Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Information is extremely relevant to the movie

The MOS states that "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited". Dershowitz and the Washington Times comment directly on this film's maker and an event covered in the movie. Their quotes were only added after Scoobydunk inserted the paragraph featuring Huffington Post writers raising the issue to personally attack D'Souza, along with a sentence and source about his legal trouble that doesn't mention this movie (making the section op above incredible); their observations support D'Souza's characterization of the event in the movie and contradict the opinions of the Huffington Post writers. Removing them would be a gross violation of NPOV and would raise serious BLP concerns.

The Costco controversy relates to the book mentioned in this article's second sentence, and is described as the movie's "companion" in the sources. The sources also discuss the movie directly, including when paraphrasing Costco's comments, and the timing of the book pull is impossible to ignore. The section can, of course, be tweaked, added to, and improved (I would have added a direct quote from Costco but didn't see one in the limited time I had earlier today), but its sources are higher quality and more neutral than the sources used in the first part of the Critical response section. I'll add that the entire article has already had a neutrality tag for some time, so I'm not sure about the appropriateness of adding new ones to specific sections. VictorD7 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)This edit by Scoobydunk ties in the legal aspects, if this is ok, then the other addition is related as well. It certainly is not synthesis of material or original research. You could argue that the legal aspects are unrelated to the movie, but that would mean all of the legal aspects, not just some of it. As for the Costco aspect, since the movie is closely tied to the book and the Costco incident was reported in concert with the release of the movie it is related. The Washington Post source, however, is not related. Though, what is being included via the WaPo source is included in the both other sources so it should be re-referenced to remove the WaPo source. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the WashPo source as a supplemental. It's a liberal, pro Costco/Obama outlet and column and I didn't want leftist minded readers to think Fox News or a newspaper with the word "Christian" in its name (gasp!) were making the stuff about Costco's political activities up. The sentence provides the same sort of background context as the sentence covering D'Souza's guilty plea does for the paragraph focusing on quotes related to his legal troubles. VictorD7 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Where in the sources you've included do they talk about the movie and connect it to D'Souza's criminal behavior? See, the sources I've included are responding to an actual scene in the movie, therefore making it relevant to the movie. Nothing from the material you've included in the article indicates that they were commenting on the movie. Furthermore, where is your source proving that D'Souza's indictment was one of the covered topics of the movie? If you're trying to fit in irrelevant quotes about a topic the movie covers, then you should be able to prove with a reliable source that the movie does, in fact, cover that topic. The sources I've included actually make an interpretation of a specific scene and I've accurately represented their interpretation. However, if you don't have a reliable source to prove that the topic of D'Souza's indictment for campaign fraud was covered by the movie, then you're violating WP:OR by using your own determination of what topics were covered in the movie.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You added a source talking about the possible punishment which is unrelated. You can't add some material that is as unrelated as this material and call the other stuff OR. Original research is presenting an idea or advancing an idea which is not supported by reliable sources. None of that is original research, it is possible that it would be undue weight, but you are the one adding the aspect to begin with. It would, however, be a violation of NPOV to only present your one-sided presentation. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Including the length of time he may have to serve in jail for the plea deal is not a violation of NPOV and is completely objective and neutral information. It's not my "one-sided opinion", it's a part of the terms of the plea deal. Its inclusion was to provide more information about one of the things mentioned by the political writer. I'm not including it under the premise that I, myself, interpret the ending to be about his punishment and am not using the MoS Guideline that VictorD7 referenced to include it. Trying to use that specific line from MoS Guidelines means you have to prove, through a reliable source, that D'Souza's criminal discretions were one of the topics of the film.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your own quotes and sources describe the same events covered in the movie that the expert and notable newspaper I quoted comment on (as do many reviews, like this one), namely D'Souza's indictment and his contention that it was a selective prosecution. The MOS doesn't require that every source be directly about the movie, but says we can include expert or notable commentary about "topics covered by the film", which is common (see the page for Michael Moore's Sicko as I linked to and described in an above section). Arguing that these segments should be excluded for not discussing the movie per se while defending your own inclusion of a sentence and source that doesn't mention the movie is preposterous. Your HuffPo writer quote ridicules D'Souza's suggestion that the prosecution was selective and politically motivated, so that a nationally renown Harvard law professor agrees with D'Souza is definitely noteworthy and necessary to include for balance and NPOV. That Dershowitz is a liberal adds weight to his support of D'Souza on this topic.

As Arzel pointed out to you, none of this is "OR". It's all sourced. If anything, it might be a relevance/due issue, but, as he said, you raised the focus on the legal component, so it's vital that we remain NPOV on such a sensitive topic. Frankly I think including everything we currently have from both sides is fine, but we can't delete one side without deleting it all. VictorD7 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, where's your source that D'Souza's criminal actions were a topic of the film? My source doesn't say that his actions were a topic of the film, they merely interpret a scene of the film. This isn't proof that their interpretation of the scene is a matter of fact or proof that the handcuff scene was about D'Souza's campaign contribution fraud. Their inclusion is merited because it is directly relevant to the film since they comment on the film and make their own analysis. Your sources don't do this...at all. You're trying to include them under the notion that you think one of the topics of the film was his criminal actions, which is a violation of WP:OR if you can not provide a source that identifies his criminal deeds as a topic of the film. My sources do not make a claim that his campaign contribution fraud was a topic of the film, they only speculate on a scene towards the end of the movie. In you John Fund source and many other reviews that discuss the topics of the film, none of them label his criminal conduct as a topic of the film. That's because it's not and your inclusion of those sources is not supported by the MoS Guideline.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think he was in handcuffs? Everything being discussed here is a subtopic of his arrest/indictment/prosecution, and is therefore a topic covered in the movie. Numerous reviewers recount how D'Souza covers his own legal troubles in the film and suggests selective prosecution is at play. If not, then by your logic your Huffington Post quotes focusing on his prosecution and claim of selective prosecution don't belong in the article, whether the writer elsewhere touches on the film or not. Also, your earlier implication that a segment has to directly mention the movie goes out the window when you acknowledge that a sentence and source that doesn't mention the movie can be included for "more information" about topics raised.VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You asking me "Why do you think he was in handcuffs?" pretty much proves my point, that your inclusion under the premise of MoS Guideline is a violation of WP:OR. It is not our privilege or responsibility as editors to make conclusions about the film and make the article reflect those conclusions. So my interpretation of the film has no relevance and it shouldn't as described by WP:OR. "Numerous reviewers recount how D'Souza covers his own legal troubles in the film" please list those sources because I haven't seen one yet. I have seen reviewers discuss Native Americans and Slavery as topics of the film, but you haven't supplied a single source that discussed his criminal actions as a topic of the film or a topic that the film covers. Furthermore, the Huffington Post quotes are discussing and focusing on a scene in the movie, not on his prosecution. As a matter of fact, one or both articles to talk about his criminal behavior towards the beginning of the article, but this is unrelated to the film since they are merely commenting on D'Souza's personal behavior. The part that I included came later in the article when they specifically talked about a scene of the movie and expressed an opinion that it might be an apology for his criminal behavior or their opinion that it's a pathetic attempt to excuse his behavior. I ignored the parts that weren't relevant to the movie because i know how to discern the difference.

I didn't imply anything, I said that the quotes I added were relevant to the movie because they discuss the movie. Your quotes are not relevant to the movie because they don't discuss the movie and you haven't even shown that they discuss a topic covered by the film. The terms of his plea deal merit inclusion because they objectively explain what the political authors are referring to, adding more context without narrative and are, therefore, not a violation of WP:NPOV. This doesn't apply to the quotes you've added because they are not objective, they are subjective opinions and it becomes a violation of WP:NPOV. Now, if you want to include other interpretations of the scene to balance the ones I've included, then by all means do so. However, the quotes you used don't address the scene at all and therefore don't lend any balance, are actually irrelevant to the movie, and are a violation of WP:NPOV.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, my rhetorical question just illustrated the fact that even showing him in handcuffs, which your own quote references, proves the topic of his indictment was covered in the movie. Also, the Fund piece I linked to above explicitly states, "D’Souza includes in the film a brief section on his legal troubles; in this, he clearly conveys his view that he was selectively prosecuted." Here's another example from the Journal Sentinel: "To his credit, D'Souza does mention his own arrest for illegal political contributions ("I made a mistake and I am not above the law") but implies it was because of a previous film critical of Obama." Your own HuffPo Berkowitz quote directly reference's D'Souza's "suggestion that his own criminal conviction" is "the result of political targeting" in the film, before he proceeds to give his own opinion of D'Souza's position. Your claim that no sources have been provided saying the film covered his prosecution is false. Period. Your allowance for the sentence on his legal plea, which doesn't directly mention the movie, for the purposes of "more information" and "context" (which I'm fine with, btw), highlights a glaring inconsistency in your argument. Whether it's "neutral" or not (your defense for the plea sentence) is irrelevant to the issue of article relevance. Millions of sources might be objective but irrelevant to the article. You claim that the tangential sentence is useful for providing context for the opinions you quoted. Well the following paragraph is vital for providing context and balance for the opinions and legal info you added, though it's also legitimate for being pertinent to a topic covered in the movie (as I've proved). Removing it would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV and would lead to a WP:BLP tone skew on a sensitive legal subject.

