Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reception

The reception should reflect the general consensus among critics. That is what is normal in articles about movies. This should not set a new standards.Casprings (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a normal movie. It's an explicitly political film, and the reception has fallen predictably along party lines. It would be disingenuous of us to pretend otherwise, or that only the opinions of a tiny handful of people who mostly all happen to be on one side of the political divide is all that matters. It's also not uncommon for other political documentaries to include quotes from pundits or others in the reception sections. Besides, Ben Shapiro does review films. The section leads off by citing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritics ratings, and includes quotes from Ebert.com and Reuters, so film critic opinion is well covered. VictorD7 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem saying that various conservative media outlets defended the film. What I would have a problem with is labeling the huge number of movie credits that panned it "partisan". You don't get to make people "partisan" just because they didn't like the movie.Casprings (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Their commentary, even the quotes being used here, show they're liberal partisans. They're attacking the film on political grounds, not artistic ones. But we don't label the critics "partisan" or "liberal", so your concern is unfounded. We simply present their views, and add a quote from Shapiro. Keep in mind that the section is just titled "Reception", and the reception by audiences have been overwhelmingly positive. The current Reception section is fine. Your concern, and that of any good faith editors here, should be the total lack of a "Plot" or "Synopsis" section. That's more important than worrying about the Reception section somehow not being negative enough. VictorD7 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I am just making the point that we should not be providing labels for those who aren't themselves labeled as partisans. Also, the quote from Breitbart should be removed. It is a fringe source and would not normally be included in a movie's reaction section. Casprings (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not "fringe". It's one of the most prominent online media outlets in existence, roughly equivalent to the Huffington Post. It's an opinion blog, but so are most of the other sources being cited. Reception is about opinions. In fact Breitbart routinely publishes movie reviews, an example of which I just cited above. In my edit summaries I also observed that Ben Shapiro is notable enough to have his own Wiki article, unlike "Peter" whose quote precedes his. I suspect Breitbart is cited fairly often in reception sections, but if it's not it should be. VictorD7 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is certainly fringe because it is infamous for editing news stories to fit their biases, often changing context as a result. Remember Shirley Sherrod? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you not see the list I just posted above? All of those scandals from NBC, CBS, and others are far worse. Regarding Sherrod, Breitbart, was handed a tape (a real one, not a forged memo ala Dan Rather) and posted it to show the NAACP's bigoted crowd reaction to her comments. The administration saw the line where she confessed to discriminating against white people, panicked, and fired her for the wrong reason without watching the full tape (Breitbart posted the version including her describing her supposed transformation away from racism online). After later seeing the transformation part they apologized and offered her a better job. Breitbart never called for her to be fired. She should have been fired for her later comments where she falsely characterized the Tea Party movement and other Obama critics as racists, but the administration ignored that (or likely endorses it) and essentially just knocked its own straw man down. Regardless, none of that makes Breitbart "fringe". The fact that the administration reacted to it shows it's not, as do other events like Breitbart's role in exposing (so to speak) Anthony Weiner, with Andrew Breitbart himself showing up at Weiner's scheduled press conference before Weiner did and being spontaneously mobbed with questions from the mainstream media. Furthermore, as I said below, here Breitbart is just being used to source it's own opinion, which it's clearly a RS for.VictorD7 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you point to examples of the source being used in other non-political movie reviews?Casprings (talk)

Probably, since it's a major site that routinely publishes reviews (here's another example [1]), but, again, it doesn't matter. Editors not previously using a source has no bearing on whether it's acceptable to use. If editors have been excluding it for some reason they've been wrong to. And I've certainly seen pundit commentary from all sorts of corners on pages for explicitly political films, including outfits that don't normally do movie reviews (unlike Breitbart). VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. In the past, it has been seen as not a WP:RS source. While certainly that always depends on the context, it has been seen as similar to WND. As such I think it should be removed.Casprings (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on what you've seen in the past, but both Breitbart and WND are at least as reliable as the Huffington Post or Ebert.com. In this case we're dealing with opinions, so all they would have to be reliable for anyway are their own views. I seriously doubt one could make a compelling case that they aren't reliable for that.VictorD7 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No. They are certainly reliable for their that. However, putting a fringe source's opinion in an article does not make a neutral article. Past concensus does not agree that Huff post is the same as WND. Perhaps is it is time to get some outside eyes to look at this?Casprings (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If we agree that Breitbart is reliable for its own views, then on what basis are you calling it "fringe"? Alexa ranks it 41st among global news sites in internet traffic, and it broadly reflects the views of half of the American political spectrum. Clearly it's mainstream, not "fringe". VictorD7 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I am arguing WP:Undue based on the fact that it is a fringe source. Including the quote weighs the story in a way that does not fit the context of the overall coverage.Casprings (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking why you think it's a "fringe" source given the facts I just posted. Repeatedly asserting it's "fringe" isn't an argument. If you're trying to claim that including a non negative quote (from any source) is "undue" here since most film critics panned the movie, then I'll remind you that the total reception from those who have seen the film has been overwhelmingly positive. It would be POV for us to censor out a quote that seems to reflect audience sentiment, leaving only quoted opinions representing maybe one or two dozen people whose one sided partisan views run overtly throughout their reviews. Sobczynski's column was almost entirely political; the recent edit switched his quote to about the only non political commentary he had, and, given the surrounding context, it was less than convincing. It would be blatant POV for us to suppress the other side here. Again, this isn't a normal movie, so when a film is explicitly political, reception breaks down along party lines, and film critics are overtly mostly on one side of that political divide while audiences and conservative commentators are on the other, it's not only acceptable to allow a quote from the other side contending what Shapiro does, it's the responsible thing to do. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him or the audiences that gave the film the rare A+ rating. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is fringe because the community has seen it as fridge in the past, in most context. I am traveling but will link the relevant discussions latter.Casprings (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See discussion here and here.

Your first linked discussion was four years ago, only had four posters participating, was asking whether Breitbart should be considered a valid news source (as opposed to a relevant opinion source), and only two posters even said "no" to that (without providing arguments). That's not a consensus for anything, much less anything pertinent to this discussion. Your second linked discussion was two years ago, and likewise asking about its RS news status specifically relating to Zimmerman/Martin case coverage. Even the posters arguing against Breitbart's use for facts in Wikipedia's voice pointed out that it could be used with attribution for news coverage, and that it was a reliable source for its own views. If anything, your links underscore what I've said. VictorD7 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I went ahead and asked for greater community involvement in this issue. I posted it on WP:NPOVN. Discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't purge all mention of the obvious political dynamic at play here

It would be unconscionable for us to only allow quotes from left wing commentators on an explicitly conservative film. That kind of twisted propaganda isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. With an explicitly political film, reception is predictably breaking down along party lines, and the Shapiro quote directly addresses that. It comments not on the movie per se but on the reception, which is perfectly legitimate in the reception section. Even if one disagrees with him he's speaking for millions of non liberals.

