Jump to content

Talk:Ben Lyons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms

[edit]

Should there be a section on this? It was merged with his "career" recently, but then disappeared. It should be noted how he is looked down upon by his "peers" for his lack of experience and quote-whoring. 96.53.235.198 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should not necessarily be a separate criticism section about Lyons' work. However, it is totally appropriate to include the reference either from the LA Times or the Chicago Tribune (the same article through different outlets) that does criticise Lyons as a movie reviewer. This is why I put it in, with a fairly mild paraphrase of the criticisms stated in the article. The people who have continuously deleted the reference (which had to pass the writer's editor, and thus was judged good enough for publication), in either form, forget that doing so does not make the criticism go away. Furthermore, that deletion betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of wikipedia, which is not a "fan site" for any person or organisation. However, as wikipedia is not a fan site, neither is it a forum for people to simply use opinionated language as they see fit. Several past edits in the "personal life" section were very abusive, with uncited text clearly vindictive in nature. Whatever one's opinion of Lyons, such language has no place in a wikipedia entry. You cannot use words like "quote whoring", however strongly you feel about it, in a wikipedia entry.
By the way, I've restored the reference, but it's a safe bet that it will be edited out within 24 hours. DJRafe (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I re-wrote and added a more substantial "criticism" section. He's a very divisive figure in the world of film criticism, so it's only right that a (well-sourced) section should exist in the article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to fit more in the general tone of what wikipedia articles are supposed to be, at least ideally. Thus I paraphrased the harsher-toned comments, but the references remain and I added another citation for background. I also restored the deleted external links and categories which the previous person who has been continually erasing the added references has also erased in his re-editing process, as "collateral damage". Again, I don't doubt that the same person will erase the rewrites, in the already commented mistaken perception that removing criticism makes it go away everywhere. However, I felt obliged to delete the Adam Kempanaar critical quote, since it's only citation was on a blog post and not a published article. In addition, the Chris Lee article was featured in both the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune (the same media corporation owns both newspapers), so it is redundant to put both in. I put in the LA Times one as "the" citation for the Chris Lee article, since it hit publication on an earlier date. DJRafe (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions. However, you might be misunderstanding wikipedia's NPOV policy. It isn't that harsh criticisms have to be toned down, it's a matter of the article prose itself not reflecting personal biases. The "Criticisms" section covers a percieved negativity toward Lyons from others, which is fine. What isn't fine is if it were to add to that negativity on it's own. Also, it helps to prevent POV issues to have it in a "criticisms" section in itself. If it were in the article itself, it could paint Lyons in a negative light without any context, which would cross the line of NPOV. Also, I re-added the Adam Kempanaar quote, since it isn't actually from a blog post, but an episode of Filmspotting, a highly-rated Chicago Public Radio program. I apologize if that wasn't made clear before. Still, I think your edits were made in good faith, and it's good to have someone else trying to improve the article. If you still feel that the section isn't right after our conversation, we can work to change it and make it better. Cheers! Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I did rewrite the characterisation of Roger Ebert's blog spot, since Ebert never specifically mentions Ben Lyons by name, but it's not hard to "read between the lines" that Ebert was commenting on Lyons. I did reformat the citations to fit wikipedia format. If you can provide a specific link, date and time of the "Filmspotting" episode, I can turn that into another reference in the generally accepted format as well. DJRafe (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the audio: [1] Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant portions are removed, like the citation in full twice of the Ken Tucker blog post, and the article reads more tightly. I should note that I look personally askance at citing a blog post as a reference rather than a "conventional print article", but that's just MHO. DJRafe (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

[edit]

Is that section appropriate?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.214.246 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire page is inappropriate. This article is obviously the result of vandalism, but I don't bother trying to correct these things anymore, because whenever I do, somebody else comes right along and removes all my changes. I have actually removed vandalism before, and had somebody from Wikipedia put the inappropriate content BACK ON THE SITE! I guess I don't fully understand how Wikipedia works, but my changes always seem to get removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.199.91 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age

[edit]

I found out how old he is. He is 26 according to the My Family's Got Guts official website. Here is the address if anyone wants to use it.http://www.nick.com/shows/guts/index.jhtmlMiss Lindsie (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

[edit]

That Ben's show competes with his father's show is more coincidental than ironic. His being bashed by the entertainment media is not ironic eiter. The dip in ratings is closer to ironic; Ben's show losing to a new Ebert & Roeper show in the ratings would be directly ironic. eb (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article include a criticism section?

[edit]

A couple of accounts have been regularly removing a criticism section from this article. Should this article mention criticism received by the article's subject? --Muchness (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: see also prior discussion above, #Criticisms. Probably also worth noting that the editor removing the content has a self-admitted close relationship: he's the subject's father (diff). --Muchness (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that a section addressing criticism is warranted for this article, because criticism of the article's subject has received coverage in several reliable sources. Ebert himself acknowledged the criticism ([2]). In my opinion, Lyon's tenure on At the Movies, and the surrounding criticism it attracted, comprise a significant aspect of the subject's career. The section may need rewording or trimming down, but I don't think wholesale blanking of this reliably sourced section is appropriate. --Muchness (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative section title would be "Reception" but what would be better is to have the criticism placed at relevant points in the body of the article rather than compiled in one section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, but with other title - The Wikipedia guideline WP:CRITS discusses this issue. In general, articles should avoid sections titled "criticism": it is considered more neutral and encyclopedic to embed negative/critical material throughout the article, within other topical sections. In rare cases, a "Criticism" section may be warranted, if the criticisms are numerous or significant, and the sources indicate that criticism is a major theme. In the case of this article, the section in question should remain, but the word "Criticism" should be removed from the section title, and the section should be generalized to include all important information about his tenure in At the Movies. If there is positive information about him (from sources), that should go in the section. --Noleander (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the present form - I have had a look at this and have grave reservations about including these attacks against a 29 year old. While I agree that the subject's father may have a conflict of interest this does not change the fact that the article needs to be neutral and most importantly consistent with the policy for biographies of living people. The quality of writing found in e.g. this version of the page [3] is unacceptable and I would favour exclusion of the material until it can be rewritten encyclopaedically with the strictest neutrality. The article must include all the facts and if one of those facts is that Ben Lyons was fired then the article must say so. But as far as repeating attacks against Lyons then I believe we need to find only the highest quality reliable sources, we must not repeat non neutral language found in those sources, and I would personally like to see that articles written by other film critics who may indeed be jealous as Jeffrey Lyons asserts are excluded. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points about neutrality which I support in general and in this specific case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

I made a series of edits to:

  1. Remove details and background about various TV shows
  2. Reduce undue weight in the criticisms of the subject
  3. Removed the POV tag from 2009-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Lyons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Lyons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Lyons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Lyons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Lyons&oldid=1203807900"