Since you believe the scene is important enough to justify adding an entire paragraph of commentary and tangential news coverage about it, you shouldn't object to a counterpoint segment maintaining balance and subsection neutrality. VictorD7 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that mentioning something or referencing something is considered a "topic covered by the film". If that were the case, then I could add any number of sources that discuss Matt Damon and his career. So, if that's the interpretation you want to go with, then I expect it to be consistently applied. However, the quotes I gave were an analysis of a scene of a movie, not an independent commentary on D'souza's actions. Your sources address the topic of D'Souza's criminal campaign contribution, while mine are still an analysis of a scene in the movie. So I will add separate criticisms of D'Souza's criminal history to balance the material you've added that specifically address his criminal history instead of offering interpretations of the movie. Again, my quotes discuss the content of the film, your quotes discuss the author's personal history and don't provide an alternative opinion to the scene in the movie, which is the topic of the paragraph. Glad we could reach an agreement.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for separating that material out. I removed that entire section from the article. NPOV/BLP concerns should not addressed by piling a whole bunch of unrelated information into the article. Readers can find that information out by following links to other articles. A short contextual summary might be appropriate in the right circumstances, and Scoobydunk has already incorporated such a summary. Given the length of this article, that hypothetical summary probably shouldn't run more than a sentence, and definitely shouldn't be a long paragraph of unrelated material and commentary. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gamaliel. Though I worked hard on finding all of those sources, I support your reversion. I still don't think the Costco thing is related to the movie, but if there isn't a separate WP article for the book, then I'm fine with it being here.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The quotes I provided were about his prosecution and the film's characterization of it as selective and politically motivated, which numerous sources explicitly identify as a topic covered in the movie. If you really don't believe it's a topic covered by the movie, then you shouldn't have added an entire paragraph focusing on that one scene. That's undue emphasis that smears the guy in one sided, venomous fashion, not to mention your "more information" sentence that doesn't even mention the movie. You failed to address any of my arguments. Your new material was mostly low brow partisan blog fare frivolously piling on and skewing the article further by dedicating even more space to a topic that doesn't merit that much emphasis. Some of it was even repetitive. Since Gamaliel deleted that entire section, but left the one sided POV paragraph that started it all, I deleted it too for NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The original paragraph I added were an analysis of a scene in the movie and are directly related to the film. The information you added doesn't counter or balance with the information I added because it doesn't off a different view on the ending scene in the movie...which is what my paragraph is about. You haven't refuted this.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The MOS guidelines allow for commentary from notable experts (like Dershowitz) on topics covered in the movie, not just the movie per se (as I've quoted and you've acknowledged), and, despite your earlier denials, the sources I quoted above prove the movie covers the topic of his selective prosecution. That you posted an entire paragraph (including a sentence that doesn't mention the film) on the prosecution shows that even you believe it's a topic covered by the movie, indeed one deserving more focus than any other portion of the film. The opinions I added are relevant because they directly support D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution, which the partisans quoted in your paragraph disagree with. Deleting the pro D'Souza material while retaining the initial POV, undue paragraph massacres NPOV, and on a BLP legal issue to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My addition commented on a scene of the movie, yours made excuses for why D'Souza was being prosecuted for a federal crime. One does not balance the other because they are discussing different things. My sources discuss the end of the movie and give their opinions on that ending scene of him in handcuffs. Yours discuss D'Souza's indictment and offer conspiracy theories to why he was indicted. If you were truly interested in "balance" then you'd look for different interpretations of the ending scene of the movie. Maybe a conservative writer who gives a different opinion about the handcuff scene and praises its inclusion. Whether the partisans I quoted agree with D'Souza's claim or not is not relevant to the fact that they think the scene was a pathetic attempt for self redemption trying to excuse his past discretions.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing my points refuting your arguments. You dumped a venomous, one sided ad hominem paragraph attacking D'Souza and portraying him as a "pathetic" criminal whose claims of selective prosecution were totally without merit shortly after I added the positive review. You were apparently taken by surprise by the strong Dershowitz and Times opinions supporting his case I quickly added afterward for neutral balance, which are more notable and weighty than your sleazy partisan bloggers, and you didn't know how to deal with it apart from deleting the material undermining the picture you're trying to paint. Your attempt at Wikilawyering to maintain the POV skew by erroneously citing various policies like "OR" have been rationally debunked and have often collapsed under the weight of their own inconsistencies.

You've provided no policy mandating that every quote or sentence on the page has to directly mention the movie (or interpret a "scene"), while I have provided the MOS quote above saying that commentary on topics covered in the movie is allowed. That's especially true if your paragraph raises said topic to a heightened level of article focus, and includes a sentence and source of your own that don't mention the movie. You attempted to make up your own rules to suit an anti-D'Souza agenda, but failed to even follow them yourself. You falsely claimed that I hadn't "supplied a single source that discussed his criminal actions as a topic of the film or a topic that the film covers", even specifically singling out the Fund source as supposedly not doing so. I faithfully responded to your expressed concern by supplying multiple sourced quotes directly stating that the prosecution and D'Souza's claim of political selection was covered in the film, including a clear quote saying so from the Fund piece. Without even pausing to briefly acknowledge any of this, you resorted to temporarily trying to separate the pro D'Souza material into a new section for supposedly being off topic (but not your tangential plea bargain sentence that doesn't mention the film), before supporting its deletion. You have yet to post a rationale justifying devoting an entire paragraph to the topic of D'Souza's prosecution to begin with, whether the partisans quoted mention a scene or not. The movie has lots of scenes that aren't singled out for special coverage in this article. Your extensive focus on his prosecution violates DUE and your exclusion of the balancing material provided grossly violated neutrality.VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I did post the rationale, they are partisans that have responded to a scene in the movie. So their inclusion is relevant to the article because they are specifically discussing an ending scene in the documentary. It's also not a violation of DUE to include such commentary. You might have an argument if I was deleting commentary about other scenes while only keeping in the scene I want, or deleting other interpretations of the scene analysis I've included, but I haven't done either of those things. Furthermore, Gamliel is the one who deleted the material and since I already questioned whether merely referencing something qualifies as "a topic covered by the moive", I'm inclined to agree with his assessment on that matter. The information you added, by your own admission, was to address a "topic" covered by the movie, so I moved it to its own section because it was not a response to the film. That's completely different and unrelated to what I added which are responses to the film, specifically the ending scene. FYI, my argument of OR didn't collapse under its own consistencies. I asked you for proof and you provided quotes that verified D'Souza referenced his criminal charges or mentioned them, they didn't/don't prove that his criminal charges were one of the topics of the film. Just because the film referenced Damon, doesn't mean editors can include an entire section with a bunch of quotes bashing Damon, supporting Damon, or outlining his life's work and pretend it merits inclusion because it was a "topic" of the film, when he was merely referenced.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It violates due weight because it leaves a whole paragraph talking about that one scene, way more coverage than we give anything else in the movie. Which editors did what or what other activities you have or haven't engaged in is irrelevant. My balancing material covers the same topic your paragraph does: D'Souza's prosecution and his contention that it's selective. Whether it mentions the movie or not is as irrelevant as the fact that one of your own sentences and its source don't mention the film. It's unclear what distinction you're trying to make between a movie referencing something and covering it, or why you feel such a distinction would be rooted in policy. That you spent a paragraph covering the topic, more than any other topic we cover from the movie, proves you believe it's a topic meriting extensive coverage, and not something tangential like Matt Damon's life history (weak straw man). At least you concede your quotes are partisan, underscoring the glaring WP:NPOV violation at play in only quoting them while deleting quotes from the other side. VictorD7 (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I didn't delete any quotes from the "other side" because no quotes have been supplied offering a different view/interpretation of that scene. You haven't given any "balancing" material. So your accusation of misconduct regarding NPOV is egregiously false. Also, I didn't concede that my quotes are partisan. I've only said that the writers are partisan, that doesn't mean their material is partisan or that the quotes are partisan. Also, the Matt Damon example is known as an "extreme example", it's not a strawman because I didn't say that you were trying to argue for the inclusion of a biography of Damon's life. I can give you a link to logical fallacies if you think you'd find that helpful in correctly identifying and understanding the difference. It's still not a violation of undue weight as we've listed other alternative responses and this is just one of many alternative responses. There is nothing dictating what the responses have to be about.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the topic is what the scene covers, which is the same topic the balancing paragraph covers. I'm not sure why you're insisting that only the writers, and not their opinionated quotes, are partisan. Clearly bias is something to consider when evaluating subjective opinions from people on a movie and filmmaker they strongly politically oppose. Adding a paragraph focusing on D'Souza's legal (and marital) problems and ridiculing his contention of selective prosecution as "pathetic" while deleting comments supporting his contention leaves the article in clear and blatant violation of WP:NPOV. My assessment of the "Damon" life history hypothetical as a straw man argument was correct because it bears no relationship to what's being discussed here. My paragraph, which only consists of two quotes, btw, directly focuses on the topic raised in the movie, and in fact is even more on topic than your plea bargain sentence is. As for being undue weight, you have yet to explain why D'Souza's legal issues merit an entire paragraph of coverage, more so than anything else covered in the movie. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the paragraph focuses on the ending scene in the movie and offers interpretations on what the scene was a reference to. Your partially right about the Damon example. It bears no relationship to what we're discussing here, just like the paragraphs you tried to add. The paragraph I added discusses the ending scene of the movie, yours doesn't, just like the Matt Damon example doesn't. Hence why it's an extreme example, because it shares the same logical concepts that you used to justify your inclusion of your material, and is clearly absurd and irrelevant for inclusion just like the material you supplied. That's how an extreme example works, and that's completely different from a strawman argument. Scoobydunk (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the Damon hypothetical was a straw man argument because it involved principles totally different from this case: expounding on the life history of someone briefly mentioned in the movie; covering material not covered by the movie that has nothing to do with its focus (an extreme tangent). That's not what I'm arguing. By contrast, I added two quotes commenting directly on D'Souza's "prosecution" and its "selective" nature, the exact same words the sources use to describe what the movie covers. If anything, your plea bargain sentence is slightly closer to being off topic than my material. The MOS guidelines I've repeatedly quoted simply mention that commentary on "topics" covered by the movie are allowed. There's no requirement that a "scene" has to be directly referenced in the commentary.VictorD7 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the Damon hypothetical is an extreme example and does share the same logical principles for inclusion that your material does. You say you get to include yours under MoS guidelines because the ending scene was a reference to his criminal behavior. I'm saying, by that reasoning, I get to include material relating to Matt Damon. So I can include quotes discussing his acting feats and his humanitarian efforts because he was referenced in the film and you think this is enough to establish a "topic" covered by the film. That's called an extreme example because the logical arguments for the inclusion of both of them are identical. Here you're trying to arbitrarily pretend that his prosecution constitutes as an actual topic while quoting and discussing Damon doesn't, and there is no logical consistency there. This example shows that merely referencing something doesn't mean it was actually a topic of the movie and that it doesn't necessitate inclusion on the WP article. Whatever argument you want to apply to the exclusion of quotes discussing Matt Damon and equally be applied to your quotes discussing his prosecution.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the analogy fails because the balancing material focuses directly on the topic covered in the movie, D'Souza's selective prosecution, within the same scope as the movie, and the same topic covered by your initial paragraph for that matter, while your Damon hypothetical is likely untenable because of the extra stuff you want to add that has no relationship to what the movie discussed. There's nothing arbitrary about citing D'Souza's "selective prosecution" as a topic when the sources use those exact words to describe what was in the movie. Of course, even though it is covered in the movie, the material could still violate UNDUE and/or neutrality, as your paragraph does. All the other quotes in the section cover the movie generally, and yet you've added two quotes (and originally another news sentence you've since deleted) singling out D'Souza's prosecution for special, detailed emphasis. VictorD7 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the extreme example is valid because neither are topics covered by the movie, they are merely referenced by the movie. I don't remember you supplying a quote that says his selective prosecution was a "topic" of the movie and that's the point. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we're discussing qualitatively different arguments, not differences of degree, you've provided no basis for your attempt to draw a distinction between a movie "referenc(ing)" a topic and "cover(ing)" it, especially since you posted an entire paragraph on the topic the movie "referenced", when no other specific topic gets mentioned at all in the Critical response section. VictorD7 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are qualitatively the same arguments and if you want to refute that then you're the one who has to prove the distinction, not just assert it. I've only said that I don't agree that simply referencing something counts as a "topic covered by the movie". This doesn't mean i have to define what a "topic" is, as it's not my place to do so. You're the one trying to define what a "topic" is, so you can include irrelevant commentary under MoS Guidelines. You say your "experts" discuss a topic of the movie, and I say that it's not a topic the same way Matt Damon isn't a "topic" of the movie. If you want to refute that argument/extreme example, then you have to prove/explain how yours is a topic and Damon isn't. All you've done thus far is assert that they're different, but you haven't substantiated it. Furthermore, the paragraph I added is a direct commentary of a scene of the movie. It wasn't added under the guidelines you're trying to argue for the inclusion of your material. So whether the ending scene of the movie is a legitimate "topic" or not doesn't matter for my inclusion, because my inclusion doesn't hinge on that particular guideline.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I've already explained how commentary on topics not covered by the film (e.g. something from Damon's boyhood) is qualitatively different from commentary on topics covered by the film (D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution). You're the one trying to draw a distinction between the film "simply referencing" something and covering it, without even explaining what you mean, much less justifying your assertion in policy or fact. The burden is on you to do so since it's your argument. Guidelines make no distinction, simply referring to "topics covered by the film", though historical/scientific examples given later on the page indicate such topics can be narrow and detailed (as long as policy on DUE emphasis isn't violated). The meaning of "topics covered by the movie" should be obvious to reasonable, good faith editors employing the "common sense" guidelines suggest. The sources comment on lots of topics in the film, but you cherry-picked this one to post an entire paragraph about, the only film topic that receives specific coverage in the section, so clearly you felt it was a very important topic, and not just a minor detail the film merely referenced in passing.VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, here you're conflating your use of MoS Guidelines with my simply adding criticism relevant to the film. I never said that D'Souza's criminal conduct was a "topic" of a film. The burden of proof is on you to prove that his criminal prosecution was a "topic" of the film since that's the criteria you tried to use to include your information. I simply said that I don't believe a movie merely referencing something qualifies as a "topic covered by the film" which was a rebuttal to your assertion that it was a topic. I further demonstrated why merely referencing something doesn't constitute as a "topic" with my Damon example and how absurd it would be to use that movie reference to springboard into a paragraph about Matt Damon. You've yet to prove that his criminal prosecution is actually a "topic covered by the film", you've merely asserted it is and have merely asserted that it's different from my Damon example, though it's not.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I've explained why your position is wrong on multiple levels. If you don't believe that D'Souza's prosecution is a topic covered by the film, that makes you singling it out for special, extensive, detailed coverage when no other events "referenced" by the film get specifically mentioned in the section an even more outrageous WP:NPOV violation. You can't eat your cake and have it too; posting a paragraph about the topic and then denying it's a topic covered by the movie as an excuse to delete any balancing material an editor adds. VictorD7 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I've explained why your position is wrong on multiple levels. My inclusion has nothing to do with his criminal conduct being a topic of the film, it has to do with an interpretation and criticism of a scene in the movie. That's why my material is included under different rules/guidelines and why you had to attempt to use an obscure policy from MoS guidelines to try and include yours. It's also not NPOV, as I haven't prevented other interpretations of the scene from being added nor removed any information/interpretations about other scenes of the movie. So you can scream "NPOV" as much as you want, but that doesn't make it true.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, everything you repeated here has been debunked, and you can't just make up your own self serving rules as you go along. You've failed to present any guideline restricting commentary to scenes (as opposed to "topics covered", which is what the guidelines actually say). You've also failed to justify adding an entire paragraph about the D'Souza prosecution "scene" when no other quote in the section comments on a specific scene, much less a totally one sided paragraph sourced entirely from what you admit are partisan bloggers, a clear WP:NPOV violation. You haven't even tried to articulate an argument for doing so from an article quality standpoint.VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What rationale is there for deleting Christian Toto's review?

