Talk:True Detective season 4

Reception undue negative focus

For a show that's received such positive reception our section is unfortunate - it picks four reviewers: one positive, one that starts on a high note but ends with "the season's ultimate failure." The third we claim is "less enthusiastic" - but: less enthusiastic than "ultimate failure"?? And the fourth one is unequivocally negative.

This is not representative of our sources.

I suggest we remove Detroit since it's a stealth negative entry. Then I suggest we exchange one of the negative ones for a new one, a clearly positive one. The current score is, if I'm charitable; +1 0 -1 -1. With the suggested changes we get +1 +1 -1. This way the net sum of our handpicked entries is at least positive, to be representative of our sources. CapnZapp (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going ahead as suggested. I *am* aware it's only been two days so consider these changes tentative only and I welcome constructive suggestions. CapnZapp (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to say. If you are so concerned with the balance of reviews then just add more positive reviews. I wouldn't try to mathematically match some perceived count. That seems ridiculous and robotic. The content of the reviews is far more important. I added all of those reviews, some of them positive and yes some of them touching on what some less favorable reviews found issue with. I don't see the fault in representing the spectrum of reception, even ones in the minority. Especially when the majority are positive and repeat the same opinions. And as I mentioned earlier, the section is of course not complete. There can always be more added. It was just a quick summary of many of the reviews. And the Detroit review is not a "stealth negative entry". I read through many of the reviews and saw similarities in praise and criticism. The Detroit review echoed similar criticisms of CNN's review, and both reviews were mixed. And as such they were grouped together and separated from the NY Times review, which was significantly more negative in their assessment. Οἶδα (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

When I started this talk section, the collection of reviews did not, in my opinion, represent the general reception of the season. Since nobody objected, we can assume general consensus agrees. So, I did something about it. That's all there is to it. You don't need to overthink this. CapnZapp (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it was mispresentative of the general reception when the only difference now is the addition of the Slant and New Yorker reviews. I agree we should not overthink this. That was precisely my point. Trying to calculate a numerical balance of reviews is overthinking it. And I also wouldn't assume zero engagement confirms consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

oh yes, silence must absolutely be interpreted as consensus. Anything else and you're basically encouraged to never ask beforehand; instead always "boldly" going forward without asking first. CapnZapp (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No engagement is not consensus. Οἶδα (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(Now back at a real keyboard) I'm not sure how it was mispresentative of the general reception when the only difference now is the addition of the Slant and New Yorker reviews. You are comparing apples to oranges. I objected to the state of the Reception section on Feb 6. On Feb 8 I made an edit that added Slant and the New Yorker, while removing Forbes. That made, in my opinion, a noticeable difference - the section went from having only one clearly positive paragraph's worth of selected reviews while two were either somewhat or very negative (=the section skewing to the negative which is the opposite of what we should say if we want to reflect actual reception) to having two positive (one of which is focused on praising individual females) and only one negative (and no clear outlier). You appear to think it appropriate to question my judgment based on article versions which include edits of others, which is just wild. CapnZapp (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe adding two reviews is a noticeable difference. And you seem to be doing that thing again of trying mathematically match some perceived count. What I said earlier: that is unproductive and a robotic rendering of reception. The content of the reviews is always more important. We do not need to have a bloated positive reviews section that mostly parrot the same opinions in some asinine goal of making the Reception section textually proportional to a perceived numerical breakdown of critical assessment. That is already indicated through aggregator websites. And you tell me not to "overthink this" then feel the need to dredge this out into some larger disagreement over something relatively unimportant? Can we please not? I have not once reverted any of your edits. I have already indicated you are free to add more reviews. And I have welcomed every change you have made thus far. Οἶδα (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

But let's do a renewed appraisal, now that the show is over... and I think the overall impression to readers remain representative (no change: two paragraphs of positive voices, one whose voices bring up both good and bad, and one paragraph of critical voices: . However, somebody added an entire subsection solely for Pizzolatto. I find that unfortunate. I think Wikipedia currently brings disproportionate attention to that one voice. I'll make a bold edit, where I also add back how the reporting calls him out on it, and you're welcome to discuss or improve further. CapnZapp (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

using the Forbes reviews by Erik Kain

Please read the following talk comment: Talk:Part_5_(True_Detective)#Reception. My two cents:

I concur. We should use an outlier critic with extra care. If the Forbes reviews have something to say that adds to our article, by all means let's include it. But I hesitate to include a review that basically says "I didn't like it", and especially not include an excerpt that basically repeats that message from one episode to the next. For example, I personally feel the Forbes excerpt for episode 1 was more constructive than that for episode 4. I should add that I edited the Reception section of this article (on the whole of the season) and the Forbes review didn't make the cut, for reasons detailed in the previous talk discussion above. Let's discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m in favor of using a different reviewer than Kain, or not including his reviews past episode 1. There are other mixed or negative reviews that can be used in place of Kain, whose reviews take the same stance for every episode, that “this season sucks and shouldn’t have been made under the True Detective banner”, etc. Spectrallights (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already been removed, but I checked to see. As you say, there were no productive critiques raised. So I wouldn't say that is of interest to readers here nor of any utility to the existing section. Perhaps it is my bias, but I avoid Forbes reviews for precisely this reason. Οἶδα (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already been removed yes, but just to note: probably for the wrong reasons. The editor removing Kain cited WP:FORBESCON in their edit summary as if we could only remove Kain on a technicality. But we're removing Kain because we've decided we don't like his reviews. The editor should instead have referenced this discussion in their edit summary. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Thanks Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Audience reception

So, we're just not acknowledging that audience response for this season was by far the worst of the four seasons? That every episode is at the bottom of both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes rankings? The show just has a universally great reception because critics rated the first episode highly? 172.87.33.194 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus that user reviews are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)