Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Movie articles routinely include commentary about the reception itself.

MOS guidelines explicitly allow for flexibility and it's common for articles here to cover noteworthy commentary about the topics covered by the films or the reception itself. I'll highlight five prominent examples to avoid TLDR.

The Hunger Games - Includes commentary from multiple pundits on the racial and body image oriented aspects of the reception.

Michael Moore's Sicko - Critical comments in the Response section are often followed by counterpoints dealing with the topics themselves rather than the movie, and there's extensive back and forth commentary about aspects of the reception itself.

Natural Born Killers - Oliver Stone is described as saying that those criticizing the movie for its violence are missing the point.

The Passion of the Christ - The article details point/counterpoint commentary regarding claims about alleged anti-Semitism, violence, and historical accuracy.

Basic Instinct - Article features commentary from people like Verhoeven and Roger Ebert addressing charges from gay activist groups protesting the film that the movie negatively depicts lesbians.

It has always been common practice on Wikipedia to cover noteworthy aspects of a film's impact and significant views on the reception itself. The Ben Shapiro quote pertinent here is even more relevant since America actually critiques the liberal media (which includes film reviewers), making said media a party in the dispute rather than a detached, supposedly objective observer. The primary initial objection to the quote was that it didn't represent professional film critic opinion on the movie, but since then a new section titled "Other responses" has been added that's entirely made up of non pro film critic quotes. The view that most film critics are left wing and that this colors their reaction to explicitly conservative documentaries is undeniably widely held and deserves representation in our coverage. It's not even clear that film critics themselves would disagree with that, given the overtly political nature of their negative reviews. For those reasons, and since at least one editor (InedibleHulk) who had previously objected has already indicated he'd support including such commentary in the new section, I intend to add the Shapiro quote to it soon unless there's a compelling, rational objection posted here. VictorD7 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained to you how Shapiro's quote is violation of multiple aspects of WP:Weight. So let's evaluate other reasons why his quote doesn't belong. Ben Shapiro is not a notable person or expert connected to the topics covered by the film, especially for the content you've quoted. Shapiro is not an expert or notable person in cinema or in media research, so his criticism about "liberal media" is not supported by the MoS guidelines. Including this quote is also a violation of WP:QS, WP:newsblog, and WP:newsorg because Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for commentary on others. Directly from WP:QS "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Here, you're trying to include a quote from a news blog and questionable source to state an opinion about critics and the media which is a direct violation of WP:verifiability. Shapiro is not an expert on media research and his blog on Breitbart.com is not a reliable source for commentary on others. So, not only is this still a violation of WP:Weight and doesn't meet the requirements of MoS guidelines, but it's also a violation of WP:verifiability as per WP:QS and other segments.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What Scooby said. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just saw your last posts on the NPOVN board and replied. All your claims are false. Ben Shapiro is notable, by definition WP:N, as he merits his own Wikipedia article. By contrast, none of the negative reviewers currently quoted in the article are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. So your assertion is not only wrong, but the opposite of the truth. Your "weight" argument is demolished above and in my reply to you on the NPOVN board. It would only hold if we were limiting our consideration to pro film critics' views, but since the NPOVN discussion previously petered out an entirely new section has been created for the purpose of including non film critics' comments, so clearly film critics views don't determine weight here. Seeming to implicitly concede that, you actually claimed on the other page that Shapiro's views don't represent a significant portion of the "political spectrum", when in reality Gallup polling shows that conservatives outnumber liberals two to one (which is why Democrats run rhetorically more away from their base in general elections than Republicans, and often echo, sincerely or not, the same patriotic themes espoused by D'Souza and Shapiro). Shapiro's views are far closer to the American mainstream than the extreme leftism of film critics. Regardless, declaring half the political spectrum unfit for Wikipedia mention is insane and unacceptable POV. Such sentiment violates core WP:NPOV policy, and if systematically entrenched, would marginalize and possibly kill Wikipedia.

Ben Shapiro entered UCLA at age 16, graduated summa cum laude, and then graduated from Harvard cum laude. He's [http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Shapiro/e/B001JPCHPQ written several published books] on politics and is a NY Times bestselling author. He writes a nationally syndicated political column, has frequently appeared on various national tv media venues to offer his commentary, is a professional media consultant, and is Senior Editor At Large for Breitbart.com, one of the internet's most trafficked news sites, with Alexa rankings that crush the various outlets the cited negative reviewers write for. He also sometimes reviews films (e.g. [1]). Your assertion that he's "not a notable person" is so blatantly false, and so contrary to Wikipedia policy, that simply ignoring it and moving on isn't acceptable. For continued AGF to remain feasible, you must retract that assertion.

Your dismissal of Breitbart is also without basis in policy. Simply throwing out random terms without evidence isn't arguing, it's asserting. Breitbart is a news/opinion site with editorial oversight roughly equivalent to the Huffington Post, but even if we did just call it a "blog" for the sake of argument, all we're using it for here is to source his quote, which policy assumes the source is good for, and we're only quoting his opinion, not facts about others presented in Wikipedia's voice. It's the opinion of a very high profile, multiple NY Times best selling author commenting on the topic he usually comments on: politics. That SPECIFICO was so quick to give rubber stamp approval to your post, despite its glaring inaccuracies, is disappointing, and doesn't bode well for there being hope for this article becoming anything approaching NPOV any time soon. VictorD7 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Being an author and a media consultant does not make him a notable person or expert connected to political science or media research and therefore his criticisms on such are irrelevant. I also already explained that WP:N only pertains to the notability of ARTICLES, it doesn't make the person him/herself a notable person. Just because Donald Trump might have a WP article about him doesn't qualify editors to use his quotes in fields of Science, Math, or History because he's not a notable person in those respective fields. I don't understand why you're having such difficulty understanding this relatively simple concept. Simply giving a biography of Shapiro, doesn't suddenly make him notable or an expert in the field pertaining to the quote you wish to include. Furthermore, you keep ignoring WP:QS which specifically says you can't use material from a questionable source to make claims about others. It especially mentions opinion pieces which is EXACTLY what that article is. This is blatantly and plainly explained and I've quoted it for you multiple times and explained EXACTLY where such an article could be used. Again, for example, if on the Shapiro article page you wanted to mention that Shapiro on his Breitbart.com blog said "liberal movie critics suck" then you're allowed to do that and the Breitbart.com article becomes a primary source and the quote is about the author it's attributed to. However, you can't use that quote on another article to make a criticism about others, which is precisely explained in WP:QS. You wanted a specific policy that disallows you to use the Shapiro quote and I've given you MANY. It's time to stop this charade. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You persist in making false statements and apparently don't grasp notability WP:N policy (or the others you keep tossing around). I'm the one who's been explaining that notability applies to article topics (including persons), not content, so we shouldn't even be discussing notability (yet you raised it, falsely claiming Ben Shapiro isn't notable in the process; I just refuted your assertion). Nowhere in any policy I've seen does it even hint that opinion commentary on politics is restricted to those "connected to political science or media research", and your earlier false claim was that he didn't represent a significant portion of the "political spectrum", so you're squirming around, grasping at straws. Regardless, Shapiro graduated summa cum laude from UCLA with a degree in political science, and works professionally as a legal media consultant (which involves a great deal of research), so you're even wrong on your own ridiculous terms. Even if he wasn't a political scientist by education, the fact that he's written and had published several NY Times Best selling books on political/media topics, and is a nationally famous professional commentator on such matters, would more than connect him to the topics. He's as connected as one can get. Furthermore, there's nothing "questionable" about his article. WP:QS refers to drawing facts from opinion pieces (even that's allowed in certain circumstances), while here we're just directly quoting opinions. The irrationality of your argument is underscored by the fact that applying your logic would necessitate deleting all the countless pundit commentary that litters articles, from Michael Moore's Sicko to the George W. Bush page, not to mention the Jim Gaines quote in this article. In certain places opinion inclusion is warranted, and the section in question is explicitly dedicated to it. It's time to end the charade indeed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You persist in ignoring multiple aspects of WP policy to try an insert your blatant POV into articles. Furthermore, I'm explaining to you that WP:N doesn't refer to the notability of an individual, only to the notability of a topic. You just admitted that you're trying to claim that if a topic meets WP:N's requirements that it necessarily means that the person that the topic is about is notable and that is not supported in any way, shape or form. Also, your attempt to accuse me of raising the topic of notability is laughable. You're the one who attempted to quote MoS guidelines and claim that Shapiro is a notable person and therefore warrants inclusion. You raised this aspect, not me and I'm saying you have not proven that he is a notable person or expert connected to the topics in the film, particularly the topic referenced in your quote about liberal bias in media. My argument has never been strictly tied to whether he was notable or not, it has always been qualified with the "connected to the topics covered". To include his criticism about liberal media bias based on MoS guideline, you'd have to prove he's notable WITH CONNECTION TO THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC. Hence why I gave examples of what would make a person a notable expert on that criticism, like having scholarly articles published about that or something equivalent. As many others have told you and as common sense indicates, being notable regarding one thing, doesn't make you notable about everything.