In accordance with an earlier talk page agreement to include a positive review, I added this one from Breitbart reviewer Christian Toto, but it was deleted on the grounds that it's supposedly a "questionable" source. This is despite four of the other section quotes coming from The AV Club, which is operated by the satirical website The Onion, the opinion blog rogerebert.com, and two partisan Huffington Post columns (HuffPo is a news/opinion site; the liberal equivalent of Breitbart).

Toto is a professional film critic who is frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes. He wrote for the Washington Times for years, and was hired by Breitbart a couple of years ago as a columnist, associate entertainment editor, and feature reviewer. This particular review was cited in newspaper coverage. I'll note that a different Breitbart Toto piece has also been used to source the article's Molen quote this whole time without noticeable objection.

Since we're dealing with attributed subjective opinions here, there's absolutely no legitimate basis for excluding Breitbart or Toto as sources, especially given the other sources used throughout the section. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is a questionable source on multiple grounds. The reliability of other sources is irrelevant to the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source. WP:QS and WP:Aboutself clearly provide a legitimate basis for excluding questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, consistency is vital to WP:NPOV. I'd like to get your position on the section's other sources on the record, especially since you personally added the Huffington Post quotes. Even if Breitbart is questionable (which I dispute), and we embrace your interpretation that QS prohibits even covering attributed quotes from sources in subjective film review sections or other places where such quotes are deemed appropriate according to content guidelines (which I also dispute), the expert exception would clearly apply here, given Toto's resume. Quoting from the Self-published sources section: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If the exception applies to self published sources, it certainly extends to merely "questionable" sources too, as long as we're confident the source accurately relays the quote. VictorD7 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Have we not been through the problems with Breitbart before? Here and on WP:RSN? And Breitbart isn't Huffingtonpost. In most situations, Huffingtonpost is considered WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

By you, perhaps, but many others disagree that Huff Po, much less The Onion (which operates the The AV Club), are any more reliable than Breitbart. Besides, reliability is always context specific and this particular review hasn't been discussed before. You also didn't address my expert exception argument. VictorD7 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That quote pertains to self published work not to questionable sources. But, before we evaluate that further, be sure to included your evidence that he's an established expert on this movie and prove that he has had work formerly published in a reliable source regarding this movie. The reliability of other sources doesn't change the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Without conceding that's a requirement, did you see the link in my op to the New Orleans Times Picayune article citing and quoting from Toto's America review? Also, why do you think the expert exception would apply to self published material but not material published by a "questionable" source? Finally, evaluating the other sources is vital because we must be consistent. We can't single out one source for removal based on a rationale that would apply equally or more so to the others in the section, especially if the source removed is the only one in the section representing its side in a dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Christian being quoted in a reliable source doesn't mean that his work was published by a reliable third party publisher. It wasn't his work that was published, it was the work of the author who merely referenced a bunch of different quotes reviewing the movie. One clear reason why that portion wouldn't appear in WP:QS has to do with biased narrative. If a well reputed expert who has been published in reliable third party sources decides to write and publish their own book, we know that it's strictly his opinion free from outside bias and narrative. A questionable source still can inflict bias, thus distorting the author's/expert's ideal intent and conflating their own narrative. It has to do with writing for yourself as opposed to writing for a trash-talking, name-smearing, propagandized questionable source. That's one difference. The rationale for Breitbart.com's removal does not equally apply to others because the others aren't determined to be questionable sources. However, if you disagree you're free to open a noticeboard discussion for each of those sources to determine if they are questionable or not. Their status as questionable or reliable sources doesn't change the fact that Breitbart.com is a questionable source. If those other sources are deemed to be questionable sources then WP:QS will apply to them as well. Scoobydunk (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, while there is currently not a consensus to add this review, there is certainly no consensus that Breitbart is "questionable". That's just your argument against it. I'm asking for your opinion of the other section sources I listed as well. I think your interpretation of the expert exception is incorrect. Although it appears in the "Self-published sources" section, it would logically apply to merely "questionable" sources too, as long as we were confident that the author really said what's being attributed to him. Bias wouldn't be a reason for excluding an opinion on sourcing grounds. I'll remind you that biased sources are explicitly endorsed by guidelines: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." As for Toto, of course a newspaper article covering the reception isn't going to republish an entire review. But the fact that his reviews (including this one) are covered and quoted in media sources we all deem reliable shows that reliable sources consider his views worth covering, and they certainly accept that Breitbart accurately represents what he says. I'll add that I'm already in the process of soliciting fresh opinions on these issues. VictorD7 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Christian Toto does not appear notable and that is generally a requirement for using a SPS - the author has previously established him/her self as a relevant subject matter expert/influential opinionista/etc. and so their views may be appropriate to include whether or not they have gone through third party oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, notability simply means someone has (or merits) his own article, and isn't the same thing as expertise. The MOS guidelines make this clear when they state, "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." "Notable persons" and "experts" are listed as two distinct categories, and I know of no policy limiting the expert exception to those who have their own Wikipedia articles. Of course Toto is a professional film critic anyway, so the point should be considered moot, and I'll note that none of those quoted in the primary critical response section are notable in the sense of having their own Wikipedia articles, though Toto should and likely will have an article at some point.VictorD7 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose to establish any claim of Toto's "expertise"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Refer to my op. If being regularly published in a newspaper with national reach, belonging to a professional media organization with a televised awards show, and having one's reviews cited alongside other prominent critics in other media outlets doesn't establish expertise as a film critic, I'm not sure what you feel would. Of course I don't think the expert exception is even necessary in this case. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know what I think about the other sources, then open up a reliable source noticeboard topic and I'll tell you. Also, logically, if the expert portion of self published did apply to WP:QS then it would be listed in WP:QS. Wikipedia has no problem repeating similar rules/procedures in multiple sections and is redundant on many occasions, so if that material was not included in WP:QS, then there was a reason behind it. I gave a logical explanation of what that reason is, and it wasn't about personal bias, it was about editorial bias which can manipulate and change the true intentions of the writer. Furthermore, the New Orleans newspaper article you gave was a work created by the author of the article, it wasn't a work of Toto's, so it doesn't meet that requirement anyway. Just because Ken Ham was quoted in a scientific journal, doesn't mean Ken Ham has "works published" in a scientific journal and now he can be quoted along side scientists that have actually had their work published by reliable third party sources. Your argument derived from that reviews quoting of Toto is also not sufficient to merit inclusion. Newspapers quote people all the time, like in the aftermath of a natural disaster, that doesn't mean those random people now get to have all of their thoughts on any range of subjects included on WP.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Toto has had many articles published in the Washington Times and other outfits. I just cited the frequent Rotten Tomatoes citations and the newspaper coverage of this particular review to show that mainstream media deemed it worthy of such coverage, alongside other prominent critics. Such coverage isn't "required", but it underscores the lack of reasons for us to exclude his review on alleged sourcing grounds. On the expert exception rule I explained why your "bias" argument falls short (and unless the author has a gun to his head he endorses his own words, regardless of where they're published). I started a section asking whether the expert exception applies only to self published sources or also to merely questionable ones on the talk page, where some of the editors most experienced with examining and shaping the policy post regularly, and so far every respondent to address the issue agrees that it applies to questionable sources generally, as long we're confident the source accurately relays what the author wrote. Of course your earthquake analogy is invalid. We aren't quoting Toto's opinion on sunspots or calculus, but as a film reviewer, just like the paper did. I'm not sure why you won't answer the question about the other sources here on this talk page, especially since you personally added at least a couple of them to the article. It would be silly and inefficient for us to switch to a different page for me to ask you these questions. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't explain why my "bias" argument fails and you didn't even exhibit a comprehension of it. It has nothing to do with the WP policy you listed, as I'm well aware that bias is acceptable so long as it's attributed to the source. That policy doesn't address what I explained, that a source's bias could compromise the actual work/opinions of an expert. So a questionable source like Breitbart.com has a clearly biased narrative and authors who are published in the source have to tailor their content to fit the biased narrative of the source. It's possible that even in the editorial process that editors can change and compromise what the author actually wrote to fit the bias of the source. That's just another possible reason why the expert exception doesn't apply to WP:QS.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that you still haven't answered my question about whether you consider the other sources in the section questionable. I understood your argument just fine, but perhaps you didn't understand my post. You're conflating two different concepts: bias in the column and accuracy in relaying what the author said. I agree the latter is vital, but that's obviously not an issue here. There's no evidence Breitbart is lying about Toto writing what it attributes to him. Bias isn't an issue either. Biased content can exist for countless reasons, including in an expert's self published work. As long as he isn't being coerced into writing something for a source against his will, he's responsible for his words, whether he's skewing his work for money, politics, or some other motive. That the expert exception to self published works exists at all shows such potential bias isn't the concern of verifiability policy. An expert's reputation would be on the line even in self/questionable published works, and we're to cover such opinions regardless of whether we personally agree with them or not. Of course I dispute your claim that Breitbart is "questionable" to begin with, and the fact that other media outlets treat Breitbart as a reliable source for Toto's words should put any concerns you have on that score to rest.VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that you still haven't informed me of a relevant noticeboard topic about the sources you inquire. I'm not conflating anything, the policy you referenced has no relevance to the possible reason I gave why the expert exception doesn't appear in WP:QS. So you're mentioning it had no relevance to what I was saying and didn't refute what I said. All you've offered to counter my example are baseless assertions like "I agree the latter is vital, but that's obviously not an issue here." This is not obvious and this is exactly the problem I'm referring to, that the conservative and biased nature of the questionable source can compromise the author's work. Regardless, the fact remains that it's not a part of WP:QS.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you've refused to answer the question on the record about whether you think the section's other highly opinionated (and biased) sources are "questionable" (including the ones you personally added), given how vital consistency is to neutrality, and you never did explain why a noticeboard would be necessary for you to offer your opinion since we're already discussing the issue here, but I appreciate you taking the time to offer your opinions on the topics where you did feel like doing so. Of course you conflated the issues I say you did; your own previous post said it's possible "that editors can change and compromise what the author actually wrote to fit the bias of the source", which is what I referenced in my last reply and which we have no reason to believe happened with Breitbart and Toto here. As for publisher bias causing a writer to alter his own expressed judgment, you've presented no evidence of that either, and certainly no reason to assume that's more likely in Breitbart's case than with the biased Huffington Post, The Onion site, Reuters (a long history of documented bias with occasions of journalistic fraud, including doctoring photos to make it appear Israel was carpet bombing Lebanon when it wasn't), or the very liberal and entirely opinionated rogerebert.com. For that matter such bias could conceivably be introduced through sheer peer pressure and affect even self published sources. Bias is too complex an issue to regulate, which is likely why policy doesn't prohibit sources for "bias", but explicitly allows their use. That Toto is a conservative makes it highly unlikely that any such pressure from Breitbart would be needed for him to review a conservative film from a non-leftist perspective. You seem to be arguing that conservative sources are inherently unacceptable, while liberal ones are fine (your silence and use of them effectively imply they're fine), which is a blatant, classic violation of WP:NPOV.VictorD7 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I follow WP guidelines and policies and argue that questionable sources are not reliable. Regardless of how hard you try, questionable sources can't be used unless as a source about themselves.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, an attributed opinion is material about itself, and you've only applied your opinion of questionable source policy to one source you politically oppose, refusing to state your opinion about the section's other sources, including the ones you added.VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, an attributed opinion is just an attributed opinion, it does not become a topic in and of itself. So you can't take opinions from questionable sources and plaster them all over the evolution wikipedia article and pretend that since they are direct quotes/opinions that they are material about themselves and can be included in an article on evolution. They could only be used on an article about the author of that opinion or an article about the published material. Those would be examples about "topics about itself."Scoobydunk (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, policy says questionable sources are "usually limited to articles about themselves or their activities", not "only" as you assert. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether a quoted opinion is material about the opinion holder, but inclusion of opinions is properly governed by DUE and other aspects of WP:NPOV, not QS Verification policy, which is why quoted, subjective opinions from non-questionable sources aren't haphazardly plastered all over evolution or other articles either.VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard unanimously states that Breitbart is RS in this case

I put the question to the RS noticeboard. While only two editors posted replies, they both agreed that Breitbart is reliable for sourcing its own attributed film review, and importantly the section remained on the board for several days and no one posted to disagree. There likely weren't more respondents because the question seemed like an easy open and shut case that had already been answered. Hopefully this causes the editor arguing otherwise here to reconsider.

I'll add that I sought fresh input on questionable source policy from the Verifiability talk page. Everyone who addressed the issue agreed with me that QS doesn't prohibit sources simply for relying heavily on opinion when the section in question calls for attributed opinions, specifically regarding film reviews. In one section I engaged Blueboar, who has edited the Verifiability page regularly for years and has been involved in the discussions that shaped QS policy. Here's the most pertinent portion of our discussion:

Me: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but if being "questionable" depends on context, it sounds like you're saying "QS" is not grounds for automatically rejecting Breitbart.com from ever being used as a source for a properly attributed quote from its own film review in the appropriate section of a movie article, especially if the author is a prominent and widely cited professional film critic (like Christian Toto), and that such inclusion decisions should be dictated by factors like DUEWEIGHT. Is that a fair takeaway?" VictorD7 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar (ellipses his): "No you essentially have it correct... we should never automatically reject any source. However, that does not mean we should automatically accept it either. Questionable sources are called "questionable" because they should be questioned... but the answer to the question will be different, depending on the specifics. The same source may be deemed reliable in one context, and completely unreliable in another context." Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Though it should be unnecessary in this case, I also started a section asking if the expert exception rule applied only to self published sources or to other types of questionable sources, and most respondents thought it applied generally to questionable sources as long as editors are confident the source accurately relays what it attributes to the author. VictorD7 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the two who responded on the reliable sources noticeboard said that Breitbart.com is a reliable source. One cited the "Be Bold" part of editing, which you were and it was contested as a questionable source among other things. The other didn't say anything about breitbart.com's reliability and only commented on opinions not being "bad news sources" or "good news sources". The second place you listed as seeking a "fresh" input was a response from a single person which you decided to represent as "everyone". Furthermore, Shapiro is not established or recognized as an expert and his comment specifically dealt with the notion that the person in question was an expert. On top of that, Blueboars comment doesn't support your argument. Questionable sources can be used as reliable sources on articles or topics about themselves. This is clearly stated in the WP:QS policy and directly relates to what Blueboar is speaking to. Lastly, most respondents didn't think the expert exception applied to QS. Only the first person who responded couldn't find a reason to disagree, while most others disagreed and explained why. Darkfrog, myself, and Zero were all editors who responded directly to your question and didn't agree with extending the expert exception to quetionable sources. As a matter of fact, Zero said "In summary, it is only in the definitely self-published case that the word of an expert is reliable on its own merits. No change to the policy." This in no way, shape, or form supports you assertion. Breitbart.com is a questionable source and its use is limited to articles about itself, as WP:QS specifically states. Also WP:FORUMSHOPPING is greatly frowned upon on Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This section is about Toto and his film review, not "Shapiro", though extensive evidence establishing both as experts has been provided. Apparently you became confused about which topic we're discussing. Both noticeboard respondents endorsed its use, the first even suggesting I find a second "non-liberal" source to further balance an obviously skewed article, and the second explicitly (and independently) stating the same position on sourcing policy that I hold: "Opinions properly sourced and cited as opinions are not related to "bad news source" or "good news source" - they stand on their own." Again, no one posted to disagree, which is telling. You were the one who repeatedly suggested putting Breitbart.com to the RS noticeboard, so I did. That you don't like the result isn't grounds for flatly dismissing it, and certainly falsely accusing me of "forum shopping" is unwarranted. Two editors are deadlocked and Wikipedia policy clearly favors inviting outside input, as did you. Wikipedia also frowns on false accusations of policy violations. I went to the Verifiability policy page due to your repeated invoking of Verifiability policy as an excuse to exclude the Breitbart review (hardly random or unrelated), and due to our fundamentally different policy interpretations. Your characterization of the responses is false. Blueboar's comments (and comments by others) there and elsewhere directly support my position. I just quoted a portion of them, but readers can click on the link and read the full exchange for themselves. Also, policy says that questionable sources are "usually limited to articles about themselves or their activities", not completely "limited to articles about itself" as you claim. Blueboar went so far as to say ""questionable" often depends on context", and specifically cited the example of Charles Krauthammer as an acceptable pundit commentator on a topic. He clearly wasn't talking about an article on Krauthammer, so your characterization of his comments is not accurate in any way, shape, or form. Nor is your implication that I'm representing a "single person" as "everyone". The editor who responded directly to my own initial section explicitly about our QS policy disagreement on attributed opinions, Brian Josephson, completely agreed with me (no one disagreed) and started his own section suggesting a policy text change for clarity. Likewise, your description of the expert exception discussion is totally false. A Quest for Knowledge agreed with me. Darkfrog24 just said that stuff from a questionable source should be properly attributed, which is my position. TFD agreed with my position, stating that "Self-published sources are a type of questionable source", later saying that the established, peer reviewed physicist and Creationist John Hartnett could have his views published by Creationist websites (rather than peer reviewed articles) quoted via the expert exception, but that inclusion should be dictated by how "fringe" they are (DUE WEIGHT) rather than source verification policy, which is exactly my position. The only editor apart from you to hint at disagreement with my position was Zero, and even his objection was limited to a concern that the source accurately transmits the words of the author they're attributed to, which isn't a concern in this Breitbart/Toto case (I also wasn't suggesting a change to policy there, but rather a clarification; Zero never responded to my reply). Even in this new section on questionable sources, three people seem to be disagreeing with you, and no one has posted to agree with you, which should at least give you pause and cause to reconsider your general interpretation of policy. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Alan Dershowitz quote and other material supporting D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution should be restored to maintain NPOV.

An entire paragraph was added to the "other responses" section focusing on D'Souza's prosecution. It elevated that topic into receiving more article coverage than any other scene in the movie, and wasn't just artistic film critique, but commentary on D'Souza personally. It was also mostly sourced to liberal Huffington Post opinion writers and was totally one sided, anti-D'Souza POV. To maintain section neutrality, I added a balancing paragraph consisting of quotes from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and the Washington Times editorial staff supporting D'Souza's claim of selective prosecution, which is dismissed and ridiculed by the Huffington Post writers in the aforementioned initial paragraph. The balancing paragraph was deleted, but the original POV paragraph remains.

The closest thing to a coherent rationale given for this was that the second paragraph doesn't directly mention this movie, but neither does one of the sentences in the original paragraph that covers D'Souza's legal proceedings (added by the same poster who removed the balancing paragraph). Furthermore, no policy has been provided mandating that every sentence has to directly mention this movie to be relevant to the topic. The Manual of Style Film Guidelines state that "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited" (emphasis mine). This would reasonably be considered especially true if said topic has already been elevated in page importance by the existing paragraph on it.

There's no legitimate reason to exclude notable expert commentary on an issue already being given extensive (if one sided) coverage, and the current skew grossly violates WP:NPOV. It's especially problematic since it covers the legal issues of a living person, calling WP:BLP treatment into play. Either the initial paragraph should be deleted or the balancing material should be restored. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The material you added didn't provide balance and you admit you included it under a completely different premise. If it actually provided balance then you wouldn't have to use MoS guidelines to merit its inclusion because it would already be directly relevant to the film as an alternative response. Your material isn't a response to the film, and therefore offers no balance to other interpretations or criticisms regarding the ending scene of the movie. I'm more than happy to include other interpretations or comments on the ending scene of the movie from reliable sources, but the sources you added didn't do that. Balance is about representing all sides of a topic and the topic in the paragraph I provided is the ending scene of the movie and the interpretations from political writers about that scene. One said it could be an apology for his criminal behavior, the other said it was a an attempt to excuse his extra marital affair and criminal behavior. The information you added do not address the topic of the ending scene of the movie and therefore have no relevance to that topic and don't provide the "balance" you claim they do.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You just admitted that your partisan quotes use the film as a launching pad to expound speculatively on D'Souza personally, beyond the scope of the movie. My material added balance by supporting rather than ridiculing and dismissing his claim of selective prosecution (not sure how the alleged infidelity thing got into your blogger's quote; he was separated from his wife at the time, btw, and I'm not sure he's ever blamed Obama for that), and would be allowable anyway from a guidelines standpoint as standalone commentary on a topic covered in the film (what I actually "admit(ted)", or more correctly have always maintained). If I had added the Dershowitz paragraph first, without your anti-D'Souza paragraph being there, one might have argued for removing it on undue emphasis/NPOV grounds, not relevance. There's nothing in policy or logic mandating that balancing material mention the film just because the initial paragraph tangentially mentions it before launching into broad personal attacks and a sentence on the legal issues that don't mention the film anyway. It's also unclear what balancing material you would have accepted according to your own rules you've set up anyway, since you apparently see all conservative opinion sites as "questionable", but are happy to quote what you admit in the above section are "partisan" writers' opinions from liberal opinion sites like the Huffington Post. VictorD7 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I admitted that the political writers are partisan, and even then, I'm pretty sure I was just adopting your language. Your paragraph has no relevance to the film, so it does not "balance" a paragraph that discusses a scene in the film. I've already explained what would be acceptable in terms of "balance", and that would be other interpretations of the ending scene or other criticism/commentary on other scenes of the movie. The main problem is your misinterpretation of the material I've added. You perceive it as a "anti-D'Souza paragraph" and think that justifies you adding a bunch of "pro-D'Souza" propaganda not relevant to the movie. This is a false equivalency. The paragraph is a criticism about a scene in the movie, it is not just random D'Souza bashing. It specifically speaks to his use of the scene, what it could possibly be a reference to, and their opinions on the scene and D'Souza's use of it. The political affiliations of the writers doesn't matter and suggesting every analysis of every scene of the film must have a liberal and conservative point of view is a false dichotomy.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We agree that your quotes start by mentioning the film and use that as a springboard from which to comment on D'Souza personally. My paragraph is relevant to the film because it directly comments on a topic which I've proved (with multiple sources, per your earlier request) the film covers. It's also relevant because of the quotes you added, just like your plea bargain sentence/source that doesn't mention the movie. You added that segment for "context" and "more information" (your words), and I added mine for the same reasons (in addition to balance). If anything my paragraph speaks more directly to the claims in the movie than your plea bargain sentence does. Also, I've interpreted your material correctly; of course it's an anti-D'Souza paragraph (roughly speaking), and certainly the (admitted) political biases of those quoted matter. Also, balance, in accordance with WP:NPOV, means covering all sides of an issue, not necessarily precise symmetry. The differing sides don't necessarily have to be diametrically opposed. Just because you add a paragraph with a certain angle doesn't mean other editors are bound and restricted in what they can add by the way in which you shaped the discussion. No one has suggested that "every analysis of every scene" must have both liberal and conservative points of view, but in an article about an explicitly political documentary both broad political perspectives should certainly be appropriately represented, and on this article they aren't. That said, half of the two quotes I added are from Alan Dershowitz, a famous liberal, hardly a conservative. His perspective on the topic you chose to write an entire paragraph about merits inclusion. VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please point out where you have "proved" your content is movie related? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here, with quotes in another section. To be precise, I said I had proved that the content covers a topic that the movie (and the proceeding paragraph for that matter) covers, namely D'Souza's prosecution and his characterization of it as politically selective.VictorD7 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

this? " the fact that even showing him in handcuffs, which your own quote references, proves the topic of his indictment was covered in the movie." -- i dont think you made the case at all. Say there is a movie about the explosion of Mt Etna. There are lots of scientific papers about the explosion of Mt Etna. We, however, cannot take those scientific papers about the actual explosion of Mt Etna in the article about the film portrayal of Mt Etna because doing so would be taking the sources and applying them to a completely different context than what the authors had made themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue was whether the movie covered D'Souza's prosecution and his characterization that it was selective. You left out these: From John Fund's piece, "D’Souza includes in the film a brief section on his legal troubles; in this, he clearly conveys his view that he was selectively prosecuted." Here's another example from the Journal Sentinel: "To his credit, D'Souza does mention his own arrest for illegal political contributions ("I made a mistake and I am not above the law") but implies it was because of a previous film critical of Obama." Even the currently used HuffPo Berkowitz quote directly references D'Souza's "suggestion that his own criminal conviction" is "the result of political targeting" in the film. Also, material providing appropriate "context" for other statements is allowed, which is why the currently existing paragraph in the article includes a sentence on D'Souza's plea bargain that doesn't mention the movie. SYNTH doesn't remotely apply here. While this isn't the same situation, even in your volcano example guidelines say that, "If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license." VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the issue is : "Are the sources discussing the subject of the article?". If they are not, we cannot use them. The subject of this article is a movie. If the sources are not discussing this movie, we cannot use them, no matter how much we would like to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, as quoted in the op, the guidelines state that "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited; that's "topics" plural, so it's clearly not limited to just the movie itself as a subject. I'll add that your link is to a non binding essay, and, if anything, COATRACK would apply to the existing paragraph that creates the undue emphasis on D'Souza's legal issues to begin with. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You kind of skipped over the context provided by the heading "Critical response" and in the previous sentences " Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. " Non film critics responses to the film may be quoted if they are talking about the film, not just talking about the topic covered in the film. There is nothing in that section giving permission to WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you that any of this is WP:SYN, and think that the meaning of "aspects" is informed by the subsequent segment on "topics covered by the film", but my only followup questions to you are these: Do you oppose the sentence currently in the article detailing D'Souza's plea bargain that doesn't mention the film? Do you consider the current paragraph focusing on his legal issues to be COATRACK or undue emphasis compared to the (non)coverage the section gives other individual topics covered by the film? VictorD7 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not every scene in any movie is of the same value note importance and reception of coverage and analysis by third parties. We follow the sources in determining what sections may or may not be worthy of addressing. Authorial / autobiographical/ semi-autobiographical content within a work or presentation is a standard subject of third party analysis and it appears in this case that this scene and the autobiographical link has been deemed one of the sections most worthy of discussion and analysis and so it would be WP:NPOV for us NOT to cover it more heavily than other sections of the film which have NOT received as much coverage and commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually what you claim hasn't been established at all; in fact most reviews I've seen barely if it all mention the scene, focusing instead on the more salient themes of the movie. Regardless, we aren't talking about one scene getting more coverage than others here, but the topic of D'Souza's prosecution getting a whole (one sided) paragraph when other specific scenes get no coverage at all in the Critical response section, every other quote commenting on the movie generally rather than specific topics. That's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. But at least we now seem to agree that his prosecution is a topic covered by the movie.VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep talking about his prosecution, but this article is about the film. We are covering the film and the analysis of the film. Period. Not what people have said about the incident outside of the context of the film. It is that simple. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually WP:COATRACK applies more to the existing paragraph: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality has been written to make a point about a tangential subject....Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected. Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed."VictorD7 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You have shown no evidence that there is anything coatrackish about discussing his appearance in the film and how it relates to real life. Such analysis of authorial insertion are part of the bread and butter of critical analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've shown quotes from the page and observed how the paragraph singling out his arrest, prosecution, and marital issues for a paragraph of commentary when no other scene is even mentioned in the section is a textbook case of using the movie (the nominal subject) as an excuse to post extensive, one sided, negative material about the filmmaker personally, which certainly comes a lot closer to the COATRACK definition you raised than the balancing paragraph does.VictorD7 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And again you have shown nothing of the kind. Some scenes in films are more worthy of comment than others. "I'm melting! Oh, what a world!" "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!" "Stella!!!!". That commentary has focused on the standard analysis point of authorial insertion means nothing other than the authorial insertion has been found worth commenting upon as is usually the case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. That I've shown the quotes I said I have is undeniable. Regarding your point, the material has only been "found" worthy of the commentary posted by the couple of admittedly partisan bloggers who wrote said commentary, hardly a suitable Wikipedia standard.VictorD7 (talk)

