Talk:Bill Nye Saves the World

Ratings

The Rotten Tomatoes links says 86% approval by critics(based on 8 reviews), but viewer approval is 37%. Likewise, it's at 4.5/10(45%) rating at IMDB. Shouldn't these stats be brought in for balance? I understand there's a bit of hot potato going on with the show at the moment, but right now the page appears to describe the show as a success based on aggregate data and that is clearly not a full portrayal of its reception. 108.20.216.128 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGnerd: While there are instances where user reviews can be notable, I'm not sure it applies here. User reviews can be from people who had never watched the series, and there is no discernible way to know whether or not these people disliked the contents of the show or simply gave it a 0% out of spite of things such as climate change and gender theory. The Warcraft movie received negative reviews but holds an impressive 71% on Rotten Tomatoes from user reviews, however these would not fall under "critical reception," as the people leaving those ratings are not critics by profession, which is what the "critical reception" section is supposed to measure. While films do have CinemaScore reviews that are from the general public, Netflix and other TV shows do not have that kind of polling of in-person sources to be deemed accurate to the average viewer who was confirmed to have watched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A cursory spin through RT and IMDB show that this kind of disparity is frequent: a critically panned movie can have a diametrically opposed favorability rating by users or vice versa. This appears to correlate with box office to some degree e.g. Transformers vs Tree of Life. This implies that critical reception is not as relevant in society at large as popular opinion: the impact of a cultural event like this is seen and felt in different, but apparently quantifiable ways. Does this (kind of)article therefore need a "Popular Reception" to supplement the "Critical Reception"? I think pointing out that the emperor has no clothes(in either direction) would be a valid addition if it is quantifiable108.20.216.128 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGnerd: A "popular section" on these kinds of articles has been argued before, so I think an "Emperor Has No Clothes" argument is somewhat reactionary as this isn't a new idea. However, guidelines are guidelines, and such a section would require authority from something more higher-up on this website. I do not wish to draw conclusions about your lack of an official account, but it doesn't help your argument that Wikipedia should change when you appear to have only made edits pertaining to this talk page and is thus the first time you're engaging in such rules of conduct on TV and film pages. i.e., if you believe this is a larger problem, you have to argue it with the "Supreme Court," as this page should follow what other pages tend to do. I would also point out that if it were a big deal, this would be further reported on by credible right-wing sources arguing against Bill Nye and credible left-wing sources arguing for him, and I have yet to see a major uproar from either side other than the usual suspects (neo-atheists and other fringe internet groups) who get up in arms about these things constantly, and adding a section the reaction these people have on every page pertaining to a topic they complain about would not be helpful. Rather a section on pages pertaining to these groups themselves on what they react to would be a more proper thing to do, though even that would not be concise as such groups tend to complain about a lot of topics which also do not have entire sections on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal. However, you appear too have skipped straight over the thrust of my argument, which is that aggregated user content in this context (probably)represents a quantifiable measure of cultural impact that is superior to critical response in relevance, i.e. what the masses think about a cultural event matters more than critics, and can be measured. Why shouldn't Wikipedia readers learn that 86% of 8 critics approve of this show but 63% of thousands of consumers/participative persons don't? This could make watercooler talk awkward if Bill hasn't watched the show but assumes Ted and Alice will like it but they have negative opinions based on their experience108.20.216.128 (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGnerd: Except we don't know the full spectrum of cultural impact. There wasn't some sort of massive cultural impact of Warcraft getting thousands of positive reviews while critics derided it. Nor was there noteworthy cultural impact when Batman V Superman had the same happen to it, and even if it did, the impact that this show has is not enough to warrant a section on it when something like Batman V Superman does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that we can't cite user ratings directly (that is, polls or ratings that any passing user can contribute to) under any circumstances, fullstop - it's user-generated content (lacking editorial control), and trying to divine overarching user reception from it would be original research based on a source that is, at best, WP:PRIMARY even if we ignore the problem that it's user-generated. We can only cover things like that if a reliable source covers them first (ie. if there was an article in the NYT that mentioned that a show received low ratings from users somewhere, we could cite that; but we absolutely cannot just take an internet poll like that and reference it in an article directly.) For example, how representative is the polling? Is it free of ballot-stuffing or brigading? When a reliable source - one with a reputation and editorial control - references it, we can rely on their judgment and whatever context they put around the polling to avoid this problem; but we can't just pull a user poll out and put it in the article ourselves. --Aquillion (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

All I'm reading is this: that despite being a source of information that many use, you're willing to overlook public opinion (in favour of the professionally opinionated, which is absurd.) Despite it directly conflicting with balance. - This must be the 'New Wikipedia' I'd read about. Nought but bureaucracy and pointless thought policing for the sake of political correctness, when the factual response from the public is only a scroll and a click away. - Does this not simply serve to hurt public opinion of Wikipedia and its Wikipedians as nothing more than unscrupulous faux-liberal hacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:7aef:2500:b0ec:3fb0:aa94:6cdc (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that we don't have any way of knowing who, exactly, a user-generated thing like those polls represents. Someone could direct their followers to it to weigh the numbers, for instance; or the site could just have a very unrepresentitive user-base. When citing a poll from a well-known poller, we can rely on their reputation to satisfy our requirements for fact-checking and accuracy; when citing a well-known reviewer, or a site that compiles such reviewers, we rely on their reputation and the reputation of whoever is publishing them. In other words, while you're framing this as the "factual response from the public", where's your evidence for that? It could be the response of one or two angry subreddits storming the votes; it could be the response of someone who figured out how to bypass the site's captcha and use a bot to spam votes; it could be the response of one particular demographic rather than "the public" or whatever. Without any sort of fact-checking or editorial controls, user-generated content like that is no better than citing your feelings or opinions - there's nothing actually backing it up, because those sites don't attest to its accuracy or make any claims about what, exactly, it represents. Basically, Wikipedia articles need to be based on solid, well-cited facts. That means user-generated content isn't acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR version for the IP - it's too easy for religious-supremacist groups, "alt-right" groups, and other assorted groups to manipulate and alter online polls or similar things. And it's unlikely that anyone is going to take seriously concern-trolling from someone using phrases like "unscrupulous faux-liberal hacks". Morty C-137 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Due weight for "My Sex Junk"

@TheGnerd: I only checked out this article because of the enormous amount of press the "My Sex Junk" performance has received. Seems like it should be mentioned, although I'm not sure if it needs to taint the reset of the series. - Scarpy (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Scarpy: I would argue that upon looking it up, most of the people mentioning it tend to be inconsequential blogs and noted sources of fake news such as Breitbart, and it shouldn't be in the main "reception" section, nor is making big enough waves to warrant its own section. Similarly, when Meryl Streep made her speech as the Oscars criticizing Donald Trump, it was notable his response as he is another person of influence, but you wouldn't put "sources like Breitbart and Tomi Lahren claimed she stepped out of line," as putting down people as small as them on such a topic doesn't add much. If we are to add a section on "My Sex Junk," seeing as how that did not detract from the majority of professional reviews, it would require its own section from credible and notable sources who agree and disagree, but as no credible right-wing sources are complaining, I am not sure it does warrant its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheGnerd: the cited material removed was from The Independent, which meets the criteria for WP:RS. The bias of other sources discussing that are not cited here is irrelevant. The content removed was one sentence, so it can't see an argument that it's WP:UNDUE. - Scarpy (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"The Independent" is a tabloid. It's about as reliable as Weekly World News, that needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I know I had seen it cited in other Wikipedia articles. If enough editors here really think it's controversial we can ask for input on WP:RSN. - Scarpy (talk)

Morty C-137 please familiarise yourself with sources before making such inaccurate statements. Before it folded last year, the Independent was regarded as one of the four British newspapers of record. It was a broadsheet. If it has any political stance, then maybe slightly liberal, but it is light years away from the US religious right sources which were rightfully removed from this article. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

WAS.

"BEFORE IT FOLDED".

Also means: It ISN'T TODAY. And the so-called "article" being used as a source? It's not an actual critical response, but instead, some shit-stirrer whose style is to write a trash-talk article repeating what he found on reddit comments. It's actually so short that it's probably the guy has never actually watched the show.

This is tabloid garbage, not actual journalism and not even close to a "reliable source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do would be to ask on WP:RSN rather than removing cited material. Please don't revert until consensus has been reached on this talk page or WP:RSN. - Scarpy (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the anonymous people who keep trying to put it in, in the first place, are the same bigots who make edits like this https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&curid=51486025&diff=777889576&oldid=777885859

So, EWWWWW. Just Yuck. Nobody should be taking people who leave anti-semitic (Triple parentheses) slur comments seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I also want to note that the original person who added the "Reception" section used Inquisitr, Breitbart, and Lifesitenews as sources for the ninth episode. [1]. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's like a trifecta of white supremacist sites there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

These are all WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. All reception of the show is going to have a POV, you don't need to agree with it. Due weight is determined by the amount of coverage in WP:RS, personal opinions aside. (Please don't forget to sign and indent your comments, thanks). - Scarpy (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI The Independent has been discussed before on WP:RSN. Is the UK paper, "The Independent" a "tabloid journalism" source for BLP references? the consensus seemed to be that it was more or less as reliable as other UK newspapers. From the conclusion of the discussion: "...the source as generally reliable and not to be seen in the same light as News of the World or the Daily Mail or The National Enquirer." I suppose we could bring it up again, but I'm not seeing any grounds to remove this is a source in this article. - Scarpy (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No. This is pretty clearly not reliable sources. An attack edit which singles out the metacritic "user submission" rank based on a low number of submissions, an edit inserted by apparently the same people leaving anti-semitic [[[Three Parenthesis]] attacks and the "Bill Noy the Science Goy" attack, is cherry-picking in nature and designed to give a misleading impression and is therefore inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Similarly the "Independent" tabloid attack column relies on exactly three sources: the previously already mentioned Gizmodo coverage, and "two guys said stuff on Reddit." In the first case we already have the Gizmodo article mentioned directly, and in the second, there's no way "two random comments we cherry picked from reddit" deserves any mention on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've provided evidence from WP:RSN that The Independent is a reliable source. I agree with removing vandalism from this article, but the difference here is that this is cited material stated in a neutral way, so it's not an attack. We should give due weight to positive and negative reviews. However much you and I may disagree with the politics of people that are critical of the show, if those reviews are published in reliable sources they should be given due weight and included. Using the same logic, I could say that the positive reviews are cherry-picked and designed to give a misleading impression. I'm not sure what the issue with the Metacritic score is, the user scores and critic scores from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are just about the same. I'll mention both for completeness and re-word the information from the independent so it's more neutral, but I'm not just going remove material critical of the show because it's not popular. Wikipedia is not popularity contest. - Scarpy (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you're dishonestly ignoring what I am pointing out. The policies do not say you get to put in multiple different "sources" that all reference the same base article. Nor do the policies say what you are saying.

"Context matters[edit source] Shortcuts: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:RSCONTEXT 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. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

In short: While "news" from The Independent about, say, the visit of a foreign dignitary to the UK or something might still be considered a "reliable source" due to inertia despite the freefall in its journalistic standards, a gossip column attacking a netflix show based on a couple of cherry-picked reddit comments is NOT a "reliable source" in any context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137 and Scarpy: please don't edit war over this. If you can't come to a consensus on whether to include the content, use dispute resolution. Or maybe ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. They will likely refer you to WP:TVRECEPTION, the relevant guideline, but they may have helpful comments about the interpretation of the guideline. If you keep reverting each other, the article will likely end up locked against all editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on "Ratings" above also points the flaw in Scarpy's claims out. Metacritic or otherwise "user reviews" listings are inherently suspect. "While there are instances where user reviews can be notable, I'm not sure it applies here. User reviews can be from people who had never watched the series, and there is no discernible way to know whether or not these people disliked the contents of the show or simply gave it a 0% out of spite of things such as climate change and gender theory. The Warcraft movie received negative reviews but holds an impressive 71% on Rotten Tomatoes from user reviews, however these would not fall under "critical reception," as the people leaving those ratings are not critics by profession, which is what the "critical reception" section is supposed to measure." The user reviews section on Metacritic looks a lot like what we are seeing here, an organized attack by anti-science or political people like antivaxxers, climate denialists and anti-LGBTQ bigots, along with many that seem to have an anti-semitic bent who are trying to tilt the article in order to attack the show or its host. A few representative "comments" from the metacritic site right now:

1. 1 "Needless to say, I am not surprised this came out to be a political show to push the sjw agenda and not really about science. "
2. 2 "This show is just another amalgamation of social justice warrior ****"
3. 3 "Noy and his (((correspondents))) are just a cult"
4. 4 "Bill Nye should be ashamed he must be secretly gay and trying to turn good christian children gay. Fight this #MAGA" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: would you be kind enough to weigh in here and try to break the tie? I would put in a request for a third opinion if it continues much longer. Dispute resolution is a long protracted process, and I believe is overkill for this situation. - Scarpy (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Tell me if I'm wrong, but what I hear you saying is this: "criticism of Bill Nye's new show is not acceptable on Wikipedia regardless of the source because some of his critics are Trump supporters or anti-SJW or have other political views I disagree with." Is that accurate, or am I strawmanning your point? - Scarpy (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Scarpy, if you aren't going to bother being honest, we aren't going to have a productive discussion. You're completely strawmanning, and not only that, you lied outright in your last edit summary claiming that there was "no objection" to the metacritic content, there is not just objection from me, but from others in the previous discussion section (titled "Ratings") above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In your last edit summary that appeared in my notifications you only mentioned the removing about The Independent (that I took great care to reword to be more neutral) and didn't mention Metacritic. In your first response on the talk page you only mentioned The Independent, then you wrote a second response about Metacritic, so it was true at the time I read it. After I read your second comment, I then removed the Metacritic material. Please assume good faith (WP:AGF).

At any rate, I asked if I was strammanning your point and you said I did. Thanks, I'm trying very hard to understand your objections because they're not clear to me. So your objection to criticism of this page is only that you feel The Independent is a "gossip column?" I'm curious then why you mentioned the political POVs of the reviews on metacritic? - Scarpy (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok let's try this again.

1. 1 The same people appear to be both posting the stuff on Metacritic who are then trying to use Metacritic here on wikipedia to slam the show. That's not valid.
2. 2 The column on "The Independent" is not in keeping with the Reliable Sources guidelines. I pasted them above. In context, they violate it by simply repeating a criticism already covered by another source, along with sourcing to something incredibly unreliable, random reddit comments pulled from somewhere. The author doesn't even say which reddit it was pulled from, which makes it even more suspect than reddit would usually be. So yeah whether or not "The Independent" could be readily used in its news areas, this is from the "culture" section and is nothing more than an internet gossip-column page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137 you're literally on a one-man crusade to stop this negative review being in the article, using whatever straw man you can find. First you say The Independent is the equivalent of a literal fake news website, then you play semantics and say that its reputation was only for its newspaper which is no longer on sale. Then you say that it's not a real review because it references other reviews that had no editorial oversight. That is, quite literally, not an argument. Just because criticism of this show has come from alt-right trolls, doesn't mean that all negative reviews are from the alt-right. This is like saying that because Beyoncé has obsessive fans who like everything she releases, all positive reviews for her work are from obsessive fans. You've been given a great deal of leaway here despite nobody agreeing with you or even understanding your "arguments". This needs more oversight Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137, regarding your most recent removal of the The Independent review, could you please explain your reasons? The video formerly on the website is not what is being sourced, the article itself is. I'm not sure what your basis is for claiming that the article is plagiarised. Finally, a secondary source quoting social media response is not WP:UGC. Cjhard (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My reasons are quite clear. We are expected to EVALUATE sources, not merely shout "this site is an RS" or something lame like that. "The Independent" have pulled their video, and the rest of the article, boiled down, is "Gizmodo said one thing, two guys on reddit said something about the show, and my editor says 'Jumps the Shark' makes a good clickbait-y headline." We have no reason to use this in Wikipedia. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That, once again, looks a lot like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. There appears to be consensus that it should be included, with yourself as the sole objector. However, because the basis of your removal is the video formerly on the article, (Does anyone know what the video was? Wasn't it just a video of the performance?) it would be prudent to check if the consensus has changed based on the removal of the video before any action is taken to re-add the source. Anarcho-authoritarian Scarpy TheGnerd If any of you are willing to have a look, could we get your input? Cjhard (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not "just don't like it". It is 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. A tiny "review" (if it can even be called that) whose accompanying video has been removed, that itself indicates primarily that the author is basing the writing on a different site's article and a couple of reddit comments rather than themselves reviewing the material, is not remotely reliable. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence to support your claims that the article has been plagiarised/based on another website's article? The article quotes (with referencing) a Gizmodo article, but no other material from the Gizmodo article seems to be included in the Independent article. The Gizmodo article doesn't even reference the Sex Junk skit. Cjhard (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Quote: "The nadir appears to come in episode 9" - note, "appears to come." Not wording that indicates he has actually bothered to watch the show. That tells us he's just cribbing from somewhere, and since Gizmodo doesn't mention the skit that leaves his only other source - Reddit, a WP:USERGENERATED site known for having nooks and crannies of all sorts of bigotry with ready made comments to be cherry picked. If you want something to quote, maybe you can work up wording from the Gizmodo review, which at least is an honest review by a real and actually reliable news outlet with journalistic standards. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to see if there is an actual "enormous amount of press" in any reliable-sources sense other than this weird and tiny mention on "The Independent", I checked the search linked at the start. Here's what I find, down the page.

• "Cultured Vultures" - not RS
• "The Inquisitr" - aggregator site, not itself RS.
• "The Independent" (what we are discussing)
• Breitbart "News" - not remotely RS
• Brooklyn Vegan Blog
• "Decider", a blog site operated by the New York Post, not RS. Article also does not support claims that the skit is "cringeworthy" but instead focuses on the fact that conservatives are just outraged about the show in general. Oh, and it mentions the vandalism to this article that was ongoing too.
• "PJ Media" - not RS, as if their snide calling him "Bill Nye the Vagina Guy" wasn't enough of a clue that it's just a right wing hate site.
• "Lifesite" - on the order of Breitbart in being not remotely RS, and the article is mostly bizarre ranting claiming that Netflix "censored" an old show from the Bill Nye the Science Guy days, a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory among conservatives who never watched the show in the first place.
• Yes! Magazine - Not sure if it's RS or not, but since it seems positive towards the sketch, certainly doesn't count for a claim of an "enormous amount" of negative press.
• Houston Chronicle - Oh wait no, it's a repost from the Washington Post - Oh wait no, that's from WaPo's "Acts of Faith" blog, which is WP:USERGENERATED and if you google the title, looks like Tyler Huckabee spammed it out to every single user-generated submissions blog he could.

I could keep going but I think this proves the point. There is no "enormous amount of press" in terms of Reliable Sources, so in addition to the fact that what "The Independent" has up fails analysis, trying to push the idea that it's a big deal based on a tiny mention runs afoul of the WP:UNDUE policy too. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're arguing that the article is plagiarised because it uses the phrase "appears to be", which means that the reviewer hasn't seen the show and is taking the information from elsewhere? "Appears to be" is just a way to express a subjective view, and has been used in that way multiple times on this very page. You've been accused of being "on a one-man crusade to stop this negative review being in the article, using whatever straw man you can find" and with this argument, I feel like you've confirmed this characterisation. The conclusion you've drawn from the words is patently absurd, a weak strawman you're attempting to use to stop this negative review being included. Surely the feebleness of your arguments and the consensus on this talk page should indicate to you that the article should not be excluded. You don't have to like it, sometimes you don't get your way, you just have to accept it and move on. Cjhard (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And since he can't argue with logic, Cjhard has resorted to repeat insults. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: as I have explained in detail above, the content violates both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE policies and has no place in the wikipedia article. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the removal of that random, vague, and un-notable 'review' for this article. Even if it were a reliable source, which it isn't, it's still not a notable view that merits inclusion. It's basic cherrypicking. Kudos for googling skills in unearthing such a random quote. First Light (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the Independent review. If they themselves have taken it down, and the page is gutted, why should it still be on here. It serves no encyclopedic merit. Enough of this stupid edit war. This looks very similar to the last time this crap happened. So close, I would venture to say I smell dirty socks. I am not engaging in an edit war, rather seeing this from the sidelines. I do not understand why it is so hard to follow WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Problems with reception section

Forgive me for being a bit behind on how it is usually handled, but the reception section seems to be a bit biased. Yes, Metacritic shows that audiences generally have not embraced the show, but then again there are several positive reviews shown and sourced. Here is my suggestion, take it as you may. Could we re-write the section to say the show has received mixed reviews and then show the sources? My issue with the bias is the way it is worded. I get that this is a controversial show and there is a reason the article is behind an IP block right now, but I think we can word this better to remove the bias and keep it as neutral as possible. Is this a crazy suggestion? Thanks for your time. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I made some changes with just that in mind. - Scarpy (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed. It looks better now. Thanks! ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but the key point is that we absolutely cannot cite a Metacritic user score directly. The score itself is user-generated content with no editorial controls, so it doesn't pass WP:RS; and using it to try and make or imply a general statement about the overall reception to the show is clear original research. (The "critics" metacritic score does not have the same problem, because it is curated and has editorial controls.) We can mention metacritic user scores only when it is referenced in a secondary source, ie. one outside of Metacritic itself, and even then we'd have to rely on the context or framing that the secondary source gives it. It doesn't matter how we frame it or what tone we go for - the only way we can ever mention user scores in the article is via a secondary source, which would let us get around the WP:USERGENERATED and WP:OR issues. If you want to cover the show's reception outside of professional critics, in other words, my advice would be to find articles on the subject of its reception and cite those, rather than trying to do original research ourselves using raw numbers from online polls. --Aquillion (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If that´s the case, I am removing the metacritic reference. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 00:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I remain concerned that this article got unprotected and is now being attacked by white supremacists again, the brand new "Pepe.is.great" person's name is a pretty obvious reference or callout to white supremacist icon "Pepe the Frog". Also I look at its edits and it so far has edited on a nazi tank, a russian plane, and the name of a settlement in croatia, each time inserting incorrect information or destroying references in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137 see also Guilt by association Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No, taking the person's own posting at face value. It's 99.9999% probably one of the same people who was trying to leave anti-semitic edits here earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Morty C-137 Please stop accusing me of anti-Semitism, I have never inserted incorrect info and just because I have edited an article on a Nazi tank does not make me a Nazi.Pepe.is.great (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Independent is not a reliable source, nor is the Metacritic post, although both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are very similar. I think we need another editor here to reach consensus, until then I am watching the page for the WP:3RR, specifically with this Pepe person who has a handful of edits and is a new editor. I have been editing wikipedia since 2006. I do not recall an article that has had this many issues with one particular section. IMHO there is a lot of WP:POV going on. Hopefully a consensus can be reached but with as controversial as Bill Nye is, I am not sure that is ever going to happen. People need to stay neutral. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you warn Morty C-137 to stay neutral he is the one calling me a Nazi for editing a page on a Nazi tank. On WP:RSN. Is the UK paper, "The Independent" a "tabloid journalism" source for BLP references? the consensus appears to be that it is a reliable source.

The words "tabloid journalism" already throw up a red flag for me, but again we may need another editor in here for a third opinion. As far as what that other editor said I have no control over what he/she did. I am not an admin, I am just sharing my opinion on a talk page, and noticed you violated the 3RR. You´ve been warned twice about it. Those are the facts. Per the other editor above, his statement regarding metacritic is exactly why I reverted it yesterday, and again today. My hope is another editor or administrator maybe can come along and clear this up for all of us. Until then I would not revert edits otherwise you open yourself up to being reported on the WP:ANI, kand could be blocked for edit warring. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also warning a seasoned editor for something they did not do is not a good way to get your point across. I will explore taking that issue on its own to an administrator. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You made the same number of reverts as me in the same time period so the warning was justified.Pepe.is.great (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Two reversions in a 24 hour period is not a violation of the rule. Look at the diffs. You have also been warned by another user, not just me. This article is currently in dispute resolution. Let other editors have a look and help us find consensus. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

you made 4 in 24hrs not 2 the same number I did.Pepe.is.great (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am now fine with the metacritic section, it was a misunderstanding (thanks to the IP for clarifying that). I would love to see how other editors feel about citing the Independent though, it is still up in the air. I will wait for additional comments on WP:DNR. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors we must abide by certain precedents. Per Wikipedia guidelines, the verdict of the WP:RSN concerning The Independent stands until it is countered or overturned, and as such it must be considered a reliable source (foregoing any pending request for re-evaluation, which I am not opposed to.) In my opinion the Metacritic citation should be kept, but it is advisable to label it (in article) as a aggregate review site. It would also be prudent to split the reviews into reviewer and watcher, as is done on Metacritic. One final note; as an encyclopedia, it is not our job to question the information provided to us by confirmed sources (except in extreme cases) and inflect our personal views upon them. We should instead reach a consensus with our fellow editors or find countering opinions from other reliable sources. And one more appeal to civility; Editors are encouraged to judge each-other's content, not their scope of expertise, knowlage, or their past activities. SamHolt6 (talk) 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I already explained in detail why the gossip column section of "the independent" is both redundant and not reliable according to guidelines above, SamHolt6... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Currently the previous ruling regarding the validity of The Independent stands. If you feel it is in violation of Wikipedia's source criteria, a new discussion must be opened, especially if other editors are making the case for it to be used as a valid source. SamHolt6 (talk) 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There was already a new discussion above, why are you dishonestly trying to ignore that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

providing examples of how the independent is an invalid and unreliable source would help.Pepe.is.great (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, no clear consensus was (or has been) reached among the editors of this article as to the validity of The Independant. Therefore the established precedent must be followed in regards to the disputed source. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Is_the_UK_paper.2C_.22The_Independent.22_a_.22tabloid_journalism.22_source_for_BLP_references.3F seems to be the achieved outcome of an official inquiry on The Independent, and so it will be followed. If there is any disagreement with the outcome you can post on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Until that time any discussion had on that talk page is moot as no consensus was reached between editors. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

""Context matters[edit source] Shortcuts: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS WP:RSCONTEXT 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. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

A gossip column, which does no more than cite a source we already cited along with a couple of reddit posts, is not a reliable nor appropriate source for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am curious to know how (or if) the Independent is used as a source in other articles? It still bothers me, the words "tabloid journalism". My interest in this subject is starting to wane however, so I'm stepping out of this. I have stopped watching the page, and unless I notice a blatant problem, I won't edit here (on the main article) any more. If you guys need me to be involved in the discussion, I can be but I am not sure how much I can add to it. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 07:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly @Milonica:, nobody has responded, because "The Independent" isn't a reliable source. Morty C-137 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I was tagged, I will bite. I have been keeping an eye on this from a far. It looks like it got a lot worse after I stopped editing. A whole crapload of sock puppets, accusations, editors hiding behind IPs to add their opinions (and probably socks of the socks). I still don't care to edit beyond this. You guys are on your own. Good luck. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Original air date"

The Episode Template needs to be fixed, because with shows like this, and as has become far more common in the 21st Century, there are tv shows that are never broadcast on air. Instead of being "pushed" over the airwaves, they are "pulled", On Demand. So the proper term here would be:

"Original release date".