On top of this, regardless of whether or not he's a notable person, his article from Breitbart.com is an opinion piece and WP:Verifiablity specifically says that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for commentary on others. They can only be used as a source for a topic about the person themselves. You're intentionally misrepresenting WP:QS when you pretend it's about WP voice or drawing facts from opinion pieces. It's about opinion pieces themselves and explains when they can and CAN NOT be used as a reliable source. In this circumstance, it can NOT be used as a reliable source and that is clearly explained by WP:QS. Breitbart.com is a questionable source as it doesn't have a reputation for fact checking, is often times regarding as an extremist viewpoint, but more importantly is comprised of personal opinion. All of these aspects make it a questionable source, but even if you disagree with the fact checking aspect, it's still majorly comprised of personal opinion, which is the case of the article you're attempting to quote from. Furthermore, WP:aboutself specifically says you can only use such sources if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and this quote from Shapiro INVOLVES A CLAIM ABOUT A THIRD PARTY. You're blatantly ignoring WP policy.

Regarding your digression to a previous argument, that statement about Shapiro not being representative of the majority view pertains to undue weight. Critics are generally regarded as experts worth referencing and having merit and this is why MoS guidelines specifically allow for the inclusion of critic's perceptions on movies and other materials. That is the majority viewpoint regarding critics and their relevance/value in society and WP articles. You using a quote from Shapiro to criticize and undermine critics' reliability and portray them as "liberal" is a minority viewpoint and such a viewpoint is not only irrelevant to this article because it addresses critics and not the movie itself, but is also giving undue weight to a minority view. That was a completely different aspect as to why this quote from Shapiro shouldn't be used, because it violates WP policy regarding NPOV as per WP:Weight. This is not me grasping as straws, it me explaining to you how the inclusion of Shapiro is a violation of multiple WP policies in this context. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You're persisting in falsehoods across the board. Breitbart isn't a "questionable source" for Shapiro's quote, and Shapiro himself doesn't fall under the "questionable source" category any more than the other countless quoted pundits commenting contentiously about others across Wikipedia do (including Jim Gaines in the same section). I pointed this out to illustrate how fringe your interpretation of policy is. He's a person being quoted for his own opinion, not a source. The WP:QS section doesn't mention the word "quotes" in any variation so there's absolutely no textual or empirical evidence to support your claim. Meanwhile there are numerous examples in policy that explicitly allow for opinionated comments, especially if attributed. e.g. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. "Verifiable" obviously doesn't mean that the opinion is correct, only that the person it's attributed to verifiably said it. "Cited" refers to properly documenting the source. With such opinions "a reputation for fact checking" by the opiner himself is irrelevant, as long as he and his commentary are noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. If the US President weighs in on a political topic his opinion may be noteworthy in a section explicitly dedicated to various opinions even if he's a notorious serial liar. That your application of this flawed interpretation is so selective (where's your argument against Gaines, or the countless other pundits quoted across Wikipedia?) shows you're intentionally misrepresenting policy to impose a laughably one sided political POV on this article.

By "raising the issue" I mean you started the debate over whether Shapiro is notable. I had previously mentioned it in accordance with the MOS quote... "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited", and I took his notability in that sense as a given since possessing his own article means he's notable by definition. I never claimed that notability alone is sufficient to quote someone in an article, but cited it to underscore his case. If you're only attacking his "connection" to the topics then it's unclear why you keep saying he's not a notable person, and that WP:N doesn't even apply to people. The page explicitly refers to "notable items or people": "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Clearly "notable" is being used there to refer to people who meet WP:N requirements, and thus have their own articles.

Your incorrect usage aside, you've presented nothing in policy or guidelines that restricts opinionated quotes to academics who have published in peer review journals, or explained what relevance that would even have to sections covering subjective opinions. The vast majority of pundits quoted here obviously haven't, much less on the topics they're commenting on. Not only is that an overly narrow definition of "expert", but the MOS guidelines don't even require that one be an "expert". It says "notable persons or experts". Shapiro is undeniably a notable person, so the question is his connection to the topics at hand. I'm glad you concede that those topics include politics and the media (in relation to this film), and not just film per se (though he's a published film reviewer too), but it's incredible that you deny his connection to those topics, considering the education I've given you on him being a nationally sought after professional political/media commentator in tv, print, radio, and best selling books. He operates in the heart of political/media discourse. He's certainly connected, and he'd be by far the most knowledgeable and expert person quoted on the page. Your continued entrenchment on this score only makes your hypocrisy in not seeking to exclude Gaines and other pundits more glaring, a clear violation of WP:NPOV and other essential policies.

Your fall back to the notion that we're supposed to determine weight by critics alone ignores the fact that this section was explicitly created for non critics; that's why it's called "Audience and other responses". You're wrong. Period. In fact those responses have been overwhelmingly positive, and pro film comments are currently sorely underrepresented per weight. You also ignore your earlier claim that "Shapiro's opinion is not representative of the political spectrum". It's unclear precisely what that even means, but presumably you were insisting that his political views aren't significantly held, which, since he's a mainstream conservative, is easily refuted by pointing to his large numbers of fans, the aforementioned Gallup polling, or virtually any published material covering politics at all. Same with your "extremist" comment about Breitbart. Frankly your claim reveals a shocking ignorance, and you've provided absolutely no evidence to support any of these characterizations. VictorD7 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is a questionable source as defined by WP:QS and the Shapiro quote is a direct violation of WP:RS. It says it right in the policy and all of your complaining is not going to change that. Scoobydunk (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally false, for reasons laid out above, and you never did provide a shred of evidence for your characterizations. Selectively censoring out coverage of the obvious political dynamic at play here is a blatant WP:NPOV violation. It will be interesting to watch how (in)consistent you are in opposing other pundit commentary though. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally correct and your "reasons" don't override WP policy. Just because WP says it's okay that reliable sources are biased, doesn't mean you get to include bias from questionable sources which are NOT reliable. Also, I have provided evidence for my characterizations in the form of citing and quoting WP policy that directly proves my characterization of Shapiro's comment not being suitable for inclusion. Also, not allowing content because it's in violation of WP policy is not an example of NPOV. Submit some political commentary from reliable sources and find out.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. You've provided no evidence for your characterizations of Shapiro or Breitbart. You've demonstrably misinterpreted QS. It's unclear how you feel "RS" even applies when we're discussing explicitly identified subjective opinions; reliability means a source is reliable for verifying that the opinion came from the person it's attributed to. You demonstrably incorrectly used the term "notability" for several posts, making statements I refuted with quotes from the guideline page. Excluding a significant viewpoint is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. You refuse to comment on other examples, like the Jim Gaines quote in the same section. VictorD7 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't misinterpreted WP:QS because I quoted it directly. There was no interpretation there. It explicitly says you can not use a questionable source when it criticizes other people. I provided another policy quote from WP:ABOUTSELF that says the same thing, "it does not involve claims about third parties". Shapiro is commenting on third parties, it's it can not be used because it violates WP policy. There is no interpretation there, it's explicit. It's clear you have difficulty understand what words mean. WP policy does not allow you to litter article pages with biased opinions, even if they are properly attributed and WP:QS is an example of one of those policies. Even another editor gave the example of how the Barrack Obama page isn't entirely comprised of quotes from Rush Limbaugh. This is basic level understanding of WP policy and you're the only one here who doesn't get it. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply here because it deals with self-published sources. We do not have this case here. Citations to policy and guidelines should be on-point. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF applies to "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". The section then goes on to explain exactly how self published sources AND questionable sources can and can not be used. Not only that, WP:QS directly links to WP:ABOUTSELF for people to see further details on when to use questionable sources. You can't really get any more on point than that. Scoobydunk (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My thinking was you were drawing an improper analogy between SPS blogs and QS. (The WP:Wall of text is daunting.) The debate then is whether breitbart & Shapiro is QS. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been reducing the length of my responses to avoid making walls of text, but, "Yes", this aspect of my objection is about breitbart.com being a questionable source. WP:QS clearly defines questionable sources as having a poor record of fact checking, are perceived as extremist by other major publications, have an apparent conflict of interest, and are largely comprised of personal opinion, among other things. Breitbart.com meets all of these descriptions but even if one disagrees with "fact checking" or "extremist", it's really not a matter of debate that it consists largely of opinion pieces. Even the WP article for Breaitbart.com explains that it's an opinion website. This has been a key part of the discussion regarding the inclusion of Shapiro and I don't know why the subject on the RS noticeboard was shutdown. Yes, this conversation has taken many faces from NPOV to OR and RS, but all of them merit separate and distinct consideration. Just because the inclusion of the Shapiro quote gets ruled as not being a violation of NPOV, doesn't mean it meets standards of WP:reliable, and vice versa.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The interpretation is all the other stuff you added in your words (including your false "quote" claim I caught you trying to make on the other page, when you pretended the QS section explicitly dealt with quotes; it doesn't even mention the word "quote"), along with your purpose for citing the quote. You're not showing the ability comprehend posts in this discussion, much less WP policy. Your classification of Breitbart.com as "questionable" at all, but especially when it's merely being used to source an opinion from its own editor, is what's being challenged, and what you've utterly failed to support. A source can be used to reference quotes from anyone, including people it disagrees with, as long it's deemed reliable for doing so in that particular context. Most sources are used to support facts or expert opinion in Wikipedia's voice, not quotes. That's why things like "a reputation for fact checking" are relevant to source evaluation. By contrast even serial liars' quoted opinions can be noteworthy, especially in a section explicitly created to contain subjective opinions (about "others" in this case, btw, which is usually the case; and QS does say "others", not "third parties"). There are plenty of other policies and mechanisms in place that have nothing to do with QS to keep articles from being indiscriminately littered with "biased opinions", including NPOV and basic scope/layout concerns. But there undeniably are places where quoted POV about "others" is appropriate, as I proved with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV quote, and I'm hardly the only one here who disagrees with you. VictorD7 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not an interpretation, that's a matter of understanding that a "quote" clearly comes from a "source" and WP:QS explains where questionable sources can and can not be used. Therefore, it pertains to "quotes" from questionable sources as well. This is a red herring arguments you're trying to make, so both are inherently covered by WP:QS. It has nothing to do with when to use questionable sources in WP voice and specifically explains where questionable sources can be used if at all. A questionable source or quote from a questionable source can not be used when it makes contentious claims about a third party...PERIOD. The source can only be used in a topic about the source/author of the source themselves and as I explained before, this would make it a primary source WHICH IS WHY IT CAN BE USED IN SUCH PLACES. This is consistent with WP policy. I also find it funny how you claim I don't understand WP policy, yet I just corrected an administrator, at least I think S.Rich is an admin, about WP policy and he agreed and retracted his earlier statement. Clearly i do have a grasp of WP policy and S.Rich even admitted that this comes down to whether Breitbart/Shapiro is a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So we'll add "interpretation" to the list of words you don't understand. What if Shapiro's quote had been referenced by the NY Times (I'm sure they've quoted him before), or some other source you presumably hold in high regard? Would his quote still be the "source"? Again, you keep saying "third party" but that's not what QS says. I don't believe Srich is an administrator and his retraction was about a tangential issue I haven't even commented on. He didn't say either Breitbart or Shapiro is a "QS". More pertinent are all the times I've corrected you, including your continued insistence on the other page that "notable" has some meaning in WP parlance other than saying that someone merits their own article. Why don't you ask Srich about that? As for the rest, you keep asserting things that aren't in the text and that there's enormous reason to dispute, so we may just have to agree to disagree on the point. VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You,again, with your semantics. WP:QS specifically says "others" and "others" by definition is/are "third party/parties". So to argue against this point and pretend I don't understand policy only shows how trivial and tendentious you're being. Furthermore, I already quoted from WP:aboutself where is does specifically say "third party". Again, you demonstrate your inability to understand WP policy with this criticism.

If Shapiro was quoted in the NT Times or another reliable source, it doesn't change the fact that the quote originated from a questionable source. Trying to use a reliable source's quote of a questionable source to include material originating from a questionable source in an article it doesn't belong would be an example of WP:Gaming. In other words, usage of the NY Times as a source needs to represent what the NY Times has to say about the given topic, since it's the reliable source, and shouldn't portray or misconstrue what the NY Times said to represent what Shapiro or any questionable source actually said. It's wordy and confusing, but that's what happens when you try to use quotes of quotes. Such an article from the NY Times would likely be about Shapiro or something similar, and not about "liberal movie critics" and any quote from that article should represent that. If the NY Times article IS about "liberal movie critics" and was referencing Shapiro because of that, then just quoting NY Times would suffice since its the reliable source. For example, "In an article about movie critics the NY Times shared an opinion with Breitbart.com editor, Shapiro, that movie critics are liberal that was their reason for panning the movie". <--This is an example of how such a situation could be reliable approached on WP.