You've provided sources saying that the ending referenced his criminal conduct, not saying that it was actually a topic of the film. Furthermore, the quotes you added don't provide balance in an interpretation of the ending scene of the film, which is what the quotes I've included address. So your quotes don't merit inclusion in the article sense they don't expand on the movie and are not relevant to it. If my inclusion of the length of time to be served as dictated by the plea deal is such a big deal for you, I'm happy to remove it if you stop trying to insert irrelevant material yourself. No saying mine is irrelevant, but is a compromise I'm willing to make since you keep bringing it up as if it merits the inclusion of your material. It doesn't. Scoobydunk (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep saying "criminal conduct" when I keep saying "prosecution". If you're trying to draw a distinction, I'll note that my balancing material uses the words "prosecution" and "selective prosecution", the exact same wording the sources use to describe what the movie covers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether an item covered by the movie that you deem warrants an entire paragraph of coverage here is a topic covered by the movie, though I see no basis for the distinction you're trying to make in guidelines nor your own editing. I'm not seeking the isolated removal of your plea bargain sentence, and removing it wouldn't be a compromise. I'm pointing out that you adding it in the first place is inconsistent with your assertion that every sentence and source must directly comment on the movie to warrant inclusion. I'd be fine with keeping it as long as the same rules applied to my material. VictorD7 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I say criminal conduct because his conduct is criminal. Since he's already plead guilty, it's not longer "alleged" or simple a "prosecution" it's not a verified fact. I've already explained why I included that single sentence about the length of time he may serve as a result of his plea deal. It's NPOV information that expands on the criminal charges that my sources discuss. Your information is not NPOV on top of not being relevant to the film. However, in terms of being consistent, I have no problem removing, especially since you've been complaining about it nearly every round of posting.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked because the topic covered in both the movie and my balancing paragraph was more his selective prosecution than his activity per se, though they're related and it would be fallacious Wikilawyering to pretend they're different topics, so I'm glad you weren't making a meaningful distinction. I disagree on NPOV. Apart from your remaining two quotes being extremely one sided POV, a neutrally worded hard news sentence can still be POV if it represents skewed coverage compared to the rest of the article. I never specifically opposed the plea bargain sentence's presence and therefore don't see this as "appeasement" (per your edit summary), but it does finally eliminate the inconsistency between its presence and your contention that only segments that directly mention the movie should be allowed (an argument I still disagree with). However, the remaining two sentences about a single item in the movie still represent extremely UNDUE emphasis. Every other quote in the Critical response section is broad and about the film generally. Singling out D'Souza's legal prosecution for special, detailed coverage, especially in completely one sided fashion, violates WP:NPOV.VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, quoting third party sources that discuss and analyze a scene in the movie is not a violation of NPOV, regardless of how much you don't like their analysis. Quoted material does not have to be neutral and is allowed to be biased, and this negative criticism of one of the scenes of the movie is aligned with the majority of reviews. Again, if you have other reliable sources that analyze the ending scene and offer a different perspective, then feel free to add them. However, if your attempting to add "balance" to the topic, the topic of this paragraph is the final scene of the movie, so your inclusion should address the final scene of the movie. Just posting Pro-D'Souza propaganda and conspiracy theories is not "balancing" the interpretation of the ending scene, it's irrelevant POV information.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, NPOV is also governed by the context of the rest of the page, and just because something is properly sourced and about the subject doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the article, no matter how much you like the material. For example, in an article about the sun it would be undue emphasis to spend half the page talking about its impact on skin no matter how well sourced such material is. In a section where all the other quotes are about the movie generally, not specific scenes, the article suddenly veers into a COATRACK paragraph that uses a brief mention of the film as an excuse to expound speculatively on D'Souza's legal and marital issues, attacking him personally. That's a clear and blatant WP:NPOV violation. For the record, I'll add that nothing Dershowitz or the Washington Times said amounts to a "conspiracy theory", and just because the liberal Dershowitz thinks this was a case of selective prosecution doesn't make his assessment "Pro-D'Souza propaganda". VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, NPOV is governed by a wide variety of things not simply the context of the rest of the page. If an entire article was biased propaganda, that doesn't mean more propaganda can be added because it fits "the context of the rest of the page." Clearly if a page is just starting to be written, then it wouldn't have an already set context and therefore NPOV would be based on principles completely separate from context of the article. Regarding the sun/skin example, it would be appropriate to add a paragraph or sub-section about the sun's affect on the skin and my addition was only a paragraph in length, not half the page, so it is keeping in standards commonly practiced on WP articles. The section the paragraph was added in is about alternative reception. These are political writers who criticized D'Souza's ending as an attempt to excuse himself of his criminal misconduct or use it as an awkward apology. It isn't half the page, it's like a 3-4 sentence paragraph that briefly addresses a common political conception about that specific scene in the movie. Again, if you have other criticisms or comments on the scene, feel free to add them. What you added before did not comment on the scene and didn't add a different perspective to the final scene of the movie. So it didn't "balance" anything and only served as a weak red herring argument propagating feeble cries of selective prosecution which have already been dismissed as baseless by the court. Also, WP:Coatrack doesn't pertain to this paragraph because they are directly addressing the topic of the movie and their commentary is about the ending scene of the movie. They don't mention D'Souza as a director of the movie then attack D'Souza about any number of subjects. They DO talk about D'Souza's particular use of this scene and the imagery of the scene which directly relates to the movie/article. Just because another editor showed you a new term, doesn't mean you get to erroneously throw it around everywhere. Your removed paragraph didn't discuss anything about the movie, not even on the surface, and was a clear example of COATRACK and POV. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I never said NPOV is only governed by surrounding context, but that is a major factor, and one that your argument had ignored. The sun/skin example was an (actual) example of an extreme hypothetical to illustrate a principle that does apply here. Your paragraph singles out one brief scene for extensive, one sided, POV commentary when no other quote in the section singles out one scene. This isn't a new section either, but an already well established and arguably too long section. Just because some partisan bloggers vent their hostility toward D'Souza doesn't mean it belongs in this article, especially when it breaks the page's already established pattern, creating a major skew in focus. I've already been familiar with the term "COATRACK" for a long time, have cited it in past discussions, I've used it correctly, and I just explained to your friend (and you) what it actually means, using quotes from the link. Your paragraph is a COATRACK segment that nominally mentions the subject (the film) as an excuse to attack the filmmaker personally with an undue emphasis. COATRACK examples can and typically do discuss the article topic, but that doesn't justify them. Your description of "D'Souza's" contention of selective prosecution as being allegedly "feeble" underscores that my paragraph did balance yours. That the judge didn't toss the prosecution out is irrelevant; it's not a serious legal defense, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and that prominent legal experts like Dershowitz affirm D'Souza's claim is a fact that belongs in the article to balance the one sided POV picture you've painted via partisan bloggers of it being "feeble". Such commentary is allowed by MOS on topics covered by the movie, whether the movie itself is directly mentioned or not, as your own (since reluctantly deleted) plea bargain sentence that didn't mention the film showed. Or, perhaps it would be even better to simply delete the offending paragraph. VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of autobiographical content into creative productions is a standard part of academic critiques of works - the analysis of the authorial self insertion into the climax is clearly an appropriate subject to discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a full paragraph in a section dedicated to brief comments about the movie generally, and that otherwise doesn't mention any specific scenes. That's a classic WP:NPOV violation.VictorD7 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That is just pure bullshit. NPOV does NOT mean every sentence of the film has exactly the same amount of commentary. We cover it as the sources cover it and if the sources focus on a particular scene rather than a different scene that is where we go as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources cover lots of details from the movie, none of which are included in the Critical response section except for the paragraph quoting partisan bloggers attacking D'Souza personally. The only bullshit here is pretending that's not a gross WP:NPOV violation.VictorD7 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "only" and you're the one who "only" mentioned the context of the article when referencing NPOV, which was proven incorrect. None of my edits have ignored WP:NPOV. Your inclusion was an actual example of COATRACK, mine was not. You perceive the quotes I included to be merely attacks against D'Souza, and they're not. They are an interpretation of a scene in his movie and their opinions on that scene and its usage. Also, this is a new sub-section, I was here when it was created. It's far from well "established" and was created for the soul purpose of including non-critic reception, like those from political pundits, into the article. Provided they come from reliable sources and not questionable ones.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You spent time arguing that NPOV is governed by various factors, and "not simply the context of the rest of the page", which I never disputed. However, your earlier argumentation disregarded said context, implying that what mattered was whether the sentences themselves are "neutral" (they aren't anyway). Nothing I said was proved incorrect. You posted a COATRACK of one sided, admittedly partisan opinion painting D'Souza in a negative light, and have deleted balancing material supporting his contention of selective prosecution with facts and expert legal opinion. Period. This is a clear cut and obvious WP:NPOV violation. It's not even close.VictorD7 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't COATRACK, the comments address the movie and scene itself and their opinions of the scene, they don't springboard onto a bunch of irrelevant stuff not related to the film like your inclusion did. That's why your material was actually an example of COATRACK. Also, I didn't delete balancing material, an admin did and I respected his removal. On top of that, it wasn't even balancing material, it was Pro-D'Souza propaganda that had no relevance to the movie and didn't "balance" my information because it didn't even discuss the scene my material covered and didn't offer a different opinion about it.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Addressing the article topic isn't a defense against COATRACK, as my quote explaining what COATRACK means to you proved. Furthermore, my paragraph didn't "springboard" to discuss anything other than the topic of D'Souza's selective prosecution, which the movie directly covered. The current paragraph you dropped did "springboard" from the movie to attack D'Souza personally, and comes a lot closer to any reasonable definition of "propaganda" than anything I posted, especially since it's been left unbalanced. You never did provide a guideline requirement that the movie itself (rather than topics covered) has to be mentioned by every sentence or source. Also, you've endorsed and are arguing for the "admin's" deletion, and it's disingenuous to describe an editor who happens to be an admin but is acting here simply in his capacity as an editor as an "admin", as if to attribute some unwarranted authority to the action. You have, of course, consistently personally deleted opinions in the article that you politically oppose. VictorD7 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to bring article under Discretionary sanctions

Request can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_American_Politics

I'm asking myself if "this is over my paygrade" (?) -- "Battle on!" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to have a chart of interviewed persons from the film

I request that a list of all the people interviewed in the movie be added to this article. It could have a short description of who they are and where they are "pro-admiration" or "pro-condemning" America. -Sorry this was the best spot I could find to add such a request since I my self dont know such facts of the film, but would like to know more about people who were interviewed.

