Talk:Trevor Slattery

The Trevor Revisions

I fail to see how exactly my edits are not valid inputs. The reception section, as it stands now, is very one-sided. I added three sourced counterclaims to help balance it out. Contrary to what you said, all three of them dealt with the Trevor Slattery character as he is the very embodiment of the Mandarin twist (and it should be noted that every single quote you have pulled up does the exact same thing).--Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Two of your sources were complaints about the film in general and its use of several characters. The third was from a source that seemed to be making good points about abusing powerful images, but in reading the article I saw that they were dismissing the film off-the-bat with no justification, and then picking it apart and putting negative spins on it. If they had given an unbiased critique on the use of the character then that would be fine, but I don't think it is very encyclopaedic to add the opinion of someone who essentially hated the film before they even saw it. If there is real, unbiased criticism about the character out there then of course it should be added, but we shouldn't go looking for things to add just because the reception section is "one-sided". We need to accurately reflect reality, not try and make it look "balanced", and from my experience the reality is that fans of the character disliked the twist because it wasn't how the comics did it, but critics liked it because of how it avoids racism, is smart political commentary, and was a good surprise in a modern blockbuster. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Direct Quotes in Leads

I've been having a back and forth (from a few different IP addresses, I've been out and about) with User:Adamstom.97 in the commit comments. As I do not have a commit to make that is distinct from my prior changes, and as it seems this needs to be argued in depth, I figured I'd move this to the talk section. He claims in his comment "we don't cite information in the lead that is already cited in the body, where a citation is used for these quotes." I've been looking into the style guides and I cannot find such an exception. In fact, it would seem to be the opposite. The following quotes are with my emphasis:

"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." -MOS:LEADCITE

"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." -Wikipedia:Citing sources

"Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead." -WP:WHENNOTCITE

I will openly admit that my initial edit was overzealous and does not conform to citation guidelines for leads, but it is absolutely the case that the direct quotation SHOULD be cited, even in the lead.

Furthermore, while the following guideline does not apply directly to quotes, it does indicate that there are certain categories of information that do not get exceptions in leads even though they are redundant with citations later in the article (and note that the previously mentioned guidelines all treat "statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged" as equivalent in need to be cited to direct quotations)

"Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." -MOS:LEADCITE

If User:Adamstom.97 can cite a guideline which explicitly states the claim that direct quotes in leads need not be cited, I will admit that I was in the wrong and let it go. If he has a personal aesthetic disposition against citations in leads, I suggest he rewrite the sentence not to use direct quotes. Honestly it seems kind of wishy-washy and editorial for a lead section to me, so I wouldn't mind it being removed altogether. If none of these cases are fulfilled and the text is left as is, it is directly opposed to site wide style guides to leave the direct quotations and not add a citation.

--67.169.179.128 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can suggest a better way of summarising the same ideas without sounding like editorial peacockery then please be my guest. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't, that's why my change was just to bring the article up to style guide by citing the quote. 67.169.179.128 (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Just removed the quote and made it say "positively" because in the lead the "brilliant" and "satisfying" qualifiers aren't what was important: the following info on the social commentary etc. is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)