Lastly, my mentioning of S.Rich was directly to combat your claim that I misunderstood WP policy. Doesn't matter what S.Rich and I differed about, so long as it was relevant to WP policy. So my example clearly demonstrates that you assertion is incorrect. I do understand WP policy and I even understand it to the point what I can correct other peoples' misinterpretations. I can specifically identify and explain where their misunderstanding was and why it was erroneous. My reference of S.Rich was only to show how laughable your assertion is that I don't understand WP policy. Regarding is status on WP, I though S.Rich closed the discussion on the RS noticeboard and I also thought I remembered S.Rich saying that he would have closed down one of the comment threads if he wasn't already involved, which implies that he's an admin. I could be mistaken though and I readily admit that.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Others" doesn't necessarily mean "third parties", but could refer to people the source is directly involved with. I only added that correction as a brief aside that's not enormously pertinent here, but your false statement underscores your inability to comprehend basic English. Likewise, WP:GAMING refers to editor conduct, not content or sourcing policy, which may be why you failed to quote anything from the page to support your claim. There's nothing wrong with using the NY Times as a source for a Shapiro quote regardless of what "the NY Times has to say about the given topic", particularly if it's just a hard news article covering some opinions. The issue is whether the quote itself (the content) is appropriate for the section.

I never said you misunderstood every WP policy (that would be difficult to accomplish!), and I hadn't commented on that topic you two discussed, so your example demonstrated nothing about my claim. But that you believe it does demonstrates faulty reasoning. For the record, I've corrected countless people on WP policy. VictorD7 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Others" does mean "third parties" and WP:Aboutself clarifies this. I've made no false statement regarding this, it's clear your incapable of understanding basic concepts regarding english, let alone WP policy. Yes, WP:Gaming does refer to editor conduct and when an editor tries to search for a reliable source that quotes a questionable source in an attempt to misrepresent the quoted material from the questionable as being from a reliable source, that is an example of WP:Gaming. That's exactly what I was referring to and that's entirely about editor misconduct. This is another example of your ability to comprehend. Also, WP:Gaming explains exactly why such conduct is wrong because you're trying to bypass WP policy forbidding inclusion from questionable sources, to indirectly include questionable source material through the use of reliable sources. Lastly, you made a general claim about my inability to understand WP policy and I've demonstrated that I don't have difficulty understanding it. You're the one who suffers from that...and projection.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You: "it's clear your incapable of understanding basic concepts regarding english". I'm no typo hound, as everyone makes little mistakes, but this is an especially unfortunate error by you, given the context of your sentence's (false) claim. According to this essay (linked to on the WP:RS page), a third party source involves not being "affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." Presumably "third party" has a similar meaning, and is therefore a subset of "others", but, like I said, it's not a big deal.

Where does WP:GAMING say anything about sourcing policy, much less anything remotely supporting your contention about my NY Times scenario? Still no evidence from you. The comprehension failures, logic deficit, and projection are yours. VictorD7 (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That typo is not unfortunate at all because grammar/typos has/have no bearing on the comprehension of english. Also, that essay talks about third party sources which you're erroneously conflating with the general use of "third parties". Also, you must be joking about WP:Gaming. The first line says "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." Hence, when you try to include a quote from a questionable source by searching for a reliable source that contains that particular quote and then paste it to a wikipedia pretending that its no longer bound by WP:QS is an attempt to deliberately abuse WP policy to thwart the aims of WP. This is further discussed in detail in the Gaming the Use of Policies and Guidelines section. It's addressed loosely in multiple aspects but specifically by the fourth listed item which gives the example "Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." In the NY times case, if you simply just used the quote from Shapiro it would not be representative of what the NY times source actually said and would twist the meaning of the NY times source. The only exception would be if the NY times source that quoted Shapiro was actually about media bias and shared similar opinions to Shapiro, but then that NY times article and its content can just be used as the reliable source and there would still be no reason to present content from a questionable source as if its reliable. Scoobydunk (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I know it was about third party sources, which is why I said "third party" presumably has a similar meaning. In general English "third party" typically excludes the first two parties who are dealing directly with each other. Earlier I was asking for support for your claim about policy, so pointing to a vague line on the WP:GAMING page that just warns users not to violate policy is a circular argument. The problem is that we disagree on what policy is. Your new quote does address sourcing, but we don't typically use hard news stories for their subjective POV; ideally they aren't even supposed to have one. I think misrepresenting a source's view would be including material that makes a point contrary to what the source said. For example, a news article contains a paragraph about a tornado hitting a school and totally devastating it, but closes with a line saying officials had evacuated every living soul to a nearby bomb shelter before it hit. Paraphrasing it on Wikipedia to echo most of the paragraph but omit the evacuation part, and closing with a line saying the ruins contained no living people would warp the meaning by implying everyone had died. The same holds true on more opinionated fronts, like if we're using an historian's book as a source and misrepresent what he says on a particular topic. I don't think that using a news article to source a POV quote from a pundit it covers is altering the "view" of the article.

For example, the Basic Instinct page quotes director Paul Verhoeven addressing upset gay protesters by saying, "Fascism is not in raising your voice; the fascism is in not accepting the no." The quote is sourced to a book about Verhoeven written by Douglas Keesey. I have no idea whether or not Keesey agreed with Verhoeven, but it doesn't matter. He's cited because he covered Verhoeven's opinion, and the latter was deemed noteworthy to the article. The specific source is only relevant to Wikipedia for verifying what Verhoeven said. Same with the book used to source the preceding segment quoting the gay protesters. In the hypothetical scenario above, the NY Times article would simply be reporting what Shapiro said. I'll also add as a side note that policy makes it clear that people are considered to be reliable sources for their own views. The Basic Instinct article also includes a quote from Camille Paglia blasting the protesters that's sourced to her own book.

Your objection to the Shapiro quote on QS grounds is noted, but, since you actually agree with my central point in this section op about article relevance, I'll ask you to consider continuing any further discussion on the sourcing issue in your "Gaines" section dedicated to it lower on the page. It's up to you, but it would help keep things organized and reduce wasteful repetition. Feel free to quote, reply to, or disagree with anything I said above down there. VictorD7 (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of what I wrote in the Gaines section addresses this comment. The difference between the hypothetical of Shapiro/NY Times and your reference to Basic Instinct/Paul Verhoeven is that Basic Instinct is a movie directed by Paul Verhoeven. Therefore, the quote from Paul Verhoeven is being correctly used on an article where him and his opinion are part of the topic. As WP:Aboutself says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field." Even if his quote is published by an expert in the field, it is still being properly used. However, this doesn't mean that editors can include Paul Verhoeven's quote on an article about "fascism". Even though Paul was quoted in a reliable source, that doesn't mean the source of that quote is a reliable source. It's still a self published source or if it was an interview, it would be a primary source and can only be used in articles where the subject matter is about the author or his/her activities. This article has nothing to do with Shapiro so it's not a similar comparison and since Shapiro's opinion originates from a questionable source, it still has to meet those guidelines even if he's been quoted in a reliable source. The author of the reliable source is the one's whose opinion gets the beneficial treatment of WP polcies regarding reliable sources, not Shapiro. Shapiro's opinions can only get that same consideration if he writes his article that does get published in a reliable source with him being the author.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that the section is about pundit reaction, and therefore about opinions like Shapiro's, but since you're still talking about sourcing, I'll reply to your comments more fully in the Gaines section. VictorD7 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The topic isn't about Shapiro, which is what would be necessary to include his opinion from questionable sources. Just because an article is about a group of people, doesn't mean that every person who self identifies with that group suddenly gets to bypass WP policy and include their own opinions on the article. Shapiro also belongs to the species of homo sapiens, that doesn't mean his opinions merit inclusion on articles about homo sapiens, especially when they don't originate from a reliable source. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Shapiro's opinions likely wouldn't be noteworthy to such a topic (neither would Gaines'), but they are noteworthy to a section about the audience/media/political reaction to a political film. Of course I still dispute the "QS" claim, but more on that below. VictorD7 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Avi Offer

