainstream" is left undefined, though Bias in sources and WP:BIASED certainly make it clear that reliable sources can be biased. I've mostly seen "mainstream" used here to refer to a particular view on a topic. Presumably when describing sources it could just refer to being widely read, prominent, and not generally pushing fringe views. Regardless, I'm not sure the distinction you draw between a paper like WashPo and Breitbart or National Review is relevant to this particular context, where we're covering the spectrum of political opinion. Some no name opinion writer (complete with his own biases) at an old print media publication (which in some cases here only has a circulation of a few thousand) doesn't necessarily merit more coverage than a notable political pundit being published online. Note that WP:SOURCE lists the writer as one of the three meanings of "source".

Back to the lede, is it your position that Misplaced Pages should take sides and treat the critics as if they're correct? Because my understanding is that we're simply noting the fact that they hold the views they do. The DUE segment you quoted exists because such false equivalences could mislead readers. For example, giving equal space (sans aggregations or summaries) to positive and negative critical reviews could mislead people into thinking just as many pro film critics liked as disliked the film. That's the potential harm. But we're in no danger of doing that. We're simply covering what different groups thought. The conservative commentary is separate from the pro critic opinion. No misleading. In fact you already juxtapose "political commentators" and "conservative commentators" with "professional critics", and there's nothing misleading about that. Does your segment stating that they "expressed a mix of full and qualified support" for the film establish a "false balance" with the pro critics who panned it, or are you just accurately describing the views of an entirely different but extremely significant group of people? If the latter, then why would adding the conservative view on the critical reception be any more of a false balance? We aren't changing our characterization that the pro critic view was negative; we would just be fully covering the issues related to the reception of this movie (perhaps even with something milder and vaguer than I previously proposed, like "..., and commented on perceived ideological bias in the critical reception). The view isn't "exceptional". That deals with fringe scientific theories or conspiracy theories, not to very widely held (and extremely plausible) subjective opinions about movie critics that are attributed to key notable people, and that we don't even have sources disputing.

In the body you currently dedicate almost twice as many paragraphs and far more words to political pundit commentary than you do to pro critic commentary. Is that undue, or are you just fully covering a subject that far transcends the pro critics' thoughts on the film? In that realm of political punditry, the conservative view is not obviously a "minority" one. Our duty is to accurately portray the views of critics and other groups, not to shield any of those groups by omitting the fact that they've been heavily criticized. Such omission would be misleading. I say that in abstract, understanding that you do support covering the view in the body with at least the Shapiro quote, and am just addressing the reasoning behind diminishing its coverage to the point of excluding it from the lede. VictorD7 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Erik. That said, it might be better for all parties to wait for mediation. This is not going anywhere.Casprings (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was closed. Mediation will not undo an RfC result. And many have declined mediation for that reason, which means MedCom will almost certainly reject it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream sources state that film critics panned the film, and I find this cohesion to mean that we should state that same outcome without caveat. I've made my comments under the impression that the Shapiro passage was in the "Critical reception" section, and I still think it should belong there, not "Political commentary", since it is in specific response to that reception. As for the "Political commentary", I think this section can be treated as distinct from "Critical reception", so I do not think they weigh against each other. As for summarizing that section, I identified the sub-topics that most frequently came up among the commentators. As for what conservative commentators thought, we could remove that from the lead section since we don't actually have an independently-reported summary statement of that like we do with the film critics. This topic is unfortunately too narrow and too new to have that, as opposed to something like American Sniper, where there is enough reporting going on that summary statements about the political commenting exist to reference. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: Category addition

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone add Category:Lions Gate Entertainment films? Trivialist (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with adding this category. Uncontroversial edit to make. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The reception section seems far longer than needed.

Is there any reason this needs a spiralling wall of text to cover the reception? From what I've seen, reception sections usually cover a couple of reviewers, a rotten tomatoes score and box office performance, and not a whole lot more. It's also a horribly written quote farm full of redundant points. HalfHat 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC) fixed at 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Halfhat, developed film articles sample more than just two reviews. We can reduce the sampling here, though, but keep in mind that the section also contains a minority view in the review from Breitbart.com. Per WP:DUE, "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it," so we do need to keep "sufficient detail" to offset the minority view. I would advocate for definitely keeping Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Los Angeles Times since they are circulated in print. Maybe among the other reviews we can determine which commentators have reviewed other films before, to ensure that they do it routinely, rather than as a one-off. As for the quote farming, well, I was probably applying WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV a bit strongly. We can paraphrase some quotes after we figure out what reviews to keep. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Couple was the wrong word, sorry. I'll respond properly in a bit. I've got to go now. IRL stuff. HalfHat 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the main issue is the number of quotes. It needs paraphrased. Look at the aggregaters, and summerize the main key points. HalfHat 21:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What about a draft article?

Similar to what was done quite successfully at the highly controversial Gamergate Controversy page, I'm suggesting creating a draft article to allow discussion and improvement, without disturbing the main article. I just wanted to see if you would be warm to this idea before going ahead. HalfHat 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not think this is necessary. The debate has largely focused on referencing the Shapiro passage. I think we can still use the talk page to make progress on other elements, such as your comment about the reviews above. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class Documentary films articles
• Documentary films task force articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Start-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles