|
- LA Weekly is an alt-culture paper with a circulation of 193,714. But you refer to it as a "mainstream" media outlet, while referring to other outlets with more circulation as "minor." This appears to be an attempt to justify extensively quoting negative reviews, while burying positive reviews. I firmly believe, had this paper given the film in question a good review, you would be arguing that it is a minor media outlet. If not, prove me wrong. Sort the reviews by size of circulation and quote equally from each.
- Contrary to your assertion, I have made no effort to "bury" the Variety review. I simply believe the Variety review should be posted as is, without editorial comments from your peanut gallery. The review is quite clear in praising the film's story, for example, yet you removed a direct quote about this ("refreshingly high-minded") from the body of the article and replaced it with your own phrase about how the review "criticized" the film's story. You also keep referring to the Variety review as negative, yet on Rotten Tomatoes it is counted as positive. If you are TRULY not biased against this film, why on earth would you be trying so hard to conceal this fact? Why not simply publish all the information and let readers draw their own conclusions? It is very, very difficult to believe that you are honestly acting impartially.
- You keep inserting the sentence "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews, with certain notable exceptions" back into the article, with no explanation for the fact that there are no exceptions listed, not to mention the fact that the positive reviews given as examples didn't occur during the festival run.
- OK, thanks for your comments. My replies:
- LA Weekly is the free primary alternative weekly in LA, and therefore has an effective circulation (and influence) well about its audited circulation. It's certainly as "mainstream" as the Voice is here in NY. The three most important reviews the film has received were in Variety, the LA Times, and the LA Weekly, and those reviews are now incorporated into the article. I'm not inclined to change that.
- The Variety review is mixed. If Rotten Tomatoes classifies it as "positive", they are incorrect. The coverage of the Variety review is quite balanced.
- I've looked at the reference that supports that sentence, and indeed the phrase "with certain notable exceptions" is not supported by the ref, or the article's text, so I've removed it. I believe it stems from an earlier version of the article and got left in during the time when there was a lot of back-and-forth editing. I may look back into an older version of the article and see if there used to be "notable exceptions" mentioned, but in the meantime, the phrase is not supported, so it's gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Incidentally, I'll repeat what I wrote on the article talk page - I do not know you, and we are not friends, so please be kind enough to address me as "Beyond My Ken" or "BMK" if you wish to continue this dialogue. Any future communications addressed to me by my first name will be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- OK, I agree that the Variety review is mixed, absolutely. But you refer to it as "critical" and on talk page discussions you call it "negative." RT doesn't have a "mixed" category. When a reviewer submits their review to RT, they submit it as either "fresh" (positive) or "rotten" (negative). It forces the reviewer to choose one or the other, like Ebert's thumbs up or down - no in-between. While you're free to disagree with that personally, Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy (you can't selectively choose not to include a link to RT just because you personally think "RT is incorrect on this one"). The fairest thing to do would be to refer to the review as mixed but note that RT reports it as leaning to the positive side. There is no reason to omit this other than personal disagreement with RT, which isn't an acceptable justification.
- (I also suggest to you that saying the review is "critical of the film's plot" constitutes original research, because it is an interpretation of something the reviewer said ("a clunky David Lynchian cosmic mystery") which I actually read as a compliment. Furthermore he says that the script is "refreshingly high minded." So again, the review is unclear/mixed on this, but you suggest that it is straight-out negative, which I think is (perhaps unintentaionlly) deceptive.
- I agree that LA Weekly is influential, but again, for you to declare by fiat that "these are the three most important reviews" constitutes non-permissible original research, that's not borne out by anything other than your personal opinion of what is or isn't "important." Those of us who don't live in L.A. or N.Y. (the vast majority of the country, BTW) are far more inclined to read a review on Ain't It Cool or even Film Threat than an alt paper like LA Weekly or Time Out which we can't even get here. And Epoch Times has an unaudited circulation of over a million according to Wikipedia, so why isn't that one important? It's all a matter of opinion, and that's why such judgment calls aren't permitted on this site. Any way, I have no problem with the Times and Weekly quote staying as is, although the declaration of Weekly being "mainstream" is, I think, a loaded word that isn't justified by the paper or the reviewer.
- Understood about the "exceptions" phrase. I still don't understand why you say that "During the film's earlier festival run it got generally positive reviews" but then at least half the reviews quoted as examples happened during the film's release, according to the citation links.
- Thanks for the discussion. 208.88.120.87 (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- There's no way "clunky" can be read as positive. On the festival thing, let me look at the wording and see if it can be improved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- OK, I've moved the "festival" sentence to the top of the section, so it's more or less sequential now: festival-mainstream reviews-other reviews. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- "There's no way "clunky" can be read as positive." OK, then there's no way "refreshingly high-minded" can be read as negative. Just like there's no way a reviewer submitting his review to RT as "fresh" can be counted as negative. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not interested in engaging in a debate with you. If you have practical suggestions about edits which can improve the article, please say so, because this is going nowhere. I'm quite comfortable that the reception section is balanced and accurately represents the reviews cited, and that the reviews cited are the important ones. Let's move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not interested in engaging in a debate with you either, and I haven't done so at all. I asked a legitimate question: How can you interpret "refreshingly high-minded" as "negative"? That's not a "debate," that's question.