I don't oppose including a positive review from a movie reviewer, but it should be an established one. Is Avi Offer an established critic? His website, "NYC Movie Guru", appears to be very amateurish. In the article, he's identified as "A reviewer at New York Film Critics Online", but New York Film Critics Online appears to be a professional organization and not a review website, so this strikes me as identifying, say, a reporter as not being with the New York Times, but with the White House Correspondents' Association. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Offer is one of the critics listed in Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/avi-offer/ If he is to be excluded because of "non-notability" (which is not a valid criteria), then we are passing judgment on why Tomatoes includes him, verses the others. Moreover, the removal of Offer serves to unbalance the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Srich. Also, that inclusion was a compromise worked out between Srich and Casprings, and shouldn't be flippantly reverted. VictorD7 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see him there initially, but I checked again and there he is on page two. Thank you for pointing that out. So Offer meets Tomato criteria but I wonder if he meets Wikipedia's. I haven't been able to find anything out about this website or critic outside of RT or his own website. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Offer simply offers an opinion on the film, and is not used for verification. So I'm not sure what WP criteria you are referring to. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously he doesn't need to be a reliable source, since this is just an opinion we're talking about. But is an opinion from what appears to be a non-notable blogger really encyclopedic? It seems like we just need a positive quote an he's the best we can do, but we shouldn't elevate him in importance if he's totally irrelevant. Maybe he has a cult following I don't know about, after all Bleeding Cool used to look even worse than the NYC Movie Guru website but it is obviously hugely influential. I'm just saying that we should establish that he has an opinion worth documenting before we document it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the negative reviewers quoted are notable enough to have their own Wiki articles. David Ehrlich was recently fired from the closest thing to a noteworthy job he's had. Offers is noteworthy enough to be counted and quoted by Rotten Tomatoes. If you're attacking his noteworthiness then you should be seeking to have the entire RM segment removed. Including only negative quotes is a blatant violation of WP:Neutrality.VictorD7 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The publications featuring those negative quotes are all clearly noteworthy. Is the website NYC Movie Guru noteworthy? If anyone can substantiate that it is, then that will satisfy my concerns. If no noteworthy publications had positive reviews, then it would be a violation of Wikipedia policies for the article not to reflect that. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This review by Hickman is in the Tomatoes fresh category. (In fact, he provides a lot of factual information that can support the synopsis.) So here is a suggested segment for inclusion in the review section: "...'America' is a handsomely made picture that one-ups Michael Moore and his team while promoting a Right leaning view of history." – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what's the difference? Personal blogs are acceptable for personal opinions, and Offer's membership in a professional critics organization shows he's an established critic. VictorD7 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, we can cite personal blogs for personal opinions when appropriate, but I don't believe it is appropriate to cite a non-notable opinion. Rotten Tomatoes lists 25 different critics organizations that they draw from, and perhaps all of them, Offer included, are potentially notable under the right circumstances. But to single out the blog of one one obscure member of one of those 25 organizations is lowering the notability bar too much for me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You still didn't explain why you singled out one non-notable member for removal while leaving the other non-notable members' quotes in. Hopefully it had nothing to do with his review being the most positive. Surely that was purely a coincidence. I'd still like an explanation though. VictorD7 (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you struck the uncivil insinuation in your comment above. Otherwise I will disengage. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Without commenting on whether the text was inappropriate, I'll strike it out anyway. I'd still like an explanation, however, but more importantly I'd like you to reply to my section on the Shapiro quote and explain your revert, particularly given that the primary rationale for creating a different section in the first place was to accommodate such commentary. VictorD7 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Now Offer's professional membership does not necessarily confer significant notability on him, anymore than my membership in the American Library Association confers notability on me and makes my blog quotable in library articles here. I make no claims regarding the authors of the other reviews, but their publications, The AV Club, etc., are clearly notable for numerous reasons, including respectability, popularity, etc. How does Offer's blog "NYC Movie Guru" measure up in those respects? Does he have an audience of thousands, or just his mom? That's an entirely reasonable question to ask, I think, and I tried to find the answer to that and was unable to. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask those who wish to include Offer to attempt to address these issues as well. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Simply writing for a media outlet that's notable doesn't necessarily make the author notable (otherwise we'd have Wiki bio articles on every local newspaper reporter), especially if it's as small (barely notable) as "The AV Club" (which, like rogerebert.com, is essentially a blog). The only reason we find these guys noteworthy enough to quote here is because they're cited by Rotten Tomatoes. So is Offer. Even if one did deem a hierarchy of noteworthiness that ranked the others ahead of Offer, that doesn't necessarily mean that drawing the Mendoza line below them and above him would be wise, especially seeing as how including his positive commentary would add some much needed balance. Huge numbers of people (for a documentary) really liked this movie, and their views are currently being excluded from the article. The one "positive" quote recently added has been subsequently edited and warped to the point where it's more negative than positive, and the addition of several more negative quotes, originally only added as a compromise to get Offer's positive quote in, remain, leaving a preposterous skew. At this point wouldn't it behoove you and the other left leaning editors here to show some graciousness, allow other views to be covered (especially the Shapiro quote), and maybe get a bipartisan rapprochement going? VictorD7 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be really hung up on individual notability, but that's not the criteria here at all. The AV Club, for example, is a hugely popular publication covering pop culture and a movie review it publishes is significant regardless of whether it was written by Pauline Kael or some intern. Its reviews are regularly cited by other publications and review aggregators. It has an Alexa rank 3,222, indicating the huge amount of traffic it gets. Offer's blog has a low Alexa ranking of 2,193,691 and no one has produced any evidence of credentials or popularity or notability for Offer beyond his membership in a professional organization, one of dozens in that profession. If you are going to continue to advocate for the inclusion of this blog, then I think it's time for you to provide some evidence that this particularity blog should be included or else we should move on to more productive issues. If you think particular viewpoints are unrepresented, then the way to represent those views is to find some reliable secondary sources that document them instead of advocating for the inclusion of some movie review that maybe no one ever read. Gamaliel (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't raise the "notable" issue, you did. Notability refers to whether someone merits his own article. It does not apply to content within an article. Quoting directly from Notability guidelines WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Therefore your rationale for excluding Offer on "notability" grounds was invalid. Now whether he's noteworthy (different from "Notable" per guidelines) enough to merit inclusion in this context is a different matter, but since Rotten Tomatoes, the section's lead source here (and a secondary source for the reviews), places him on par with the others, counting his vote equal to theirs and giving a sample quote from him equal space, there's no legitimate reason for us to not do so. Otherwise we shouldn't be citing Rotten Tomatoes as the aggregate score would be dubious and unfit for inclusion. There's nothing in policy or guidelines suggesting that only critics who work for a certain type of publication can be quoted. That said, for the record, since you didn't address my Shapiro comments but did place importance on Alexa rankings, I'll point out that Breitbart crushes The AV Club, with a global ranking of 1,188, a US ranking of 247, and a 41st global news site ranking. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think both the positive and negative reviews should be up for review. We should have the most noteworthy reviews here. Moreover, the reader should get a feel of the overall negative critical response from reviewers. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the Reception section not being negative enough is a problem, lol. None of the quoted reviewers are noteworthy apart from Rotten Tomatoes deeming them so. VictorD7 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The Hollywood Reporter, the AV Club, and Roger Ebert.com are all clearly notable regardless of whether or not they are included in RT. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• You keep saying "notable" but it's unclear why. All those outfits are "notable" in that they have Wiki articles, as does the group Offer belongs to. Surely you wouldn't suggest that someone who works for a local paper is automatically more noteworthy than someone who runs his own site. VictorD7 (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So, per the talk page discussion here, we had agreement to put in a sentence I suggested from a different reviewer (Hickman). Without discussion, Specifico Boldly added another sentence which served to increase the negative content. I Reverted. And so Specifico re-reverts here, without discussion and says to use the talk page. Ummmph! What happened to the D in BRD? – S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Read my edit summary and please refrain from personal remarks on the article talk page. You're free to disagree with my edit summary, but grumpy grumbling and grousing doesn't help resolve this little matter. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You've both made excellent contributions to this article. Please let's not have any more incivility break out here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How big is the audience for this type of film?