I already know Casprings won't change his mind, but I'd like to hear others, especially @Srich32977:, specifically comment on the "weight" issue as it relates to this quote. If we're just discussing film critics' response, I could understand not quoting a dissenting minority film critic (at least for a non political film). But the section covers total reception, not just a dozen or so critics' opinions as aggregated by a particular site, and the political dynamic is impossible to legitimately ignore. Even if one thought the former version gave too much weight to conservative complaints about liberal critics being motivated by political bias, isn't a better solution to simply add another liberal quote rather than delete the one third party conservative quote making the vital point, and pretending the latter view doesn't exist? VictorD7 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We can safely assume good faith that Casprings will work towards consensus. And I don't think a Great Purge of general political commentary is underway or needed. But the Beitbart.com piece (presently removed) suffered because it was more about the critics on the other side of the spectrum, rather than the film. For the moment I'm simply waiting for more commentary to play out here and on the NPOVN. – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I just wrote? The fact that he's commenting on the reception is a reason for including it, because with a political movie like this the reception, particularly the stark split between critics and audiences, is notable in and of itself. It's one thing if you disagree with me, but at least acknowledge what I say and address it. Where in Wikipedia policy does it say that movie articles should only contain quotes from professional film critics, and only quotes representing the majority view of that very narrow category at that? VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1. The reception should reflect the reception of the film. I see no evidence that these film critics are panning this for political reasons. 2. It is not acceptable to call our editors in your OP. 3. Pinging on editor, who had the most sympathetic view at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is in violation of WP:canvassing.Casprings (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

1. "The reception should reflect the reception of the film."

Agreed. That includes the reception by audiences, professional film critics, and other commentators. And, if noteworthy, facts or comments about the reception itself.

"I see no evidence that these film critics are panning this for political reasons."

You must not have read the reviews. For example, almost every paragraph of Sobczynski's review is attacking D'Souza's politics and making his own quite clear. The review's vile, almost childishly petty tone just makes it worse. Regardless, it's not about what you or I think. The sentiment that political bias is at play is undeniably widely held, and merits a mention.

2. Call out? I simply asked for S Rich's opinion. He did not have the most sympathetic view at NPOVN, which is why I'm asking him questions. Multiple editors showed up supporting the quote's inclusion, BTW, undermining your edit summary claim about the conversation's alleged "direction".

3. S Rich is currently very actively involved in editing this article on the specific issues in question so it would be ludicrous to accuse me of "canvassing" by wanting to talk to him about it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I said this at the noticeboard, but I'll repeat it here. A distinct "Political reaction" section would be far more appropriate than mixing that stuff in with film review. I'd support that. Those who are interested can see it, and those who aren't can skip it. Sources (and Wiki editors) definitely exist showing this film has stirred up the buzzing in those camps. So we should reflect it, without suggesting any of this has bearing on whether the movie sucked. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done so, with a "other responses" section. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think rhyming "critical" with "political" would be more aesthically pleasing, but that hardly matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Except the reviews themselves are political reactions (just read them), and we probably don’t need two or three different sections to cover Reception when a single quote (like that from Shapiro) would have been sufficient to cover the widely held view about the reception, and when we still don’t have a Synopsis section. That said, since a new “Other reactions” section has been created (for good or ill), would you oppose adding the Shapiro quote to it? VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Some reviews themselves, maybe. But not what we take from them to include in our article. Many of the sources we use on Wikipedia present the facts with a slant. We excise them and (at least try to) present them without it. For example, in D'Souza's article we take from the apparently biased What's So Great About America the straightforward claim that he became a naturalized citizen in 1991. What readers will be exposed to if they use our sources for further research is an issue for the wider world to address. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Would you oppose adding the Shapiro quote? VictorD7 (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the POV template

- The page still doesn't even have a "Synopsis" section describing the movie, and yet some editors have taken great pains to ensure that it's stuffed with negative commentary.

- Even a few weeks into wide release, an editor is updating the drop in screen count and receipts every week, something I've never seen done in a movie article, without explaining why it's relevant or pointing out how small the drops have been compared to other movies. Frequently used source Box Office Mojo even described it as a "fantastic hold", but any hint that the drop was "slight" has been purged from the article.

- The closest thing to a third party positive quote the page had, an observation by notable pundit and occasional film reviewer Ben Shapiro commenting on the political nature of the reception, has been removed from the article.

- A brief, sourced clause quoting the self described political affiliation of the negative reviewer whose quote is most prominently featured was deleted, leaving no mention of his politics.

- The fact that many people believe film critics are overwhelmingly liberal (including the critics themselves), and that this might be relevant to their reviews of conservative documentaries like this one, has been whitewashed from the article.

- A sourced sentence providing historical perspective for the extremely rare A+ CinemaScore grade was removed from the text and relegated to a scroll over note (can't we do that with the far less relevant weekly screen drop sentences?). Update - The historical perspective segment has since been totally deleted by an editor who erroneously cited "FRINGE" and "SYNTH", possibly not understanding what they mean since the segment came directly from the primary source and its facts are verifiable (the purpose of the second source) and undisputed. The "fringe" claim is a non sequitur here.

- Recent editing has pushed the article even further in the direction of only having the liberal POV represented, which is unacceptable when discussing subjective opinions on an explicitly political documentary. VictorD7 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We are required to represent the response with due weight. If the critical response to the film is overwhelmingly negative, we are not required to add quotes from fringe publications praising the film for "balance". And we don't add large quotes from those fringe sources which take up more space than anything else in the section. This completely misrepresents the actual critical response.

Connecting separate facts that you think are related is WP:SYNTH. Presenting these facts in a manner designed to present your particular point of view about the critical response violates WP:NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand what “fringe” means. Breitbart , a mainstream conservative outlet that’s ranked #41 among global news sites by Alexa, is not a “fringe” publication, and Ben Shapiro is notable enough to have his own Wiki article. Also, quoting a noteworthy writer commenting directly on the topic at hand isn’t WP:SYNTH. Rather than randomly naming policies, you should try to articulate an argument supporting one or more of your contentions.

You did make a “due weight” argument, but it’s rooted in the erroneous belief that reception coverage is only about professional critics. As the MOS guideline says, "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.......To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews.....Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used." Clearly there's no mandate that reception sections only reflect the views of professional critics, much less in the case of political documentaries. In this case the total reception to the film has been overwhelmingly positive. Even if one did grant the erroneous due weight argument, you're operating from the misguided premise that completely deleting the commentary is better than simply increasing the negative quotes. NPOV does require us to cover all aspects of an issue accurately, and omitting conservative complaints about film critics' liberal bias, and even any mention of the negative reviewer's admitted politics, fails to do that. VictorD7 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Popularity does not make something not fringe. Notability does not make something not fringe. VDare has an article. The Westboro Baptist Church has an article. Should we quote their film reviews as well?

Obviously you did not read my due weight argument because it has nothing to do with limiting reception coverage to only professional critics. It has to do with you favoring a paragraph devoted to a single fringe nonprofessional critic that is larger than the paragraphs devoted to a combined description of the views of all professional critics.

NPOV does not require us to document fringe viewpoints. It does not require us to note the politician orientation of one particular critic that you wish to highlight. If you wish to expand the section to eliminate UNDUE issues, go for it, but don't expect other editors to leave an UNDUE violation in the article while waiting for you to do so. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You have yet to provide an argument why the source supposedly is fringe. You disliking its politics doesn't qualify as a reason. Breitbart has millions of readers, is one of the highest trafficked news sites in the world, and broadly reflects the ideology of half of the American political spectrum. The WBC, by contrast, has about one or two dozen members. No comparison.

