![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The following reference was removed from the Controversy section. I thought that it seemed relevant.
Cinematographer Paul Edwards wrote in CounterPunch that the film is dangerous due to mutilating the classic hero's journey into a simplistic, brutal, and sadistic destruction of “evildoers”. [1]
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with a tripled amount of threats against Arabs and Muslims. [2]
DHeyward, and then MONGO repeatedly removed the above text. How is this not relevant, when the organisation has received a tripled amount of reports of threats against Muslims? This seems extremely significant. David A ( talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It is appropriate to at the very least report this statement in passing since it has been covered in numerous reliable sources:
WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to project their viewpoint about ADC to suggest that the viewpoint is not prevalent, by their own analysis. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
HELL YEAH 332 MILLION AS OF TODAY PASSING IT BY WEEKEND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Currently an IP is repeatedly adding a claim to the lead that American Sniper "is set to overtake The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 as the highest grossing film of 2014". First of all, Mockingjay has earned over $700 million and American Sniper is unlikely to gross that amount; it may overtake it in the domestic market but that is not clear from what is written. Secondly, the claim violates WP:CRYSTAL: we do not predict what will happen—even if it can be sourced—but rather record something wehn it does happen i.e. the IP is jumping the gun and that is against Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
yes 700 international as its states it is currently 3rd topgrosser domestic im making it clear that im talking domestic,mockingjay is now at 336 million by next weekend American sniper would be grossing 340 million so im not getting the resistance to this plane fact but hell this will be moot and academic by next week so im wondering whats the fuzz is all about by putting that it will be passing mockingjay in the domestic boxoffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
doesnt matter it will be fact next week and dont worry it is not passing it in the international boxoffice
just restore the part of it passing mockingjay but added domestic to make it clear in which market it will outgross it by next weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
as to the claim that im jumping the gun,i think it too close to happening to deny the fact that it is poise to overtake mockingjay domestically just mere days to the inevitable event and nothing will stop it from becoming a sheer fact unlees theres a nuclear war or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 17:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
this is really weird but i feel that some editors has some itch about mockingjay being overtaken by American sniper MONGO has deleted the section =(making it the the second-highest-grossing film of 2014 in the U.S [1].)for no apparent reason unless they want to cover up the fact that American Sniper will take the domestic boxoffice crown it really beginning to stink of bias in favor of mockingjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 06:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
haha your talking in riddles or your just finding excuses to cover up the fact that domestically American sniper will pass your precious mockinjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
i see your only a kid i hate arguing with a child but i hate it more if the wrong fact is stated as correct, no bias and the true facts should prevail even if it stings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 07:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
hey MONGO i dont really care you can do what you want im just feeling fulfilled right now just got the news of Saturday update for American sniper it will be at 337 million officially passing mockingjay no sense in arguing with you [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 07:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this, it is unnecessary to put this passage at the very front of the "Critical response" section. It can come later if needed, but its placement at the beginning comes off as a problematic implication. In addition, WP:BRD should be recognized to have a discussion if content is reverted. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" rating of 73%, based on 217 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 6.9/10. This makes itBy that measure, it is "the worst-reviewed" of the 2014 Oscar contenders. The site's consensus states, ....
Thanks, --
Rich Janis (
talk) 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) --
Rich Janis (
talk) 10:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
By that measure, it is the worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar.