This is the date when the show was publicly posted, published for the content to be viewed. For the same kinds of reasons, no one speaks of a Hollywood movie premiering with an "original air date". You have to go to the theater and watch it after it has been released. Internet-only programming has been around for a long time now, and this cannot be the first time that this point has been raised.--Cy Maddox (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since this point extends far beyond this one article, the issue has been raised over at the Talk page for the template, here.--Cy Maddox (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. It's really a matter of reading the template documentation. -- Alex^TW 14:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Article has been brought to WP:DRN

For reference, the reception section issues we are having are (hopefully) being discussed in Dispute Resolution. [2] ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Semi-Protection

It appears that some unregistered users may be vandalizing this page, as the show is somewhat controversial. We may want to head off this problem before it begins by semi-Protecting this article. SamHolt6 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Feel free to list at WP:RFPP. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Point of order, it WAS protected before. Someone set it to expire despite the vandals trying to use anti-semitic slurs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Regardless, WP:RFPP is still the correct venue for requesting protection to a non-protected page, or requesting an increase in protection level for an already protected page. Note that an admin will only protect the page if there has been vandalism since the most recent protection expired. I don't wish to get involved in the content dispute here, but I should point out that just because you don't like someone else's edits doesn't make those edits vandalism. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The show is controversial, and yet there is no mention in the article of what makes it controversial. There's absolutely nothing critical of the show in this article. WIkipedia is "not biased." --73.58.153.2 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Pepe" at it again...

Here are a few examples of "Washington Examiner"'s nonsense level, since "Pepe" keeps trying to insert something that clearly fails as a source, specifically two parts: the "Questionable sources" portion of the Reliable Sources rules and the "Statements of Opinion" portion.

"Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."

1. - claiming climate science is "tyranny" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/charles-krauthammer-against-the-global-warming-tyrants/article/2547432

1. - ranting about "liberal media" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-liberal-media-loved-obama-to-death/article/2510130

1. - rants about "socialism" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-voters-love-socialism/article/2514663

Trying to use an OPINION COLUMN as a "source" (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/celebrity-scientists-and-faux-scientists-should-leave-understanding-the-person-to-the-humanities/article/2621267) in the wording he is trying to insert, even if Examiner were reliable (it's not), still fails to meet guidelines. Opinion columns are not subject to fact-checking standards and do not qualify to make blanket statements like he's trying to make, especially when it is not phrased to specify that it is only one writer's opinion.

Relevant rule: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources

There it is. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All reviews of a show are opinion pieces.Pepe.is.great (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to make a claim of fact that the show is "too political with not enough of his claims, on gender and sex in particular, backed up by scientific evidence", using an opinion piece. You did not even bother to phrase it with "blahdeblah writer says..." in the front end. And you used a "source" that does not meet reliable sources standards. This is a problem, your edit absolutely violates the Reliable Sources rules. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

OK I have changed the wording as you suggested.Pepe.is.great (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what wording you use, Washington Examiner is a right-wing tabloid and not RELIABLE, and "opinion" columns do not have to meet fact-checking standards which makes them ineligible. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Borderline POV. See this [3] for future reference. If you are going to include it in the article, include who wrote it. The way you have it written now clearly implies that the actual Washington Examiner has this opinion, not the author. Several questions... why is this source even necessary? Two... you are aware the Examiner is a well known conservative source, i.e. it is inherently biased. I was fine with the section as it was prior to adding this source. I guess I will drag myself back in this argument on the sole basis that I want wikipedia to be neutral. We all should know that conservatives arent going to like this show simply because Nye is a controversial figure. Why does that have to screw with the articles integrity? I dont see the need for sourcing the Washington Examiner. On that link I shared earlier, one of the editors said this and I agree: Generally speaking, opinion columns are not regarded as reliable for statements of fact. Pepe, I am starting to wonder what your motivation is for editing this article? ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

just because a source is right wing does not mean it is unreliable and just because you disagree with the review, does not mean that it cannot be used. You seem to be generalising conservatives as that they will all hate the show I included the review as a response from the right, there was already one from the left there.Pepe.is.great (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is still not written properly. You need to add that it is the writers opinion (keyword---opinion), not the Washington Examiner as a whole. Please read that link I posted. By the way, this article is still active in the dispute resolutions, and I do not see you as a part of the discussion Pepe, even though since you are adding this content, you should be. I have problems including content from a blatantly biased source. That is all. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not reliable because it's a tabloid, especially so as a politically biased tabloid. An "Occupy Democrats" page or something would be equally bad. Also Pepe, your edits keep trying to add more and more to try to push a particular point of view in violation of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would call it a poor source to use and biased, but it is still a source. If we are to abide by WP:Neutral, than the previous version without the examiner would work fine. I would love it if another editor other than the two of you could look at this. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject can fix this mess.ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am so completely tempted to quit this page right now since I'm getting harassed over it. I get a strong feeling wikipedia's "policies" are more about finding tricky or surreptitious ways to abuse people instead of actually working on improving the quality of articles. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Then do it. I am. KDS is. I suggest Pepe do so as well but its just a suggestion, none of you have to listen to me. I am tired of this and I am not editing/watching/touching anything regarding this article after this edit. Have fun. Be WP:CIVIL. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The one thing holding me back? KDS pointed out that's exactly what bullies want. They want attrition, which will do the page no good. The one honest thing I think KDS said. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Morty, it might not be the worst idea for you to move on from this. Your reversions of good faith edits without any explanation isn't great and seems like the issue goes beyond your dispute with Pepe. Cjhard (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that I have done plenty of explaining, including asking you to come to discuss your proposed edit before you just reverted, your comment makes little sense. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You literally just got warned for edit warring. I take it you're dismissing it as harassment and ignoring it? Cjhard (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Um. The Washington Examiner is not a tabloid in the common sense. It is a tabloid in the sense that it is... smaller. (Actually now it's not a tabloid either, it's a magazine). There is no basis whatsoever for accusing it of being a tabloid in the way you mean it. It is political journalism that is taken seriously by professionals, you just don't like that it's very conservative. I don't share its stance either, but it's not a damn tabloid.