Ben Shapiro actually is a professional critic (among other things), but that's beside the point. Commenting on the reception itself falls into a different category than commenting on the film per se, and his view is certainly widely held enough for it to merit inclusion. The due weight argument (which I did read) collapses. Apart from that, the vast majority of the reception has been positive anyway, as proved by the CinemaScore grade. Even if he was just commenting positively on the film itself, "UNDUE" charges would have no basis. VictorD7 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What you want is WP:OR. You think the reviews are biased because they are negative. That might be the case. But we don't add it to the article because you say so. The article should remain consistent with other movies and film reviews form notable film reviewers should be reflected in the same way.Casprings (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

<Insert>Quoting directly from a source isn't WP:OR. It's the opposite. Please read the policy pages before citing them. VictorD7 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The examples of VDARE and Westboro are straw man arguments. They are not providing film reviews or political commentary about the film. If they had, it would be proper to omit them from the article. This debate is about Breitbart.com and the weight that should be given to it. Now Victor wants to expand the "critics section", but that won't work because the film itself is contentious. The best course of action is to present the aggregator data plus 2 representative reviews, pro & con. And then we develop a section that covers what the political commentators have said, along with the impact that the film has had in the general public. – S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying someone is a "liberal" and basing that on a review of another movie is certainly WP:OR. There is no source that says he is reviewing this movie as a liberal or a secondary source that is WP:RS that suggests his reviews are slanted towards the left. Sorry.Casprings (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, a direct, attributed quote from a source is never OR, by definition. Furthermore, multiple sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence all the time. That's not necessarily a violation of any policy. In this case PS's political affiliation is relevant since he's commenting on an explicitly political film. Either way though it has nothing to do with OR. VictorD7 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

providing equal balance to each "side" in the form of an equal number of reviews would be an UNDUE violation since he critical response has been overwhelmingly negative. Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that the audience reception was overwhelmingly positive, and the guidelines I cited above specifically mentioned CinemaScore (among other non pro film critics) as acceptable sources in critical reception sections. Therefore having a representative negative quote and a quote reflecting the positive reaction would not be undue. VictorD7 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and there are obvious political dynamics to recognize. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This argument makes little sense. Critical and audience reaction are two separate things, just look at any Michael Bay film. A positive audience reaction does not require us to misrepresent the nature of the critical reaction by creating a false balance. The allegedly positive audience reaction is already represented by the CinemaScore, which really only tells us that the relatively small audience for a niche political film is predisposed to like a niche political film in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed the phenomenon of positive or promotional reception among small self-selected groups is a common marker among fringe persons, theories and publications. As WP editors we should be able to recognize this for what it is and not "cut the baby in half" by pretending that these views are equally as valid as the clear mainstream/majority view. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the MOS guideline includes "Audience response" as a subsection of the "Critical response" section. The definition of critical reception is left intentionally flexible, so, again, there's absolutely nothing in policy supporting what you say. Regarding SPECIFICO'S comment, the MOS's specific endorsement of CinemaScore renders arguing against it futile even if you weren't ignoring the fact that an A+ score tells us a lot due to its historical rarity. If you're claiming we should ignore the obvious political dynamic involved, including overt, one sided bias by professional film critics (or at least the widespread, noteworthy perception of such bias), then please refrain from talking about pretense or "recogniz(ing) this for what it is". VictorD7 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel and SPECIFICO -- there was an UNDUE focus in this section on pundits' reactions to the critics' reviews. The article should stick to reviews of the film itself, not reviews of the reviews. Adding commentary from conservative critics would be appropriate; attacking the existing critics' reviews based on their perceived politics is not. Krychek (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your position has no basis in policy, and amounts to "I don't like it". Movie articles routinely cover noteworthy aspects of a film or its reception that transcend merely citing professional film critics' evaluations of the movie. The political component is relevant here because it's an explicitly political movie, the reviews themselves are overtly political, and the sentiment articulated by Shapiro (a notable writer/editor) is very widely held. Such phenomena merit mention in these articles. Purging any mention of the significant viewpoint clearly violates NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If tens or hundreds of millions of earthlings flocked to see the film, you might be on solid ground. From everything we know however, the film and its fans are fringe. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's already the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time, and the film and its fans are well rooted in the mainstream. The pertinent point here, however, is that professional film critics are extremely monolithic and unrepresentative of the general population in political ideology, which unavoidably has bearing on the subjective reception of political documentaries. Our mandate is to honestly cover the issue, not try to hide a huge portion of it. VictorD7 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That statement rejects the views of mainstream professional film critics. That is contrary to our mission here. You have no data as to the sample of the public who rated the film and no basis for the view that its fans are rooted in the mainstream. That is OR, SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You're the one making statements you can't back up (like "fringe"). As I've proved with MOS quotes above, "Reception" isn't limited to "professional film critics", so their views alone aren't necessarily authoritative. CinemaScore is explicitly endorsed by Wikipedia guidelines for use in these articles, and their survey methods are widely respected. You've provided no policy based reason for excluding a noteworthy, significant viewpoint relating to this film, and certainly no general ethical one. The honest thing to do is cover the widely held view. Intentionally misleading readers through significant omission is contrary to our purpose here. VictorD7 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your view appears to be in the minority on this thread. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not an argument. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Besides, numerous other editors have made points similar to mine elsewhere on this page and in the NPOVN discussion. Others even started a section complaining about the article's lack of neutrality a couple of weeks ago.

Also, point of order: I'll note that some issues are getting conflated since you replied to different posts discussing different things. The issue of whether to add a positive review of the film itself to what's now the "Critical response" section is different than the issue of adding Shapiro's comment on the reception to the new "Other responses" section. That the latter includes quotes from a journalist and one of the producers underscores the absurdity of basing one's rejection of the Shapiro quote on professional film critics' opinions. It's not even clear the critics would dispute Shapiro, at least his assertion that they're overwhelmingly left wing and that this impacts their commentary (presumably they'd say their opinions are worthwhile anyway). The reviews cited on RM are overtly political. VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze

I've again removed this material from the article. The Blaze is a fringe, partisan media outlet which has no reputation for factchecking or accuracy, instead it has a reputation for pushing lunatic conspiracy theories. The author of the cited Blaze article is does not appear to have any credentials as a film critic or even a journalist. All the other articles by him on the Blaze are political. As a result, the author is not an appropriate source for factual claims regarding the history of film. Readers who want context about the CinemaScope rating can visit the article on that topic, we don't need to cite a fringe partisan source on a matter which it has no known expertise. Contrary to VictorD7's assertion, it is incumbent upon him to establish a consensus among editors that this material is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it is not incumbent upon other editors to convince him personally that material he wants to insert is inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a defacto consensus for it. The only one reverting it is you. You don't understand "fringe" policy. Leaving aside your garbage claims about The Blaze (an opinionated news/opinion site, like The Huffington Post and the various blogs and highly politicized "reviews" currently being cited by this article), "fringe" doesn't apply when the facts in the segment are confirmed via multiple sources and are undisputed. You've presented nothing even approaching a legitimate, non nakedly POV pushing rationale for your multiple reversions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A "defacto consensus"? Can you link me to this policy? Because what it seems to me that you are actually saying is that "Nobody disagreed with me before, so my edits should stay in the article until you convince me to agree with you." That's not how it works. You boldly included the information in the article. You tried to improve Wikipedia, good work. But now the material is disputed under multiple Wikipedia policies. You can't just loudly harangue other editors, declare victory, and reinsert the material. You have to discuss it. Very little of what you've done on this page is actual discussion, just loud declarations of the correctness of your point of view. Please try to engage the actual objections to this material. Instead of just declaring your correctness, can you explain it? For example, can you explain why, specifically, you think The Blaze a reliable source for claims about the audience ratings of films, or anything at all? Does The Blaze have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by policy? Do they or the author of the piece have any known credentials or expertise? If yes, can you document any of this? Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the segment you reverted was crafted by multiple editors over a period of time and doesn't represent my ideal wording, as my edit summary indicated. Yes, that reflects consensus. Most of the rest of your post is projection. I'm the one discussing what actual policy is here, while you're simply shouting it repeatedly and erroneously. Sidestepping your general attacks on that source, since reliable sourcing is determined on a case by case basis depending on how it's being used in that particular context (sources aren't prohibited or endorsed across the board for Wikipedia use/non use), can you identify specifically any facts presented in the segment that are disputed or dubious? VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Those multiple editors are subject to the same process as I described above. If they wish to include this disputed material, they can discuss the material here and establish that it meets policy requirements. The onus is on those who wish to include the material, and to date, no one, including yourself, has made any actual policy-based arguments for inclusion beyond your repeated but unsupported declaration that policy requirements have been met. In regards to the accuracy of the facts presented by The Blaze, I refer you to comments above by myself and User:SPECIFICO. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the topic. – 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So you can't name anything in the segment that's actually disputed or dubious? That's what I thought. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Facepalm I just did. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC) No you didn't. Name something specific from the segment in question that's allegedly in dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Scroll up to the comments previously mentioned. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Now you're vandalizing the talk page with space consuming drawings. I've read the discussion. Nothing from the segment has been singled out as in dispute. The facts are unchallenged. VictorD7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC) What if we consume all our space? What will become of us? SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Whoa. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So you can't name anything in the segment that's actually disputed or dubious? That's what I thought. It can't be "fringe" if no one disagrees. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read the relevant comments about this discussion on your talk page. If you refuse the attempts of myself and User:Srich32977 to calm this discussion and steer it in an appropriate and productive direction, then I don't see any point in participating further. I suggest you take a break from this issue until you are able to approach it in a calm and productive manner. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm. I suggest you worry less about falsely characterizing me and more about addressing the topic here. Since we seem to have established that no one disputes the segment in question, do you still maintain it's somehow "fringe"? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I just saw your reply on your own talk page and responded. Feel free to reply here instead since it's silly to conduct the discussion on multiple pages.

You - "The audience response has never been in dispute and remains in the article. The significance assigned to it by The Blaze is what is in dispute."

Me - What about the significance assigned to an A+ rating by The Hollywood Reporter? Since both sources agree that an A+ rating is particularly noteworthy, do you still object to its inclusion on "fringe" grounds? If so, do you have a contrary source? VictorD7 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, it only makes sense to have this discussion here. I never objected to The Hollywood Reporter on fringe grounds. I objected to it because using it was WP:SYNTH since it does not mention America. There is no reason to believe that the rating is significant in the same way for every film. As User:SPECIFICO and I discussed, the rating could be skewed positive because of the small sample size and the nature of the audience, so an A+ for America might not mean the same thing as an A+ for a film like Titanic. This is why we if we are going to discuss interpretations of the significance of the rating in the article, we need reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Cinescore survey's movie goers at the theatre's. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, your opinion about the reliability of their survey is purely your opinion original research and/or opinion. All movies are going to be skewed in the direction of the audience that goes to see them, but it doesn't change the validity of the score relative to other scores as they are independent observations. Since science behind this survey appears to be an accepted metric there is no rational for disregarding it in this instance. The conveyor of that information is largely irrelevant, and the source is just as reliable as TPM and other left-leaning sites. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Straw-man. No one is saying the score should not be in the article.Casprings (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The article predated this movie's release but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant here, and using it as a supplemental source for verification purposes (for people like you who don't like The Blaze) certainly isn't SYNTH. The Blaze piece connects the movie with the grade's historical rarity covered by THR. Since the Blaze source was used here, the segment most definitely was not WP:SYNTH. Here's SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I suppose the only "conclusion" in this case is the fact that America received an historically rare grade, which is explicitly stated by the Blaze source.

So SYNTH is out (I'm not conceding adding a dry, factual sentence on the "52" stat would even be SYNTH without the Blaze source but surely you'd agree that it certainly isn't with it). You're dismissing the Blaze source as "fringe", but since we have the THR explaining why CinemaScores, especially rare A+'s, "matter", I don't see how you can do that without another source disputing that. A Wikipedia editor's musings don't qualify as a RS.

I will say as that I'm not arguing we attribute any significance beyond the undisputed historical rarity. As a possible compromise, I'd be willing to drop the quote and even ending "lower grade" segment, only leaving a sentence saying "From 1982 to 2011 only 52 movies received an A+ score from CinemaScore.", along with the two sources. VictorD7 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH is not out. You are still taking an article that gives relevance to the score, in the context of another movie, and giving that relevance to this movie. That is clearly WP:SYNTH. It should be excluded and the score can stand on its own. Also, I also agree the Blaze is not WP:RS. There is no reputation of fact checking. Casprings (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH is out because The Blaze explicitly mentions this movie and quotes the "52" stat cited below and elsewhere. The THR story explains why an A+ score "matters" (their word) in general, not just for a particular movie.

"GRADE A+: Only 52 films have received the top mark from audiences, on average two a year since 1982"

No further significance need be attributed. The rarity of America's top grade is noteworthy in and of itself. As for the Blaze somehow not being RS, it was already explained to you in the Breitbart discussion that RS is determined on a case by case basis depending on context, and that sources aren't prohibited or endorsed across the board for Wiki use. In this case the facts presented in the Blaze piece are verifiable through other sources and are undisputed, so it's clearly a RS. Also, while I appreciate your input, I would like to get Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze should not be used as a source because it is not WP:RS. That should also be out. No one may dispute the score, but there is certainly dispute to the significants the blaze attaches to it. That significants needs to come from an WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the grade is insignificant, then why include it at all? That MOS guidelines specifically endorse CinemaScore's use shows Wikipedia does consider it meaningful. If the score is meaningful at all then the rarity of scoring the highest possible grade is noteworthy. The "RS" issue is a non sequitur since no one has shown that any part of the proposed segment is in dispute. The "52" stat is verified through multiple sources, including The Hollywood Reporter. VictorD7 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