I would then simply
cite RT as the source. Thank you both for your opinions, --
Rich Janis (
talk) 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)As I said (and it goes for all sources): What source is stating that the RT number is relevant to the Oscars? It's not Rotten Tomatoes. They never say "worst reviewed" either. If you are going to SYNTH and OR a statement about the Oscars, why not use Box Office receipts? Or profit? Or number of opening theater screens? - all are equally valid statements that lack appropriate secondary sources. The RT source can't be used to make a "worst reviewed" claim as they never make the claim nor tie it as relevant to the Oscars (the highest rated film, "Boyhood," didn't win either so who is making the claim that Rotten Tomato ratings are significant to Oscar nominations and wins? You didn't provide that source which is why it's OR and SYNTH). Revenue, profit, screens, etc are also just as SYNTH and OR which is why we also don't say "the film was denied a Best-picture Oscar despite outperforming all the other nominees combined." I already explained how to incorporate your first source. RT is more of a primary source which is much more difficult to use as a source and really needs a secondary to explain the rating numbers and what they mean. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
~ ~ ~
References
Hey! Re: Edit summaries, I'm going to agree that critical response is way too big, so I've cut down on a lot of the quotes. Let me know what you think. Mostly I've tried to remove statements such as "By film director Clint Eastwood" and other factoids as the article already presents this to the viewer. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The LA Weekly is a longstanding reliable source, and no good cause has been stated for the removal of its film critic's judgment of the film. Please discuss the proposed removal here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, what exactly are the complaints about the source?-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Given lack of arguments against its inclusion in this section, I've undone a reversion of an accurate summary of this review. Do let me know if there are reasons we can't cite LA Weekly in the article- movies are not my field of expertise. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.110 ( talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Add New line or two new paragraph[h after 5th par by Clint Eastwood:
The result of the move request was: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [4] [5] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.
Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.
The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase ( talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Except for extremely long ones, it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle.That means that even with the book as the primary topic as it is currently, the subtitled version should still redirect there.
The result of the move request was: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [6] [7] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.
Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.
The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase ( talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Except for extremely long ones, it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle.That means that even with the book as the primary topic as it is currently, the subtitled version should still redirect there.
Pinging Jenks24 - This was inactive after it was closed so long I had to rescue it from being archived. Apparently no one knows how to act on your last post incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. What is the issue that normal redirects won't handle, and what has to be done in advance of the move? - Gothicfilm ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed some material from the historical accuracy section. First, the source used (a blog by an intern) is not a reliable source. Second, the way material is presented in the article was misleading in at least two ways. First, it purported that these were "facts" reported by Slate, rather than a blogger's post; second, it misrepresented the material itself, saying that certain events did or did not happen, when even the blogger does not make that claim - the blogger is stating that the events weren't written in the memoir, not that they didn't take place. As such, they would not belong in a historical accuracy section, but rather in a section about how the film differed from the book. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There are guidelines about reporting a film's historical accuracy at WP:FILMHIST. Erik II ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The following reference was removed from the Controversy section. I thought that it seemed relevant.
Cinematographer Paul Edwards wrote in CounterPunch that the film is dangerous due to mutilating the classic hero's journey into a simplistic, brutal, and sadistic destruction of “evildoers”. [1]
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with a tripled amount of threats against Arabs and Muslims. [2]
DHeyward, and then MONGO repeatedly removed the above text. How is this not relevant, when the organisation has received a tripled amount of reports of threats against Muslims? This seems extremely significant. David A ( talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It is appropriate to at the very least report this statement in passing since it has been covered in numerous reliable sources:
WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to project their viewpoint about ADC to suggest that the viewpoint is not prevalent, by their own analysis. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
HELL YEAH 332 MILLION AS OF TODAY PASSING IT BY WEEKEND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Currently an IP is repeatedly adding a claim to the lead that American Sniper "is set to overtake The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 as the highest grossing film of 2014". First of all, Mockingjay has earned over $700 million and American Sniper is unlikely to gross that amount; it may overtake it in the domestic market but that is not clear from what is written. Secondly, the claim violates WP:CRYSTAL: we do not predict what will happen—even if it can be sourced—but rather record something wehn it does happen i.e. the IP is jumping the gun and that is against Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
yes 700 international as its states it is currently 3rd topgrosser domestic im making it clear that im talking domestic,mockingjay is now at 336 million by next weekend American sniper would be grossing 340 million so im not getting the resistance to this plane fact but hell this will be moot and academic by next week so im wondering whats the fuzz is all about by putting that it will be passing mockingjay in the domestic boxoffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
doesnt matter it will be fact next week and dont worry it is not passing it in the international boxoffice
just restore the part of it passing mockingjay but added domestic to make it clear in which market it will outgross it by next weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
as to the claim that im jumping the gun,i think it too close to happening to deny the fact that it is poise to overtake mockingjay domestically just mere days to the inevitable event and nothing will stop it from becoming a sheer fact unlees theres a nuclear war or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 17:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
this is really weird but i feel that some editors has some itch about mockingjay being overtaken by American sniper MONGO has deleted the section =(making it the the second-highest-grossing film of 2014 in the U.S [1].)for no apparent reason unless they want to cover up the fact that American Sniper will take the domestic boxoffice crown it really beginning to stink of bias in favor of mockingjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 06:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
haha your talking in riddles or your just finding excuses to cover up the fact that domestically American sniper will pass your precious mockinjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
i see your only a kid i hate arguing with a child but i hate it more if the wrong fact is stated as correct, no bias and the true facts should prevail even if it stings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 07:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
hey MONGO i dont really care you can do what you want im just feeling fulfilled right now just got the news of Saturday update for American sniper it will be at 337 million officially passing mockingjay no sense in arguing with you [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 ( talk) 07:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this, it is unnecessary to put this passage at the very front of the "Critical response" section. It can come later if needed, but its placement at the beginning comes off as a problematic implication. In addition, WP:BRD should be recognized to have a discussion if content is reverted. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" rating of 73%, based on 217 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 6.9/10. This makes itBy that measure, it is "the worst-reviewed" of the 2014 Oscar contenders. The site's consensus states, ....