With the A+ rating in CinemaScore noted regarding moviegoer reviews, how big is that audience? That is where tallying the box office results week after week comes in to find out how big the audience for that type of film is. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Besides, the opening figures give an idea of the audience size, so why the weekly updates? The CinemaScore grade covered the opening couple of days or so of wide release. If you're somehow trying to delegitimize the CinemaScore grade, I'll point out that the movie is the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time and has enjoyed an historically slow drop. But the "fantastic hold" quote and historical smallest drop ranking segment were deleted without explanation (well, a fraudulent explanation for the former and no explanation at all for removing the second), so there's really no point to the updates now. Would you support restoring those items, or at least the historical drop ranking sentence? If not, I see no reason not to delete the updates as frivolous. Can you find one example of a movie article containing such weekly updates? VictorD7 (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you heard of word of mouth? As for an example, there's the flop Michael Moore spoof An American Carol. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your only example is another conservative film article that you heavily edited? Do you have an example of a non conservative film, preferably one where you weren't the one doing the weekly updates? Every movie's screencount drops over time. What's notable about America is how slow the drop's been, but since those noteworthy facts have been deleted, the narrative of a continuous drop creates a misleading impression in readers' minds. You didn't answer my question: would you support restoring the aforementioned noteworthy material? If not, the pointless and potentially misleading updates should be deleted. VictorD7 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as the CinemaScore A+ rating is noted, we need to balance that with actual box office results over the course of a month. As the production cost was never given, we don't know much much the movie is really making to make it a hit or a flop. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this approach is merited. The cinemascore is simply an inclusion of factual evidence and doesn't have any sort of bias that needs to be "balanced". Including the receding box office totals does nothing to "balance" the cinemascore anyway. It's clear the cinemascore is based off of people who watched the film and the people predisposed to watch this type of movie are the people who know it reaffirms their own personal beliefs.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Steelbeard, you're assuming that the box office results somehow mitigate the CinemaScore grade. The fact that the drop has been historically slow reinforces the CinemaScore grade (positive word of mouth). Regardless of CinemaScore (which isn't mentioned in the section), the only legitimate reasons for including the weekly updates would be if the material was somehow unusual enough to be noteworthy (you haven't answered my question about whether you'd support the facts showing such noteworthiness) or was routinely included in articles (it's not; I guess you haven't found another real example). VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

CinemaScore IS mentioned in the following section. Also, explain why the film failed to make the Top 10 in the box office? Because we still do not know the film's production and promotion costs, we still do not know if the film is a hit or a flop. One other thing. The movie is no longer playing in my area. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Documentaries never do as well as regular movies, and it's been in wide release for several weeks. Check out how many big budget features that have also been out for several weeks America actually out-grossed this past weekend. I figure D'Souza probably more than made back the budget in the first weekend of wide release, and that it's a huge financial success. It is the 7th highest grossing political documentary of all time, and close to moving up. Regardless, seeking to "balance" the CinemaScore grade (which has been pushed much lower on the page) with weekly screen count drops is inappropriate. That such screen count drops always occur and America's "fantastic hold" actually reinforces the CinemaScore grade (if anything) makes it even worse, at least since those noteworthy facts have been deleted. Scoobydunk and I disagree with you on this, and Specifico thanked me for deleting the screen count drop segments, so, unless that was a mouse slip, at least three people have objections to what you're doing, and no one has expressed support. Given that, would you still oppose me removing the material? VictorD7 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the opposition, your lack of response, and the lack of any other support for the material, I'm going to go ahead and remove it, and I'll ask that you not edit war to keep it in. VictorD7 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Only if the CinemaScore material is removed will the box office updates be removed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Multiple editors oppose you on this, so the burden is on you to gain support for the material's inclusion before restoring it. CinemaScore results are explicitly endorsed by the MOS, while never ending weekly screen count updates aren't. Only such counts for the opening week are mentioned, along with later segments if something noteworthy happens (it gives the example of wide release in another country). Movie articles routinely include CinemaScore grades but you haven't provided any examples of them containing the never ending weekly screen count updates, except for the other conservative film you personally added them to. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So far three editors have weighed in on this. IMO the boxoffice data is noteworthy and I have restored it. Whether a documentary film gets as much gross as any other film is not a subject of debate, so I can't see why this is such a contentious issue. – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel it's "noteworthy"? Are you aware of the fact that all movies' screen counts drop over time? Isn't singling this movie out for such weekly coverage undue and POV? The only noteworthy components (all time drop ranking and "fantastic hold" quote were deleted, the former without explanation. Can you provide any examples of other movie articles getting this week to week treatment? Have you read the MOS I referenced that only mentions posting such details about "specific results of opening weekends, results from different English-speaking territories, the number of theaters the film was released into, and audience demographics. Coverage of a notable opening in a country not of the film's origin may be included (e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country)." ? Do you agree with Steelbeard's rationale, that it's important to "balance" the CinemaScore grade because he personally feels the screencount drops undermine them? Despite the fact that America's historically slow drop rate actually reinforces the CinemaScore grade, if anything, don't you think that the article's extensive focus on "drop(s)" successfully accomplishes Steelbeard's expressed objective in the minds of readers, especially since the aforementioned historical ranking has been deleted? VictorD7 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The MOS says "...this section may detail specific results of opening weekends ....[emphasis added]" There is no restriction on subsequent weekends. The particulars are entirely within the discretion of editors, who work towards consensus in these questions. – S. Rich (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no encyclopedic significance in week-by-week primary data on number of screens and revenues. If you have RS content on the film's reception or commentary on its financial success, that might be appropriate. As it is, after multiple re-insertions, this should stay out of the article unless consensus is reached on talk. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but there should be some legitimate reason for including it, apart from it not being automatically prohibited. As is, the material by itself isn't noteworthy, and is arguably harmful to article quality and neutrality for reasons explained. If we were to include it we'd need to explain why were doing so in the text. I quoted the MOS because Steelbeard was demanding the CinemaScore segment be deleted in exchange for deleting the weekly screen count. VictorD7 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The source itself would need to discuss what is significant and why. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I only meant we'd need to include whatever sourced fact/observation makes it notable in the text, as opposed to just tacking on a reference at the end that hypothetically does so for people who clicked on it. VictorD7 (talk)

Time to close this thread. I think we have consensus to keep the subsequent box office out. I will support the present text. – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Only the unexplained weekly screen count updates. Noteworthy material should still be added. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As a result, I removed the CinemaScore rating as that can be misleading without detailed box office results. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted, as there's absolutely no support or valid rationale for removing CinemaScore. VictorD7 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is valid rationale as CinemaScore does not indicate the size of the target audience. Besides, the film DID NOT make the Top 10 in the box office. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