Costco

The Costco section appears to have a blatant pro-D'Souza bias, consists mostly of a quote from D'Souza himself, contained a SYNTH violation which I have just removed, and has no rebuttal from Costco or the many commentators who have basically pointed at D'Souza's accusation and laughed. I've restored the NPOV tag. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the WP:STRUCTURE violation, and the misrepresentation of the source, and the source being a notoriously biased POV shop; it is still probably ok to mention the bru-ha-hah in the article if we address those issues, and i think this is close. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your version is much closer to reality. The only omission is the lack of seriousness with which D'Souza's charges were received outside the wingnut bubble. Here's a characteristic response, from another conservative no less: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/10/dinesh_d_souza_effective_crybaby.html. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A denial from Costco was included in the original, and you were free to add more of a "rebuttal" at any time, including a quote. You added the tag weeks ago and never bothered to follow up with anything, either in the article or this talk page, until today when I deleted the essentially orphaned tag. The current version is unacceptable POV, as it starts by expressing Costco's version as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and is poorly written to boot as it gets the sequence of events wrong with a confused semi-repetition of the "restock" segment. I'll tweak accordingly.VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New NPOV tag

Would adding an explicit quote from Costco alleviate the neutrality concerns? VictorD7 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review? The relevant discussion can be found in the "Christian Toto" talk page section. To summarize, there is agreement to add a positive film review to the otherwise negative Critical response section, but there is disagreement on whether an attributed quote from a film review published by Breitbart.com should be excluded due to Verifiability sourcing policy. The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here.VictorD7 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes - Of course it's reliable for its own attributed opinion ("material about itself"). Even if Breitbart was a "questionable" source, which it's not, that wouldn't automatically prohibit us from covering its own, properly attributed opinion in a film review section explicitly created for covering such subjective opinions. Excluding it on QS grounds while the section currently includes quotes sourced by completely opinionated film blogs, including one (The A.V. Club) operated by the satirical site The Onion, and multiple quotes from Huffington Post bloggers, is especially preposterous. Furthermore, Christian Toto is a well established film reviewer who wrote for the Washington Times for years, is frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes, and has had this particular review cited and quoted at face value in newspaper coverage. He's also a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, which runs an annual televised awards show, and other professional organizations. He's currently employed as an editor/columnist/film reviewer at the news/opinion site Breitbart.com, and there's no question that his words published there are truly his own. Breitbart is a news/opinion site currently ranked #48 among global news sites by Alexa.VictorD7 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • even accepting your contortion that the review of the movie somehow "material about itself" , SPS can only be used about themselves IN ARTICLES ABOUT themselves. so if you think the review is reflective of brietbart.com, then the place would be breitbart.com .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Toto's piece isn't a "SPS" (self published source), and no, even if it was, policy states they are "usually", not "only", "limited to articles about themselves or their activities". Here, given Toto's credentials, the self published exception for experts would apply anyway.VictorD7 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• what is the benefit taking the loophole rather than following the recommended process?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever. We need a pretty compelling reason to employ a contemptible source like Breitbart, with its well-documented history of character assassination and contempt for truth and accuracy, and none has been offered beyond the repeated justification that we merely can. Even if we can employ a source, one must offer an affirmative reason to employ it and develop consensus for that reason. In this case, there are dozens upon dozens of film critics, many of them "frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes", all of them likely members of one Critics Association or another, but there is only one that VictorD7 has been arguing for weeks to include in the article, while offering no compelling reason we should single that critic out above the others who are not currently included. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The reason for inclusion would be that Toto is the most prominent professional film critic to positively review the film (Gamaliel was one of those who agreed to add a positive quote, btw, before finding an excuse to delete a proposed quote from a different positive reviewer named Offer, before Toto was proposed, on the grounds that Offer's site supposedly didn't look professional enough), but the issue here is whether Toto's review in Breitbart must be excluded on sourcing policy grounds. Many people find The Onion and Huffington Post "contemptible" for character assassination and disregard for truth and accuracy, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be excluded on QS grounds from merely having their writers' quoted, attributed opinions covered in a section dedicated to covering such opinions. For the record, there's no "character assassination" in the Toto quote, though there's plenty of it in the Huffington Post blogger quotes currently included in the section.VictorD7 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are we going to rehash the Offer bullshit now? I said from the beginning I was willing to include Offer if someone presented evidence that he was a notable film critic, but you spent days arguing about it without presenting a shred of it, and probably would still be arguing about it today if I hadn't walked away from the discussion. Where is your evidence that Toto is the right-wing Roger Ebert? Again you attempt to draw a false equivalence between a gutter site like Breitbart and the Huffington Post, which for all its flaws, is still a somewhat respected member of the mainstream press corps. And who are these people who find The Onion "contemptible for character assassination"? We should pelt them with rocks and run them out of town back to Shelbyville. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• So much for your frivolous ad hominem claim that there's "only one" I've argued for weeks to include. As for the rest, readers can decide for themselves, though I'll reiterate that the question here is only whether Breitbart.com should be excluded as a source on Verifiability policy grounds, which is the argument currently being used to keep it off the page, not whether you personally like or agree with the site and/or Toto.VictorD7 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Pointing out the obvious evidence on this page is hardly a "frivolous ad hominem claim", but then satire of The Onion isn't "character assassination" either. Despite your attempts to distract the issue with a non sequitur about my opinion, it's been pointed out many, many, many times during discussions related to this article that it is the general reputation of Breitbart that we have been pointing out, and it is this reputation that is what is a key policy issue. WP:RS: "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Breitbart has a reputation for the opposite, and lamely attempting to draw a false equivalence with your own low opinion of the generally respected Huffington Post, which, while hardly the New York Times, has a reputation for fact-checking and general accuracy, is a member of the White House Press Corps, etc., doesn't change that fact. With Breitbart's general unreliability and unsuitability on Wikipedia having been well established amongst everyone except you, you have to provide us a compelling reason to include Breitbart as a source which both overrides that unsuitability and explains why we can't simply use one of the many other movie reviewers who are also widely published, who are also members of professional critics organizations, who are also frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes, and who do not work for a shit sewer disguised as a professional news organization. Gamaliel (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with virtually everything you say, the notion that The Onion or rogerebert.com have a "reputation for fact checking" is laughable, and your personal opinion doesn't constitute evidence, but here I'll only point out that RS is always based on context, with evaluations on a case by case basis, and this is a high profile subjective film review in a section where such opinions are called for. Again, the question isn't whether you like the site, but whether the argument that sourcing policy automatically prohibits its use is valid. Perhaps your flippant "whatever" reply indicates that you know it isn't. VictorD7 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• You don't seem to get the point, or perhaps you do and are furiously dodging it by repeatedly bringing up false equivalences. The point has never been whether or not I like the site, as much as you need to pretend that is my point, the point is the odious reputation of the site makes it unusable for our purposes, even for opinions. And even if we carved out an exception for film reviews (And why should we? What's next? Film reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos?) you've given us no reason to employ this film review above the many others available beyond the fact that you simply want to use it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Considering your defense of MMfA, I find your view of Breitbart difficult to square. You don't like the site, that much is clear, unfortunately that is not a valid argument. Arzel (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nor is it the argument that I'm actually making. You people are ridiculous. Walk away from the strawman. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, your dislike for the site is blinding your judgment. Breitbart may have an "odious reputation" among leftist spinmeisters, but it's very popular among millions of other people, making the opinions of its feature professional film reviewer noteworthy, especially on an explicitly political documentary where we're otherwise only quoting from liberals less prominent than Toto. VictorD7 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• It has an odious reputation amongst everyone not in the wingnut bubble, and a reputation for the opposite is required for us to employ it in Wikipedia. As has been pointed out many times, popularity is not the only metric, otherwise we could include film reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if Limbaugh or the Daily Kos regularly publish reviews by professional critics, but I don't see why either of those sources would be any worse than The Onion operated site or the other sources the section currently uses. If simply having political bias is somehow a disqualifier (it isn't), then the currently quoted Peter Sobczynski of the blog rogerebert.com (the real Roger Ebert is dead, btw, making your earlier reference to him interesting), a self avowed "left-wing liberal" and (in my opinion) a sophomoric tripe peddler who fails to support any of his ignorant assertions, would certainly be out. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on who's living in the "wingnut bubble".VictorD7 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• You have consistently and perhaps purposefully missed the point. There is a difference between a media organization having a political orientation and a media organization having a reputation amongst its peers as an open sewer. The former has the reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and accountability required by Wikipedia policies, the latter does not. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose we'll also have to agree to disagree on whether The Onion has a "reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and accountability", on whether that's relevant when we're discussing properly attributed subjective opinions, on which sources are an "open sewer", and on which of us is consistently missing the point.VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• You keep bringing up The Onion like you've made a prima facie case that it is unreliable. Why, because it's funny? This is the AV Club we are specifically talking about, which in fact does have that reputation that you somehow insist it lacks. You talk about it like it is a zine stapled together in someone's basement, but it a serious media publication about pop culture whose writers have published respected and widely reviewed books and whose founding editor is now an editor for NPR. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• So you see The Onion's film blog as a "serious media publication" and a solid source for facts, but not Breitbart.com. Got it. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course we aren't discussing facts here, but properly attributed, subjective opinions. Breitbart's credibility is only relevant here in serving as a reliable source for Toto's words. VictorD7 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• No Breitbart is RS for nothing whatsoever insofar as WP is concerned. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Opinions cited as opinion are not a problem. The claim that "Breitbart is RS for nothing" is odious here, and where the issue is a film review of all thins, it is worse than odious. Film reviews are, indeed, opinions and citable as long as there is a reasonably notable source publishing it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So, how can it be "worse than odious" to exclude a source which is not "a reasonably notable source publishing it"? SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is a reasonably notable source. It is used by the New York Times and other major RS sources, and is widely cited. That you find it not to be reasonably notable is interesting -- in such a case I urgently suggest you place it at AfD as nt notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, why not? This would not be my go-to source for news and other facts. But to cite a review, why not? The political orientation of the source is publicly available (not that that really matters), and we would attribute it as its opinion anyway. --Precision123 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reliable: This is a pretty straightforward application of WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The source may be used for its opinion with attribution. The proposed edit did not suggest that we were endorsing any of Toto or Breitbart's views. The fact that Toto is on Rotten Tomatoes is evidence that his views are notable. And the fact that Breitbart has a conservative bias only reinforces the argument that the source should be included, as it represents a certain space in the sphere of movie criticism, one that is especially important when covering a conservative political documentary. Now, Gamaliel says we shouldn't single this critic out above the others who are not currently included. That may or may not be true but it's a WP:BALANCE issue, not a verifiability issue, and is beyond the scope of this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Shameless plug: Now that I've contributed to this discussion, please consider contributing to this one. Related subject matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• In this case yes I agree with with Dr. Fleischman in this instance. For any other subject- Brietbart.com is in no way a reliable source. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• No Any editor could write a review and post it on facebook and it would be a reliable source for what they said. The real issue is whether is notability. Have any news media mentioned it? Since Christian Toto is not a prominent film critic, it would be hard to justify its inclusion. You might find a source however that says something like, "the film was widely panned by critics, although a number of right-wing bloggers praised it." TFD (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The person is a member of the "DC Film Critics Association" [1], giving reviews on WTOP, WBAL (Hearst radio)[2], writing for the Washington Times, and commentary for the "Dennis Miller Show". Seems to be a professional film critic and not a random "right wing blogger" as most of the films are not actually political. [3] He even got mentioned by William Safire. [4] Colorado Parent. Film Slate Magazine. Etc. So -- not a "random right wing blogger" but apparently an actual film critic who belongs to professional associations of film critics. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Critics organizations are plentiful and do not confer any particular notability. See the talk archives, we've discussed that issue extensively. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Toto spears to be a member of at least five professional organizations, which places him a tad ahead of the "right wing blogger" meme. And got mentioned by William Safire in The New York Times, which is something I doubt has happened to you <g>. He is on RottenTomatoes list of "Tomatometer critics", and is credited with 665 reviews on that site. The reviews appear unrelated to whether the movie is political or not. Collect (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of five professional organizations in my field. Can my blog be quoted on Wikipedia now? Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for which you have been paid and which are published by reliable sources absolutely can be used. No prolem at all. The material at hand is not from the person's "blog" however, so that part of your comment is not actually germane here. Collect (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that my professional memberships do not confer upon my writings any notability and they can't be used here unless they are published by an RS. That is exactly what I have been saying about Toto and Offer from the beginning. Gamaliel (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Collect was not saying that, and this is getting petty and IDHT-ish. Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are 100s of members of these associations and no reason to choose this one except for a misguided desire to balance the overwhelmingly negative reviews with one good review, creating a false parity. TFD (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you implied he was merely a "right wing blogger" and the fact is that a person earning his living in a profession, and a member of multiple professional organizations, is generally regarded as being a person in that profession. Clearly you think these organizations have zero requirements for membership, but that is hardly a valid reason for discounting multiple such professional organization memberships, and, apparently, some awards for work as a professional in such a field. Collect (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice that your link saying he is a member of the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association does not mention he works at Breitbart, nor do any of the other sources that mention his professional membership. He is not on the current list of members provided by the DC Association.[5] At Breitbart his role is film news not film criticism.[6] So it might be accurate to call him a former film critic not writing for a right-wing blog. TFD (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Breitbart is a news organization not just a "right wing blog" and 2. what do you think "film news" encompasses? Has it occurred to you that a person working on "film news" would write film reviews? No? 3. Other groups include Broadcast Film Critics Association, etc. 4. You seem to elide the fact that RottenTomatoes counts him as a "Tomatometer" critic with 655 reviews. For some odd reason, I consider 655 film reviews to be a significant oeuvre. Collect (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you asked if any other media had mentioned it. Does the fact that the New Orleans Times Picayune cited and quoted from the very Toto review in question cause you to reconsider your answer? I'll add that Toto is a very prominent critic, especially given his work for the Washington Times over the years and his current role at Breitbart, which is one of the highest trafficked online news sites. I'll also add that the question here is whether the sourcing argument currently being used to automatically exclude Breitbart is valid, not whether a positive quote like Toto's should be included (that's already been decided in the affirmative), though the newspaper coverage can be relevant for showing that news sources consider Breitbart to be a reliable source for Toto's views. Even your current comments indicate that your answer should probably be changed to "yes".VictorD7 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That source is good because it summarizes what critics and others are saying, which helps us establish weight. But in this case we would be using the Times Picayune as a source not Breitbart. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