RS depends on context and content. A poll of a large, random sample of paying moviegoers would not measure the same thing as a poll of a relatively small group of guests invited by the producers, for example. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The CinemaScore poll seems to have been of audiences during the movie's wide release around July 4. Early VIP screenings of the type you describe are routine for movies. CinemaScore grades (the context in which CinemaScore is being used here) are specifically endorsed as noteworthy by the MOS guidelines, and I'm not aware of any proviso making exceptions for movies SPECIFICO doesn't like. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Most films have an eclectic audience. This film is only patronized by right-wing conservatives. Of course they are going to love it regardless of the film quality or even accuracy. Almost nobody outside of those conservatives would pay to see this film spare a few nonpartisan movie reviewers.. and they have not been kind. I challenge you to find me a non-conservative who would give this film a top mark. A Florida state Senator, Alan Hays, remarked that he doesn't see any young people watching the film. He is currently drafting a bill to make it required watching for public school students, despite his previous positions on government interference and propaganda. As un-American as that is, if this actually passes then you'll have an accurate picture of what people really think of this film.SemDem (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your personal guesses as to the audience's makeup are irrelevant. Lots of political documentaries and movies have been made, but an A+ grade is extremely rare. That said, since you seem to believe bias in reception should be taken into account, you should be fine with us fully covering this story and adding the widely held, significant viewpoint expressed by the Ben Shapiro quote observing that professional film critics are overwhelmingly left wing and that this colors their reactions to the film. That this is manifestly true is obvious simply by reading the negative reviews; they all overtly attack the movie's politics and usually conservatism, religion, and/or the USA in general. For the record, some of the positive reviews seem like they may have come from liberals (I haven't confirmed that), but I have yet to see a negative review by a non leftist. Censoring out coverage of the political dynamic involved in the reception is dishonest. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed compromise – editors should also consider the compromise set forth by VictorD7 above

It is interesting that Brietbart and TheBlaze have advertising from American Express, Equifax, AT&T, Goldline, Wellspring Benefits Group, Beats Electronics, etc. This suggests that the websites are much more than personal blog/fringe-type pages. Nevertheless, they do not fit in to the MOS for movie articles because they are not movie reviews. But here is my suggestion for a WP:Compromise. We simply include the links (the below and others) in the ==External links== section, or better yet a ==Further reading== section. We omit commentary about what they say, thus avoiding SYN or POV pushing. We don't need to haggle about them being RS. By including them, we can proudly say WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't don't violate WP:ELNO (or we justify as break all rules. We include an <!-- Editor's comment --> that says "these links are placed here as a result of discussion, compromise, and consensus". If there are other links to add, they can be brought up as candidates in future discussions. So here is what they'd look like:

• Shapiro, Ben (July 15, 2014). "7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'". Breitbart.com.
• Urbanski, Dave (July 5, 2014). "Here Are the Legendary Films Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Now Sits Next to Because of the Incredibly Rare Grade Viewers Gave It". TheBlaze.

– S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not much of a compromise. Where in the MOS does it say that movie articles can only contain movie reviews? That's a nonsensical premise, since all movie articles contain an array of notable information about the movies, not just critical reception. By that logic we'd need to delete most of the page. VictorD7 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the MOS explicitly contradicts that premise, saying even in the "Critical response" section that..."Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited" If notable persons simply connected to the topics covered in the movie may be cited, then clearly things aren't restricted to movie reviews. In this case media bias was a topic covered in the movie. I'll add that the MOS's ""Documentaries" and "Controversies" sections suggest a more wide open format for whom should be quoted and what should be covered. VictorD7 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I applaud both editors for bringing compromises to the table but I'm afraid neither one addresses one of the fundamental issues here, the inappropriateness of using The Blaze as a source at all or even including a link to it. Perhaps if we flip it around you might see where we are coming from. Imagine if editors were advocating the inclusion of a link to Daily Kos. Gamaliel (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There are two ways we can use the term "source". One, when we take information from a reliable source and put into article text, we are using the RS "as a source". But "a source" need not be used "as a source". So, two, in further reading and external link sections, sources are listed but they are not used for article improvement. Also, using Daily Kos might not be so bad. I looked, but did not find where they had written about the movie. I was hoping to see what Wesley Clark, one of their contributors, had said. IOW, a blog entry from one of their regular published contributors might be a worthwhile further reading item. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm impressed. Most editors, regardless of their political persuasion, reject Daily Kos out of hand. Earlier in my time on Wikipedia I favored a more open approach to including websites that are now considered inappropriate. But consensus on Wikipedia is firmly against these links now, and I don't see why we should go against that consensus here and create a double standard where liberal editors could complain that their favored sites are excluded while Glenn Beck's is included. I might be persuaded by a case to include the link if I saw some value in the content. But all that is there is a blog post crowing about the high CinemaScore rating. There's nothing there in the way of even remotely substantial history or analysis, it's just click bait.

Even if we ignore the SYNTH issue and link it to the Hollywood Reporter article about the significance of the rating, then why should we not also violate SYNTH again and link it to this Hollywood Reporter article I found tonight regarding complaints that the Cinemascore is outdated and uses poor methodology, such as the small sample sizes that we brought up as an issue earlier. This is exactly why we need sources from people who know what they are talking about to sort these issues out, instead of linking to partisans scoring cheap political points.

So I guess the key issue here is fundamentally "what is the value of this blog post?" Does the Cinemascore really matter? Who cares? It seems to me that the real point that is made by the cinemascore and the blog post is that audiences thought highly of the film. If this is really the point that editors want the article to make, then instead of using the Cinemascore as a roundabout way of making that point, instead let's find an RS making that point directly and we can include that in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what issues you are addressing. My proposal is to include some non-article-text bulleted links in a separate section. (My proposal does not involve SYNTH.) My proposal is in keeping with WP:ELPOV. Why and how? At present there is a complaint that the article is unbalanced because the "inherently-biased-towards-liberalism-of-the-Hollywood-left" view. We get a little balance, not by seeking to actually present the conservative POV in the article text, but simply by listing a few pertinent links in the section. If Daily Kos posts something from a notable contributor (e.g., someone other than "jotter"), that link ought to be considered too. Is there a risk that the section becomes a LINKFARM? By monitoring what gets added, I don't think so. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My original response here was lost in an edit conflict, I guess, so I'll repeat the just of it. If it is the consensus of editors that they want to include these and other links in EL, then I will suggest a few myself. But this is not in line with the current consensus of interpretation of WP:EL on Wikipedia, and I expect that within a few days or weeks or months, those links will be removed by some editor citing WP:EL or LINKFARM. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your own article link shows almost the entire weight of current studio opinion affirming CinemaScore's value, and certainly Wikipedia guidelines do, as does the fact that most high profile movie articles here include CinemaScore grades (per the earlier talk page a few sections above). Otherwise the sample size question could easily be turned around and applied to aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which seems to have a lot more unscientific methodology than CinemaScore does. If CinemaScore is valuable, then the objective fact of the top grade's rarity is noteworthy for an article covering a movie that received such a top grade, especially since average readers likely aren't aware of said rarity (that's substantial value). Again, no one here is suggesting that we attribute any more significance to the high grade other than the rarity itself. I've seen Daily Kos used before and wouldn't object to its inclusion if the segment it was being used to source merited inclusion, as this one clearly does. From a conservative standpoint sources like CBS, the Washington Post, and NY Times aren't much better than the Daily Kos anyway, and I've added many liberal sources to Wikipedia. That said, it's worth pointing out that The Blaze and Breitbart both seem to be more news oriented than the Daily Kos, which is more of a pure blog, and The Blaze and Breitbart each see significantly more traffic than the Daily Kos.