CinemaScore inclusions just present the grade. They never indicate "the size of the target audience", nor are they required to. The "top 10" remark is a non sequitur. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'non sequitur'? It is a proven fact that the film peaked at #11 in the box office. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean it's irrelevant to the topic of including or deleting the CinemaScore grade. That said, documentaries don't gross as much as regular movies, and America is one of the highest grossing political documentaries of all time, which your own edits show you're perfectly aware of, so the high CinemaScore grade isn't surprising. VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

fantasy v docudrama v documentary film

Sources provided do not describe the film as a fantasy. Saying so is pure OR, and has overtones of POV. The sources use two distinct terms: docudrama and documentary. It is certainly possible for a film to fit into both descriptions. The film is also described as alternative history, which encompasses "fantasy". – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at the picture in the infobox. "IMAGINE..." WP policy does not call it OR to write ordinary English language description such as "fantasy" for "imagine". I find "fantasy", which is a recognized dramatic genre, to be more suitable than "imaginary docudrama" which is unclear and sounds a bit denigrating. Since we know it's not a documentary, I suggest you revert and try to consider a wording you think is an improvement. SPECIFICO talk 04:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The image (theatrical poster) and tagline in the infobox is your RS for describing the film as "fantasy"? Wow! Sorry, but you need published RS where someone says this film is a fantasy. This edit is even worse than the OR which described the film as polemical. The term documentary is used by the RS, including the New York Times. Another bit of RS, cited inline, used the term docudrama. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC) [Striking some of my more striking comments. 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)]

The title of the film is "America: Imagine a World Without Her" so your statement makes no sense. Docudrama is not a subset of documentary. Per the pyramid of discussion, denigrating an edit you don't like without addressing policy and content is fruitless. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe this film as a documentary, then that is what we should go with. The term documentary is probably inadequate or incorrectly applied to this film, but we're not here to correct the mistakes or shortcomings of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that "documentary" is used as a market category, but that it is nowhere intended to describe the content of the film. So for an encyclopedia article which is describing the film, I think it's misleading to use "documentary" without specifying the context or which of its meanings is being used. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A fair point, but I'm not sure how we can address this without making up our own categories. I'm inclined to just go with whatever third-party RSes call it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Imagine", it seems to me, is used rhetorically. A "what if" in order to allow for debate about the various topics. With this in mind, I've changed the synopsis to say "Counterfactual history". – S. Rich (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo classifies the film as a "documentary", as does every other source I've seen. In a responsible, neutrally minded editing environment that would be the end of the discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Producing a reliable source adds value to the discussion, thank you. However, comments containing what appear to be insinuations about the motives of other editors do not add value to the discussion. Instead it only encourages other editors to respond to such statements with insinuations about your motives, leading to a breakdown in collaborative editing. What should happen is this: someone raises an issue, someone else addresses it by responding with a reliable source. Leave everything else out of it. Otherwise it will just degenerate into partisan carping. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need to start off labeling it one way or the other? It's a film. Then we can describe the film, its approach, and the reception it's received. There are sources which use the word "documentary" -- most of them as a market category rather than a characterization of content -- but there are also RS which call the film other things, including those which say it's D'Souza's descent into crazen pandering, etc. and entirely without reality-based content. I don't see why we need to label it in an article which goes on to provide as much detail as is RS and encyclopedic. Does D'Souza himself call this a "documentary?" SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, Gamaliel, but this article's editing environment is so contentious, unhealthy, and blatantly POV gripped that it might be even less productive to ignore it. After all, Wiki policies like WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPOV, and guideliness against tendentious editing, exist so that we can raise them when appropriate. The difference between my comments and the hypothetical counter-accusations you raise is that I've backed mine up with loads of facts and evidence. The source I "produc(ed)" is the basic page link to the most frequently used source in this article all along. It's insane that we're even having to waste time arguing about such basic items, let alone the more entrenched NPOV violations the article is currently guilty of. VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Many of the same accusations could be leveled at you, such as the time we've wasted discussing the inclusion of Avi Offer's blog, and you have yet to back up your advocacy of that blog with any facts or evidence. If we go down this road, we'll be wasting even more time. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Empty tit for tat accusations sans the facts and evidence I just mentioned. Regarding Offer, I haven't advocated his blog. I've been observing that Rotten Tomatoes gives him the same credence and coverage they do to the other critics we've cherry-picked from their aggregation. If we're now deciding that Rotten Tomatoes' judgment on such matters is dubious, then we should remove the entire Rotten Tomatoes segment, particularly their aggregation score since it counts Offer as equal to the other critics. VictorD7 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't advocating including Offer's blog, then we can conclude that discussion and move on. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm arguing that we should include a quote from his review, as Rotten Tomatoes did. Otherwise, we should delete the Rotten Tomatoes segment. VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What other interpretation could you have of "including Offer's blog" that isn't "include a quote from his review" which appears on his blog? Semantic wordplay games is exactly the kind of time wasting nonsense that you were complaining about. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you claimed I had engaged in "advocacy of that blog", suggesting I was arguing that we should include the blog based on its own merits. My entire argument has been that his review is noteworthy in this context because Rotten Tomatoes deems it so, and we (until now at least) have deemed Rotten Tomatoes a reliable and noteworthy judge in these matters. Your continual avoidance of the RM issue I keep raising doesn't exactly disprove my earlier comments. VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding anything, there's nothing to talk about. I don't believe the inclusion of Offer's review in RT confers on it any particular notability or significance which makes it appropriate to include here, and I thought that was made clear from my comments from the beginning of that discussion. For that matter, I don't think there's anything new to talk about regarding Offer's review at all. I think we've both made our points, I see no reason to prolong this discussion unless other editors wish to participate. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If RT is so irrelevant, then why you do you support its inclusion, particularly when it confers the same vote/quote weight to Offer that it does to the others? VictorD7 (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Docudrama and documentary film

One source use the term "docudrama", and I had added the link further down in the page. All other sources use the term documentary, and thus this is the more appropriate term for the first sentence in the lead. Also, it supports the categorization, while docudrama does not have a distinct category. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't write bad text to conform to inapt "categories". "Docudrama is a specific well-defined term which describes the film and its genre. "Documentary" is much more broad and as previously noted here has connotations which RS use to relate to marketing and economics rather than the content and format of the film. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The text which says "documentary film" is good text based on the fact that several sources describe the film as a documentary. Again, as the majority of sourcing says documentary, that is the proper term for the lede. Also in fact, there is a Category:Docudramas, but adding the film to it, based on the single RS used in the text is problematic because so much of the other sourcing says documentary film. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of merely repeating that your view is correct, please respond to the several reasons I've given for my edits. Because you were the one who added 'docudrama' I would have thought you'd be pleased to use that clear, succinct term instead of the vastly more general, vague and ill-defined 'documentary' SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that two other editors have commented above. Victor certainly wants to use documentary film and Gamaliel has commented about what the sources say (paraphrased) in terms of "documentary". I 'm happy with docudrama, but not in the first sentence of the lede. And as I said when I opened the thread, both terms can be used (and linked) in the text. Let's see what consensus develops. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is exactly where "docudrama" belongs because it is the most concise, explicit, specific, and readily understood description of the film's genre and approach. To help understand this, I suggest you do the following thought experiment: Tell me the definition of "documentary" which is being used by whatever you feel is the source for calling the film a documentary, and consider whether that definition is what leaps to the mind of the majority of our readers when they see that word. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus version has been and is for "documentary film". While "fantasy" and "polemic" and "docudrama" have been floated for the first sentence, I do not see consensus for any of them. – S. Rich (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not responsive. Please re-read and respond to my words. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The current version of this article calls the film an "American political documentary film". I find that hard to believe as the synopsis reads like a right-wing fantasy invented by the director. Can we please nail down the genre of this "film"? Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of this film