- I believe I have pointed out a double-standard in your reasoning, yet you're refusing to give a straight answer as to why, and instead fall back on impugning me personally. I have made a series of practical suggestions; for you to imply otherwise is misleading.
- My suggestion here would be that you avoid weasel words in both the positive, negative, and mixed reviews. The reviews should stand for themselves, without you adding editorial comments which constitute original research. For example, it's entirely unnecessary for you to refer to the Variety review as "critical" (especially when the industry's standard authority for determining a review's positivity or negativity (RT) states otherwise). It's also unnecessary for you to refer LA Weekly as "mainstream." If these things are incontestably true as you suggest, then why do you need to state them? These qualifier adjectives serve no purpose other than to subtly bias the article. Just place the reviews as they are and let readers decide.
- If you are correct that LA Weekly is widely heralded as a mainstream, important source, then you shouldn't have to state that here. If it is so self-evident that the Variety review is "critical," then why is it necessary for you to spell that out? The simple truth is that, the more you add your own adjectives and qualifiers to the reception section, while selectively erasing facts that you personally disagree with (such as the fact that RT considers the Variety review "positive"), the more it appears that you actually don't really believe that your position holds water on its own.
- I'd love to have honest discourse with you about this, but unfortunately, I expect that you probably will start going after me personally at this point, shutting down what you call "debate," etc., because an inconsistency in your position was revealed. It's too bad, really, since you seem like an otherwise reasonable person. 208.88.120.87 (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Again, I'm not interested in debating with you, and, for that reason, I haven't even read the above. You seem to want something other than I'm willing to give, some kind of deconstruction of me or my editing or something along those lines, but that's just not going to happen. The question here is simple: what practical changes do you suggest be made in the article? If you have nothing to say on that topic, fine, but if you do, I'm listening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Again, I'm not interested in debating with you. I just listed a bunch of practical suggestions. Since you are refusing to even read them, there's nothing more I can say. I won't be baited into a pretend argument, sorry. 208.88.120.87 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- (ec)Let me just say: the normal Wikipedian editing procedure when two (or more) editors disagree with content or weight would be for them to discuss it and try to come to some fair balance that everyone can live with -- but you don't have that opportunity, because you chose instead to use multiple sockpuppets to enforce your own choices on the article, and you were caught doing it. I'm not here to provide you with a substitute for that process, in which we debate back and forth and arrive at some middle ground. Instead, in the interest of improving the article, I'm willing to listen to your suggestions about how it can be bettered, and if I agree with them, I'll incorporate them into the article. That's it. Frankly, your malicious and destructive behavior doesn't teally even merit that amount of consideration, so I'm not sure why I'm willing to listen, but I am -- but we are not going to have a debate. If that's where we want to go, you can go there all by your lonesome. It's your choice, mate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Good, we agree: no debate. I don't believe your suggestions above have merit. Anything else you can think of that will improve the article, please post it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- No other suggestions. This isn't about "process"; it's about insuring there's accurate info on Wikipedia. I made a series of suggestions to improve accuracy, which you rejected, and that's that. Since you appear to be the sole individual in the world interested in editing this and related articles other than myself (and I am forbidden from it), your word is final on all things, and I get that. But I point out, for the record, that I asked what I believe is a very reasonable question (How can you interpret the phrase "refreshingly high-minded" as "negative"?) which you pretend not to have read (probably so as to avoid answering). Frankly, this speaks volumes about your character, not mine, and I'm glad to let the record reflect this for anyone in future who reads this exchange. Now I have better things to do with my time then edit Wikipedia 24/7, so goodbye. 208.88.120.84 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- My goodness, your head is quite firmly lodged up your anus, isn't it? Enjoy your solitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- :) Sorry Ed, I'm not the lonely middle aged man up all night editing Wikipedia. But that's some nice, classic emotional transference there. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Of course, it ends with a personal attack, the last refuge of the scoundrel. Tell you what you do, you go around to the various other editors who have contributed to Yesterday Was a Lie, and you say to them: "Hi! I'm the guy who was blocked for using sockpuppets to try to control the contents of an article, and who went on multiple vandalism sprees when I couldn't get my way, but now I'd like to make some changes to the article. Will you please listen to my suggestions and incorporate them into the article?" I'm certain that one of them will say "Sure, buddy, come on over and tell me what to do." Hell, you've got nothing to lose, right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Again, changing the subject to impugn me personally changes nothing. And certainly, between the two of us, I am definitely the one who resorted to a "personal attack," right? Yes, I am definitely the one who told the other that his head was up his anus. That was me. Right. The funny thing is, anyone reading this can see exactly what happened. I made a series of perfectly coherent suggestions as you asked. Nothing confrontational at all. Genuine discussion. Then BAM! As soon as I asked you a question that pointed out a double-standard in your logic, you immediately resorted to your old typical nonsense of name-calling, attacking the other guy, accusing him of "debating," etc. rather than simply answering the question. And then afterwards, trying to make it sound like I did that to you. Which is exactly what I predicted you'd do, and I was 100% correct. Your lack of self-confidence is very, very predictable. 208.88.120.85 (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
(out)Well, you are the one who is blocked, right, so... <shrug>I suppose I'll see you again the next time you decide to go on a spree of vandalism when you can't get your way, but in the meantime, have a wonderful, wonderful life, my friend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
|