And yeah, Pepe is obviously correct that all reviews are opinions. I notice you moved the goalpost without missing a beat on that one.

This is ludicrous. Really mind blowing, how much someone here seems to <insert way over the line personal attack>. Cdg428 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Full protection

Because of the recent edit-warring, I have fully protected the article for two weeks. If a consensus is reached concerning the contested content in the meantime, please request unprotection at my user talk page or at WP:RFUP.

When protection expires or is removed, any edit-warring (whether it exceeds 3 reverts in 24 hours or not) will have to be prevented by blocking the relevant users. CIreland (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remind everyone of the above and that you've all been warned several times for edit warring. Keep this in mind, please. If this latest spat turns into another edit war, the edit warriors will get blocked. The article has been protected enough times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Reception

The sources that have been deleted are notable opinions of the show If you want more positive opinions then add them.Pepe.is.great (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the reviews are negative, but that they're not "notable/relevant opinions". You've been explained that your "sources" are in fact not reliable sources at all, and therefore can't be included, regardless of how right or wrong your opinions are. There is a negative reception that should certainly be discussed at some point down the line, but only using reputable sources, not opinion pieces, blogs, and websites like Breitbart that, much as your beloved president loves it, do not qualify as reputable news. The whole point of adding positive and negative opinions on Wikipedia article is that they have to be notable ones, if you want somewhere with user generated positive and negative reviews go on IMDB or Facebook not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a tool for spreading your opinions and fighting over them (and that goes for the liberal guy too - I don't see why he keeps removing that Independant article, the Independant is pretty reliable. Stop changing the facts to fit your views yall yall). 82.0.132.13 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

They are notable opinions and the all of the sources are opinion pieces there reviews after all and I never added websites like Breitbart only reputable news sources like CNN , The independent and the Washington Examiner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe.is.great (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been explained to you that sources like Washington Examiner aren't credible, and even then it's meant to reflect a general critical consensus. As it holds a 75% on rotten tomatoes, it's accurate to portray three positive reviews and one negative one. (TheGnerd) (talk) 1:32, 26 May 2017 (EST)

I'd exercise caution in using the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic statistics as a measure of the general critical consensus (and as a proportionality guide in this article) in this case, as Metacritic only has a sample size of 5, and Rotten Tomotoes has a sample size of 8 and itself states that there is no critical consensus. Cjhard (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we remove this "Bill Nye Saves the World was well-received by critics."? The show only has 63/100 on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes itself says there aren't enough reviews for a critical consensus. It's best to just list the scores rather than claim a positive critical consensus, when both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes contradict that. 2.102.184.54 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Random IP comes in wanting us to rewrite article negatively using almost exactly the same language to Cjhard. Show has a history of being attacked by anti-LGBT crusaders, antivaxxers, etc... Morty C-137 (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Has Cjhard been banned from this article? You can do a sock test if you want, but I'm not him. I'd also make the point that there are pro-LGBT crusaders too, and this article shouldn't be decided by them either. Anyway, so how about my points above? 2.102.184.54 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with the IP, there is no reliable source that states that it was "well-received" by critics. That would be original research based on interpreting a handful of reviews, and may even be inaccurate as original research. There should be a reliable neutral source that makes that statement, or it should be removed. Even if this IP is a sockpuppet, the point still stands. First Light (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

In keeping from with other 'reception' sections on Wikipedia, it should probably be listed as "mixed" or "mostly-positive" in my opinion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes information, as their sample sizes are far too small to mean anything, which Rotten Tomatoes says itself. I've found what seems like some reliable sourcing to say that it received mixed reviews from critics and audiences, so I've changed the section accordingly. One of the sources provides one of the key criticisms of the show (the performances), providing the Rachel Bloom song as an example, so I've included that to provide context for the mixed reviews. Cjhard (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Bennv3771, I've explained why I removed the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes information above. Cjhard (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cjhard: I agree that the sample size is too small to reach a critical consensus conclusion, that is why the current edit does not claim that it does. Those critics' opinions are still valid though, just as valid as the one/two sources claiming that the reviews were mixed. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. Cjhard (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Page Re-ordering

I've re-ordered the page so it flows better visually. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)