The article in question is making a legitimate historical point about the movie we're covering. It's no more "click bait" than the THR article covering the grade from the same angle for previous movies is. Clearly there is no consensus not to use sites like Breitbart and The Blaze, as each has strong support here. There has just been handful of partisan complaints about them leading to liberal/conservative edit warring. From an objective standpoint the issue should be "Is the segment itself verifiable"? Since it's verifiable and undisputed, the RS question is irrelevant. From an editorial standpoint, given this article's undeniable politically controversial nature, at worst one should err on the side of including all significant views and segments with strong support to avoid the appearance of Wikipedia having partisan bias, especially if we're just including a non disputed historical factual sentence essentially duplicated by a liberal source (THR) for previous movies. This inclusion shouldn't even be controversial. VictorD7 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this could be easily solved if you could find a WP:RS that comments on the importance of the score in relation to this particular movie.Casprings (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze is RS here. And to what importance do you refer? Are you suggesting that CinemaScore grades are irrelevant? Because that flies in the face of MOS guidelines, the weight of studio/media opinion, and common movie article practice. VictorD7 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Blaze is RS here." You have made zero effort to establish that The Blaze meets RS criteria beyond repeatedly asserting that it does. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You've made zero attempt to show that it's not, beyond repeatedly asserting so. My argument is that the "RS" claim is a red herring at best since the segment is verified and not in dispute. "RS" questions are for material deemed dubious. VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

All incorrect. Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

False. See more below. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly there is no consensus not to use sites like Breitbart and The Blaze". And there is currently no consensus to include them, and even if you had such a consensus, including them would go against current Wikipedia policy and practice. And even if the verifiability of individual elements of a dubious source were some sort of acceptable standard on Wikipedia, the information in question has been repeatedly questioned on this page despite your claim that it is undisputed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You've failed to cite any such policy, and no part of the proposed segment has been disputed here. You declined my specific questions to try and get you to identify anything in dispute, remember? VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS is the policy that has been repeatedly invoked on this page, including your own comments. You haven't even made a single comment, despite the acres of talk on this page, that addresses how those websites meet those criteria. And despite your repeated farcical lie that I haven't identified what is in dispute, I and others have repeatedly and clearly pointed out the issue of the small sample size and poor methodology on this page and I have even linked to a Hollywood Reporter article raising those same issues. At this point I'm beginning to think you are either trolling or have a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Please stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny coming from the guy who claims below to have no idea what Box Office Mojo meant by saying the movie had a "fantastic hold" regarding the percentage drop in its second weekend box office receipts, which should be clear to anyone with at least fifth grade level reading comprehension. Your personal attacks on me and false accusations are reprehensible and totally uncalled for. I certainly told no lies. You certainly still haven't identified anything in the segment that's disputed. Your poorly formed speculation about alleged methodology attacks the very notion of using CinemaScore (as opposed to just the historical perspective segment), which, apart from being hypocritical if you're fine with rough aggregation of a dozen or so reviewers at sites like at Rotten Tomatoes, puts you at odds with Wikipedia guidelines (already quoted on this page), most movie studios, and established common practice for other Wikipedia movie articles. If you sincerely don't want CinemaScore used then you should have that discussion on the MOS guidelines page and seek consensus for the shift.

If you do, you'll need to address comments from your own article quoting Warner Bros. distribution chief Dan Fellman as saying CinemaScore "gives you good direction on how your movie is playing, and to whom. For years, we've been doing our own research, and it is very close to CinemaScore results," and Chris Aronson, distribution head of 20th Century Fox, saying that "CinemaScore remains a valuable poll". It's also the one still most widely cited in the media, and it's not like you've presented a contrary polling grade for this movie.

Simply naming policies you demonstrably don't understand, like "fringe" or "RS", isn't the same as identifying pertinent policy statements that would somehow prohibit including the segments in question or sources like Breitbart or The Blaze (apparently you don't feel they shouldn't be used in any situation, a preposterous position). Given the unwarranted, venomous personal attacks you just spewed against me, you're clearly upset and you might want to take some time off from editing this article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of typing but you still haven't managed to type a word about how The Blaze meets WP:RS. It's clear this temper tantrum is a deliberate strategy of yours to obfuscate that issue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You're the one throwing the tantrum and trying to make this personal, and you still haven't identified anything in the segment that's in dispute, so the "RS" issue is still a red herring. That said, despite you failing to demonstrate why The Blaze supposedly isn't RS, I'll point out that The Blaze is a news/opinion site with reporters and editorial oversight. The editor in chief, Scott Baker, is a veteran journalist and editor with over a quarter of a century of experience. Over the years he's worked at Voice of America, CBS News, and various local news stations. The piece's author, Dave Urbanski, has worked as a reporter, magazine editor, book editor, and film/music/book critic.

The RS guidelines you linked to state that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."...."Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context."...."Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."..."Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." None of your criticisms of The Blaze have been context specific. Since the segment is undisputed in this context it should be an open and shut case that the source is perfectly acceptable here. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is something wrong with your brain? I have pointed out the same issue over and over again and you don't seem to realize that I've done so. You can disagree with it, but to repeatedly declare that I haven't done it, including in response to comments where I repeat it again, well, that's mindboggling. I don't really know how to penetrate that sort of logic shield, so I will take your advice, concern trolling though it was, and take a break from this discussion and no longer subject myself to this farce. Luckily for Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to include material, so good luck obtaining a consensus for inclusion when you behave in such a manner. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from me arguably possessing too much patience, my brain is just fine, thank you very much. You're the one with the demonstrated reading comprehension/critical thinking deficit. That your paragraph was, again, entirely ad hominem only further highlights the facts that you haven't cited anything in the segment that's in dispute, or provided any context specific criticism of The Blaze. By contrast, I've gone above and beyond what should be necessary by laying out a positive argument for The Blaze's reliability, including bio links and quotes from your own guideline link, which you failed to address. I'd suggest that you use your sabbatical to reflect on your disruptive behavior, from the giant diversionary pictures you posted earlier to your recent baseless personal attacks. VictorD7 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree that it is a WP:RS, I think we do need to chill this dicussion a little bit. I posted on WP:RSN. It is time to get some outside opinions on rather The Blaze is WP:RS. Post can be found here.Casprings (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep ignoring the instructions on pages like that asking for specific context, and making statements and asking questions erroneously assuming that a source is either "RS" or "not RS" across the board. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Political film, thereby requires expanded political commentary