Thanks, --
Rich Janis (
talk) 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) --
Rich Janis (
talk) 10:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
By that measure, it is the worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar.
I would then simply
cite RT as the source. Thank you both for your opinions, --
Rich Janis (
talk) 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)As I said (and it goes for all sources): What source is stating that the RT number is relevant to the Oscars? It's not Rotten Tomatoes. They never say "worst reviewed" either. If you are going to SYNTH and OR a statement about the Oscars, why not use Box Office receipts? Or profit? Or number of opening theater screens? - all are equally valid statements that lack appropriate secondary sources. The RT source can't be used to make a "worst reviewed" claim as they never make the claim nor tie it as relevant to the Oscars (the highest rated film, "Boyhood," didn't win either so who is making the claim that Rotten Tomato ratings are significant to Oscar nominations and wins? You didn't provide that source which is why it's OR and SYNTH). Revenue, profit, screens, etc are also just as SYNTH and OR which is why we also don't say "the film was denied a Best-picture Oscar despite outperforming all the other nominees combined." I already explained how to incorporate your first source. RT is more of a primary source which is much more difficult to use as a source and really needs a secondary to explain the rating numbers and what they mean. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
~ ~ ~
References
Hey! Re: Edit summaries, I'm going to agree that critical response is way too big, so I've cut down on a lot of the quotes. Let me know what you think. Mostly I've tried to remove statements such as "By film director Clint Eastwood" and other factoids as the article already presents this to the viewer. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The LA Weekly is a longstanding reliable source, and no good cause has been stated for the removal of its film critic's judgment of the film. Please discuss the proposed removal here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, what exactly are the complaints about the source?-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Given lack of arguments against its inclusion in this section, I've undone a reversion of an accurate summary of this review. Do let me know if there are reasons we can't cite LA Weekly in the article- movies are not my field of expertise. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.110 ( talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Add New line or two new paragraph[h after 5th par by Clint Eastwood:
The result of the move request was: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [4] [5] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.
Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.
The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase ( talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Except for extremely long ones, it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle.That means that even with the book as the primary topic as it is currently, the subtitled version should still redirect there.
The result of the move request was: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [6] [7] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.
Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.
The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase ( talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Except for extremely long ones, it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle.That means that even with the book as the primary topic as it is currently, the subtitled version should still redirect there.
Pinging Jenks24 - This was inactive after it was closed so long I had to rescue it from being archived. Apparently no one knows how to act on your last post incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. What is the issue that normal redirects won't handle, and what has to be done in advance of the move? - Gothicfilm ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed some material from the historical accuracy section. First, the source used (a blog by an intern) is not a reliable source. Second, the way material is presented in the article was misleading in at least two ways. First, it purported that these were "facts" reported by Slate, rather than a blogger's post; second, it misrepresented the material itself, saying that certain events did or did not happen, when even the blogger does not make that claim - the blogger is stating that the events weren't written in the memoir, not that they didn't take place. As such, they would not belong in a historical accuracy section, but rather in a section about how the film differed from the book. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There are guidelines about reporting a film's historical accuracy at WP:FILMHIST. Erik II ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)