I propose that this article be moved to America: Imagine the World Without Her, as that is the full title of this movie. Contrary to what was previously stated, "Imagine the World Without Her" is not a 'tag line' [2][3], but a subtitle [4][5], which is part of the full title of a work. Works are referred to by their full titles, including the subtitle (e.g. a book called Algebra: A Primer, would be referred to as such), and Wikipedia practice is to title with the full name, even if a shortened version is commonly used. As evidence I submit that:

• It's undisputed that the [http://www.amazon.com/America-Imagine-World-without-Her/dp/162157203X book that this movie is based on] is titled America: Imagine the World Without Her
• IMDB, which is the main database on movies, calls it "America: Imagine the World Without Her" [6]
• Reviewers usually refer to the movie as "America:Imagine the World Without Her" [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
• Movietickets.com is selling tickets with this title. [13]
• The article on Dinesh's previous movie is called 2016: Obama's America, not 2016 (movie)

LK (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose--The official title according to Box Office Mojo is "America" period. They added '(2014)' to the title to avoid confusion with other films titled "America" As for "2016 Obama's America", that is the title Box Office Mojo uses. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a cleaner and more informative way to disambiguate, as there have been other films just named "America" this decade. This suggestion would probably cut down on people's initial confusion about which America film was which, although it's not fatal if it doesn't move. (Has this RM been tagged yet? It seems like LK maybe missed some steps from WP:RM/CM .)__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support It would violate Policy to change the name of the film. One editor previously attempted to advocate that the "Imagine..." was just a "tagline", but this misrepresents the facts, per the producers' own usage. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support As others have said, this film is usually referred to with "Imagine" part. I also think it's fine to include a disambiguation for America (2014 film) or something similar if that appeases those opposed.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's been two weeks, and consensus seems clearly to support a move, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. LK (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Ranking and Breitbart

Including commentary like "by the second week" is considered original research unless the source specifically makes that observation and articulates it. Editors must be careful when using primary sources that they don't add any narrative that isn't directly expressed by the source. The Mojo link specifically lists America as 6th, it doesn't list it at 7th, so the article now accurately reflects the source without including any OR or POV commentary about its second week accomplishments.

Also, it hasn't been agreed that Breitbart.com is a reliable source, so I advise not including information from Breitbart.com until there is a consensus reached about whether it is a questionable source or a reliable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not OR since Box Office Mojo explicitly tracks how many weeks and days a movie has been showing, along with how much it's earned each day, week, and weekend. As for the dynamism of certain pages, like the all time rankings, that's why we list access dates. By the logic of this section op the "August" reference would be OR too, since the source page doesn't mention the current date. That would be a misreading of the OR policy. Segments technically don't need to be sourced at all on Wikipedia; it's just a good idea if it's challenged or likely to be challenged. To your second point, there is no legitimate, rational basis for excluding a film review from Breitbart while including ones from even more opinionated, less news oriented sites like the AV Club or rogerebert.com. VictorD7 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does say 8/19/2014 in the top right hand corner. Therefore identifying the date as August is not the result of original research, but if you prefer 8/19/2014 then that's fine too. However, it doesn't say "by the second week" anywhere and nor does it reflect its ranking as "7th". So not only is that OR but it's also not verifiable and the link you gave to the week tracking doesn't list it as "7th" either in all time political documentaries.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice the fine date print in the upper right hand corner, but it's still dynamic, meaning it won't say "8" in a couple of weeks. There's nothing wrong with identifying the date accessed though, and it used to say "#7". Likewise, it's not "OR" to identify in the same sentence how many weeks the movie has been out at the time of access, especially when a different page of the same source provides the information, along with the precise dollar receipt amount so far that appears on both pages. Also, the America page I linked to above lists the political documentary ranking (previously 7th, now 6th), along with how many weeks it's been out and other info. The "Summary" tab even shows both at once. VictorD7 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say "7th" nor does it say "by the second week". The changes I've made are neutral and can be updated whenever the list changes without providing a non-neutral narrative. Nothing on the mojo site gives any significance to "2nd week" rankings and the source, as it appears in the article, doesn't say "by the second week". It's not noteworthy or necessary to tally the films change in ranking every time it occurs. "By the second week", "by the 5th week", "by the 6th week", "by the 138th week", "by the 219th week", are all unnecessary, non-notable, and insignificant to include in an article.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're going to keep coming back here updating the month/year every month even if the rank doesn't change, because the "8" will no longer be on the page? The BOM summary page I linked to lists how many weeks (and days) it's been in release just a couple of lines above the all time political documentary ranking, so your original "OR" argument has been totally refuted. As for your noteworthiness argument, obviously landing on the top 10 list in speedy fashion is an additional and noteworthy piece of info that's lost by only mentioning the current ranking several weeks later. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that the movie is pretty much done in theaters, We can stop the rundown. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"speedy" is completely subjective. The importance of the "2nd week" is not given any merit by any reliable source and is exclusively the narrative of the WP editor. "By the second week" is still not supported by the link in the article, which means that any assertion of it earning 7th by the second week is considered original research. More specifically, from WP:OR Synthesis "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Here you took a statement(A) from one source/link that it ranked 7th among political documentaries, then took information(B) from another source/link that it had been out for 2 weeks, and then combined them to form a statement(C) that "by the second week....it ranked 7th". That's an example of original research and is specifically identified as such under WP:Syn. So you haven't refuted that it's not OR, you've merely asserted it's not, but WP policy clear identifies this type of action as OR. Also, the way I've left the sentence can be updated anytime an editor feels it's necessary to update. It's structure doesn't give any arbitrary or biased POV importance to the date, which acts strictly in a clerical fashion.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not "OR", any more than the current "August" version will be next month. A properly sourced segment doesn't suddenly become "OR" just because the web page has since been updated or the book is no longer in print. In this case one can easily verify that the "second week" segment is true using historical data provided by the source. Your "Synthesis" claim is totally false because we're dealing with one source here, not two. Refer to the page I've already posted for you. In fact the dates out, including a weekly count, is presented right above the all time rankings. And no one suggested adding "speedy" to the article, but the "second week" segment conveys time to top 10 information not present in the new "#6" segment I added. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Original Research Regarding Amazon

2601:7:6200:b09:f024:777:a3a3:fd77 and GoWikiSV- I don't see where Amazon.com says that its reviews correlate with the Cinemascore rating. Please familiarize yourselves with Original Research. As an editor you can not examine multiple primary or secondary sources and then include your own comparisons or correlations between them in a WP article. Also, " Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." This part of the MoS guidelines for critical reception prohibit the use of user generated ratings on WP articles. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sections/Information irrelevant to the movie

The addition of Alan Dershowitz and the Washington Times editorial have nothing to do with the movie. The quotes included from Amodeo and Berkowitz directly discuss the ending of the film and comment on its purpose and how it may directly relate to D'souza's past discretions. Furthermore, the Costco Book even has absolutely nothing to do with the movie and is completely irrelevant to this article. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the section with the Dershowitz material as OR as it is a WP:SYNTH violation to include material from sources that have nothing to do with the film. I don't think the Costco material is entirely irrelevant, but it is poorly sourced and not neutral so I tagged that section NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)