Thread which lost focus. Unlikely that productive commentary will come about if left open. Hatted by OP.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This film is very much a political film. Accordingly, the addition of outside political commentary about the film necessarily involves a Wikipedia:Political dispute more than film criticism. Points of view about the film must be presented, even those we disagree with. Labeling these points of view as fringe is not in keeping with a balanced presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC) We present views according to their representation in the real world. Commentary about the film which discusses the skill, methods, and effectiveness with which it treats its chosen subject matter does not constitute discussion of the subject matter per se. WP does not give equal weight to mainstream and marginal views or opinions. The article needs to represent the reaction to the film according to the incidence of such reaction, not "equal time" like a US FCC-regulated political broadcast. This film, apparently does not reflect any widely-held point of view or analysis extant in the world. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC) While it is considered a political film, that doesn't mean it requires the addition of outside political commentary because the film itself is not a political issue for political dispute. Including political commentary split 50/50 on the reception of the film only undermines the fact that this film was panned by 90% of critics and would falsely indicate the reception was more evenly split. That being said, if you there are reliable sources out there that represent the scholarly opinions of political scientists or historians that comment on the historical accuracy of the film or its depiction of the political environment, then those would meet MoS guidelines and merit inclusion. Just plastering a bunch of liberal and conservative quotes from biased media blogs/outlets does not merit inclusion.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC) That's correct. We don't discuss veterinary medicine in a review of Planet of the Apes or Lassie. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC) In the real world Shapiro's views represent a lot more people's than a couple of dozen or so far left film critics' do. They certainly better represent the vast majority of people who watched the movie. As my talk page section shows, Wikipedia movie articles routinely cover commentary on elements of the reception itself, particularly when there's some political or otherwise controversial angle involved. For example, Michael Moore's Sicko page includes multiple point/counterpoint segments from defenders of the film addressing critical comments, and the Basic Instinct page includes opinions by Roger Ebert and Verhoeven about the critical response from gay activist groups. In this case the politicized nature of the reaction is a crucial aspect of the story itself that's not being covered. VictorD7 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Including that specific Shapiro quote violates WP policy. That's all there is to it.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Excluding it, and totally censoring out the undeniable political dynamic at play here, violates WP:NPOV policy. You actually even just repeated the old "critics" "weight" argument elsewhere, despite this discussion being about a section created explicitly for non critics' opinions. Your claims are false. VictorD7 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC) My claims aren't false and are directly supported by WP policy which you fail to comprehend. Excluding Shapiro doesn't mean I'm violating NPOV as I'm not advocating that no differing opinions can be used. I've merely explained that an opinion about critics, which isn't even about the movie, not don't belong on this article and that Shapiro's quote certainly doesn't belong because it's a violation of WP:QS as well as other things. You've repeatedly created strawman arguments and have failed to comprehend the arguments that other editors have presented, which is consistent with your failure to comprehend policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Wrong. You've demonstrably failed to comprehend WP policy and arguments other editors have presented to you, even to the point of denying that meeting WP:N criteria and having an article about himself makes a person "notable". I quoted from the page itself contradicting you; indeed that's the only usage of "notable" I've seen in WP policy or guidelines, so you've been using your own made up word. I showed with prominent examples that movie articles routinely cover commentary on the reception itself, particularly when there's a political or otherwise controversial aspect involved, and that there's no policy prohibiting that, all of which you've ignored. I caught you falsely claiming on the NPOVN page that the WP:QS section includes instructions on how and when to use quotes, when it does no such thing; indeed the word "quote" doesn't even appear in the section. I demonstrated that your interpretation of QS is both empirically fringe (given the widespread use of pundit opinion quotes) and contrary to policy (I quoted instructions that biased, opinionated commentary be properly attributed, which clearly assumes it's allowable). I'm still waiting for your commentary on Jim Gaines and other quoted opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC) You're the only person who has presented arguments to me and so your first line indicates your intellectual dishonesty. Also, you're quote from WP:N doesn't support your position because it specifically says "some" which is no indication that every WP list/article restricts content to notable people. This is another example of you failing to understand WP policy and how it applies. Also, I didn't make false claims about WP:QS. I used the word "quote" but more specifically that refers to "quotes from sources" or "the source itself". This is another red herring argument over the word "quote" when clearly the WP:QS guideline explains where you can and can not use questionable sources and that includes quotes from those sources. At this point I'm not sure if you're just genuinely incapable of basic reading comprehension or if you're behaving tendentiously. Even this portion of your post "which clearly assumes it's allowable" is an admittance that you're the one making interpretations about WP policy. Incorrect interpretations as there are policies that specifically limit where you can use opinions from a questionable source. Also, I don't have to comment on everything in the article. I addressed a concern about information from Breitbart.com and that's what I'll continue to focus on. Once you're ready to concede that using Shapiro's quote from a questionable source is against WP policy, then I'll be happy to move on and evaluate other quotes.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC) You first responded in this section to an op argument presented by Srich, lol, so I'm not the one being intellectually dishonest. Plus relevant commentary from Charles Edwin Shipp (whom you directly replied to), Arzel, and others involved in the discussions you've participated in are intended for a general audience. And, as I said on the other page, you're really grasping at straws now. I never said "every WP list/article restricts content to notable people" (straw man); the actual rule had nothing to do with my point. I only quoted that sentence to show that WP uses "notable" differently than you are; in WP parlance "notable persons" does refer to people who meet WP:N criteria and have (or merit) their own articles. Your claims otherwise are wrong. Period. Otherwise, provide a contrary example. That doesn't mean that articles can only cover notable people, or that a certain notable person has to be mentioned in every article. Notability wasn't the only prerequisite listed in the MOS guidelines, but you were clearly wrong to challenge Ben Shapiro's. Given that you fail to understand even the basic stuff it's little wonder that you're hopelessly wrong on QS and other topics. VictorD7 (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Again, you demonstrate your inability to read and comprehend. The assertion you made was about "arguments presented to me" not about arguments I presented to others. S. Rich hasn't responded to my argument in this section, therefore he hasn't supplied an argument to me and neither has Charles, Arzel, or anyone else you're referencing. Only after your wrongful assertion, did S.Rich provide an argument to me about my misuse of WP:aboutself and I properly understood his objection and corrected him on his misunderstanding. This disproves your assertion of me misunderstanding other peoples' arguments. Again, I'm not the declaring what "notable" actually means in terms of MoS guidelines and WP policy. You're the one doing that, and this attempt to criticize me for what you're doing is another example of projection. You're the one claiming that Shapiro counts as notable to satisfy MoS guidelines because there is an article about him which meets WP:N. WP:N strictly details which topics are notable and worthy of a WP article, it doesn't say or imply that just because an article exists about a person, that the person is notable, especially not in the terms that MoS references. You're now attempting to switch the burden of proof onto me, which is laughable. You're the one who has to provide evidence that an article on WP automatically makes the person notable. The topic of the character Garfield might merit a WP article, this does not make Garfield a notable person who's opinions should be treated as such. Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I think that the article on lasagna is hopelessly biased because it does not contain Garfield's opinions on that subject. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Nope, the comprehension failure is yours. An op is a presentation to a general audience. Since you're part of that audience, and even replied to and presumably read the op, the presentation was to you. You should also take a logic class if you believe that Srich retracting something on a tangent I didn't even comment on disproves anything I said, or that you allegedly (I didn't examine the details) getting one WP policy right disproves my observation that you demonstrably failed to comprehend the various policies I have corrected you on. I never said you misinterpreted all policies. I've already quoted WP:N notability guidelines defining what "notable" means, and it exclusively refers to people or items that merit their own articles. You have yet to provide another definition, much less evidence supporting your interpretation. I'm waiting. VictorD7 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Scoobydunk, my suggestion would be to disengage at this point because nothing productive is coming of this conversation. VictorD7, dial it back, please. You're being incredibly uncivil at this point, especially that bit about the "logic class", and you're just providing move evidence for the topic ban that will be inevitably imposed on you when someone brings this to ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Your request is extremely selective given how uncivil Scoobydunk has been, and you're the last one who should be issuing threats given your own trolling here, including your snarky "Garfield" comment above. That said, I do agree that this discussion is unproductive. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I am in accordance with Gamaliel on this, which is why I posted the calm talk template with an edit summary about "dishonesty". Both should step back and assume good faith. Instead of this banter, take some time to strike the stuff with "you" in it. (Such as "comprehension failure" or "you demonstrate".) – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC) At least your comment is even handed, so you aren't completely in accordance with Gamaliel. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"fantastic hold"

The quoted "fantastic hold" needs to be better defined. I understand what it means(It declained less then expected. However, something should be added there.Casprings (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you understand what it means, what else are you looking for? VictorD7 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea, myself, and I suspect the average reader will not either. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the slightest idea about what? What it means or what else Casprings is looking for since he just stated what it means? VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The slightest idea what "fantastic hold" means. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You honestly have absolutely no idea what it means? It means that the movie dipped much less its second weekend than movies typically do.

"Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million." [2]

Look at the slight 12.8% drop compared to the other drops on this page, which are in the 30-60% range. In fact America had the 382nd smallest second week drop on record (out of 4,038 listed). I think in context most readers will have no problem understanding what the source means by "fantastic hold". VictorD7 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it means about as much as some patter we might take out of context from a sports play by play commentary. It isn't really meany to convey any information specific or well-enough defined to use as RS in an encyclopedia. Moreover the author is not a notable figure. If a WP reader, new to the topic of film, were to try to parse the expression, the most straightforward meaning of "fantastic hold" is that a "hold" did not occur in reality. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The notable author issue is irrelevant since the source is the most used one in the article and in movie articles generally, unless you're arguing that we should purge other uses of Box Office Mojo. The film critic PS quoted by us isn't notable, and yet his quote supposedly represents general pro film critic sentiment (it actually doesn't even represent his own review, but that's another topic). The Suber quote reflects the fact that the movie had an historically strong second week hold, and explains why it's worth including the second week drop figure at all.

Why do you feel a reader would misunderstand what "fantastic hold" means? Are you suggesting that we add something to clarify it, like the fact I cited above about it being the 382nd smallest drop on record out of 4,038? VictorD7 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: At first I didn't get your point regarding parsing, but are you seriously suggesting that readers are more likely to interpret "fantastic" as "fanciful" or "non existent" than the far more common usage meaning "great"? VictorD7 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all WP readers are down with your Hollywood jive jargon. What if a Sri Lankan monk looks it up? Or is that scenario fantastic? SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Using "fantastic" as a superlative isn't "jargon" of any kind. Besides, doesn't use of the word "only" clear it up? "In what Box Office Mojo writer Ray Suber described as a "fantastic hold", its box office receipts only declined by 12.8% in its second wide release weekend from its opening weekend." Monks are relatively wise. You also didn't answer my question about including the noteworthy fact that the movie had the 382nd smallest drop on record. That should allay any lingering concerns over interpretation. VictorD7 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Check out WP:OR. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. It's a direct quote. That's not "OR". VictorD7 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got this backwards. It's your source. I didn't propose OR. Anyway the text is removed, so this thread is finished. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The source can be used without the term, which is puffery. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to move on. If you can't do that, please don't put anything back in the article without explicit prior consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? A direct quote from the source can't be "OR". You're speaking gibberish. And the thread is most certainly not finished, since the quote was removed on comically fraudulent grounds. "Fantastic" is an English language superlative, not "jargon". Even if it was "jargon" that wouldn't be grounds for removing a reliably sourced, clearly noteworthy quote. VictorD7 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Fantastic" is demonstrably not a "superlative" in English. We editors must be ready willing and able to write article text which presents clear and explicit meaning. This is a fundamental component of WP:COMPETENCE. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

From Merriam Webster: 1 fan·tas·tic adjective \fan-ˈtas-tik, fən-\

A: extremely good

B: extremely high or great

C: very strange, unusual, or unlikely

Clearly the word can't be dismissed as "Hollywood jive jargon". And for the record, not that it matters, I was using "superlative" in the broad sense. e.g. - 2. an exaggerated or hyperbolical expression of praise. "the critics ran out of superlatives to describe him" ([3]), Noun 1. superlative - an exaggerated expression (usually of praise); "the critics lavished superlatives on it" ([4]); of course "fantastic" is also frequently listed as a synonym for the adjective version of "superlative" (e.g. [5]).VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you can just say, "(Source) noted the unusual nature the movies small decrease in revenues". Or something like that. I just think the quote looks odd and isn't as that easy to understand, without the context of the article.Casprings (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the definition I just posted above, I see no reason not to use the direct quote, as it captures the emphasis the author placed on his observation. The context is provided by the rest of the sentence documenting the numbers, but I agree that it can be improved. Would you support adding the fact I cited above about the drop being one of the smallest on record, showing just how "fantastic" the hold was? VictorD7 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the Postive Review

First, I have no problem having a positive review in that section. However, before we add it, I would like some thought on what would actually be WP:Balance. The reviews were overwhelming negative. I think the amount of space dedicated to positive versus negative reviews should be about the same 90 percent to 10 percent. I would suggest that we add some more negative review quotes to give a better feel to the reader of what the critical response to the film actually was.

And I reverted. As you have no problem with a positive review, we have a very short one. I gave thought to this and saw three sentences (one paragraph & the Ebert review) showing negative reviews. So I added a single sentence gives a positive review. What would you have? More sentences that illustrate what the aggregators came up with in order to balance the positive review? – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a fair point. I may add another negative review to bring it closer to a 90/10 divide. But in general we agree.Casprings (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And I see Specifico removing the single sentence here. Is this how we achieve balance? We go from a 3:1 / 75–25% positive-negative balance to a 100% negative presentation? Incredible. Thank you, Casprings for your willingness to include the positive review. I look forward to seeing the second negative review review you have in mind. In the meantime, Specifico, please "use talk" and tell us how a 100% negative presentation is more balanced than the one you reverted. Indeed, I hope one or both of you can come up with a second, non-redundant negative review in order to achieve something closer to this 90–10 ratio. – S. Rich (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is another ratio: at present there is a 111 word-count section for the negativity. Adding the positive review gives 33 words of positivity for a 144–33 (77–23%) positive/negative ratio. Come on, we need more negative words to make sure it "fairly represents all significant viewpoints". – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well? – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a line or two wouldn't hurt. If critical response was 90 percent negative, it seems intuitive to me to make that section 90 percent based on those negative reviews. I am not saying I have a huge problem with where it stands now, but that would be better. Do you disagree?Casprings (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You cited BALANCE. Well "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." By removing the positive review, you skewed the balance completely to one side. Please restore the positive review and come up with another negative one. 100% to 0% is unbalanced; 75/77% to 25/23% is closer to a neutral presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have placed the positive review back in the article. I would argue that the following paragraph needs to be about 90/10 negative to positive in its representation of reviews of the movie. Does anyone disagree?

A reviewer at RogerEbert.com gave the film one star, writing "[The film] looks terrible, it plods along with all the verve of a PowerPoint presentation, the occasional dramatic recreations are exceptionally cheesy and the interview footage is so needlessly over-edited that you get the feeling that something may have gotten changed around in the cutting room."[20] A reviewer at New York Film Critics Online gave it a positive review, saying "America ... presents a well-organized, well-researched exploration of how and why we've been lied to about certain events from American history."[21]

Casprings (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reverted edit. It is the right thing to do. I look forward to seeing an additional negative comment that does not plow the same ground as Ebert. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will try to get that done tonight or later this week. Take care.Casprings (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that while guidelines call for opinion to be properly represented, that doesn't necessarily mean that the quoted text space needs to precisely reflect a particular ratio. The weight of professional critical opinion is reflected by the aggregation scores the section leads off with. It's more important that the various salient views be represented, but, as Srich indicates, not necessarily repeated. VictorD7 (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)