RS guidelines state otherwise: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Only if that's impossible for some reason (it's unavailable), is using a reliable secondary source quoting from the original suggested. Again, this RFC isn't about weight, but the specific question as to whether Breitbart is a reliable source for the review it published. If it's good enough for Rotten Tomatoes and the New Orleans Times Picayune, it should certainly be good enough for us. The section already uses the various blogs where the original reviews it quotes are located as its sources. VictorD7 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied too quickly. The Times Picayune does not mention Toto's review, it just provides a link. It summarizes them as ""America" wasn't widely screened for critics, but the first handful of reviews are trickling in, and they're not particularly glowing." The guideline you quoted says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Normally that would mean using the secondary source as a summary of what the primary source said. Obviously if it directly quoted the source we should add that too. TFD (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It does so mention the review. It even quotes from it, along with providing quotes from several other prominent critics, and links directly to the "full review" on Breitbart. We aren't discussing general article building here, but this film review section, which (as is always the case in Wikipedia movie article critical reception sections) quotes attributed opinions from pro film critics sourced by their full reviews. Summarizing would be a different segment and process. You still seem to be hung up on the weight argument, which is off topic for this RFC, as if we're building the section from scratch. At issue here is the specific question as to whether Breitbart is a reliable source for its own author's words. Unless you have some argument to make otherwise, you should change your answer to "yes". VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Dislike of the site for their conservative views is not a valid argument for dismissing the site. Considering well known liberal sites like MMfA are regularly used, it is hard to argue that Breitbart can not. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strawman. No one is making that argument. MMFA is not regularly used, and even if it was, that fact is completely irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Considering your argument against, it is perfectly relevant. Arzel (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: FWIW, if we're going to have an extended discussion about Toto's qualifications, it may be worth considering the criteria Rotten Tomatoes uses for "Tomatometer" eligibility, since as previously noted he's a Tomatometer critic. Relevant exerpts:

"Online critics must have published no less than 100 reviews across two calendar years at a single, Tomatometer-approved publication, and all reviews should have an average length of at least 300 words to be considered for individual approval."

"Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words. Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles. Lastly, site design and layout should also reflect a reasonable level of quality and must have a domain name specific to the property."

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

MMfA does not have a film criticism section. The World Socialist Web Site (a Tomatometer approved publication) however does,[7][8] but I don't see left-wingers clamoring to add them to articles to balance the corporate media. TFD (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WSWS didn't review America, so this is pretty irrelevant. Aside from the fact that it has nothing to do with reliability (the subject of this discussion). Everyone understands your view, move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You just said that being Tomatometer approved means that we can add critics' views and I pointed out that weight determines we should not provide undue weight to small minority views. WSWS did not review this film nor did most critics and for the same reason. It was best ignored. I doubt any of the editors who want glowing reviews added to the article have actually seen the movie. TFD (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, you seem to have read something I did not find in his post. I suppose it means either my eyesight is atrocious or ... What DrFleischman appears to have said is that RottenTomatoes has fairly stringent criteria for calling a person a Tomatometer critic, and that those criteria include professionalism and writing quality, and a substantial output of substantive film reviews. Collect (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As I replied, lots of people qualify for this rating and mentioned the film reviewers at the WSWS, who present a Trotskyist view of films. The issue is which of these hundreds of reviewers to include in movies about films, unless you think every article should mention every review. Some reviewers are more significant than others. For example, the late Roger Ebert's review in the Chicago Tribune was the most commonly cited. Peter Travers in Rolling Stone and reviews in Variety also are considered significant, and usually there is no objection to including them.

And while Rotten Tomatoes picked up Toto's column at the Washington Times, they do not mention his writing at Breitbart. His blurb at Rotten Tomatoes does not say he works for Breitbart and the writing is not mentioned at the Rotten Tomatoes page for the film.[9] Notice that they list 2 "fresh reviews" - Toto is not one of them.[10] So either his writing at Breitbart falls below their standards, or Toto has not asked them to include his new column. Or probably he does not want to follow the guidelines set for film reviewers in his new column.

It seems like cherry-picking to blunt the verdict of the critics that it was not a good film.

TFD (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, most likely, his review was posted on a site they did not pick up -- they show only 24 critic reviews you might note. Andy Webster of the NYT reviewed the film, and I suspect is considered a professional in the field.[11] Your interesting argument is that he is not an acceptable critic as a result. RT does not list every review from every member of the Tomatometer list, and does not claim to do so. "Evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy. RT selects reviews for each movie. Toto was used by RT in May, 2014 for a review quote.[12] 665 quotes total on RT. Andy Webster has 228 quotes total on RT. The "WSWS" is not at [13] the RT site as being a publication on their list. Nor is the page given as "proof" that it is on any "approved list" anything more than "page not found". It does list some reviews from it total list - ending in2013, and almost all before 2012. So much for that claim. Nor do any of its reviewers appear in any way on the RT site - and absolutely not on its list of critics vetted for the Tomatometer. Debunked as an argument from square one. "Joanne Laurier" agreed with the Tomatometer zero per cent of the time in her 15 reviews (as opposed to 665). "Prairie Miller" is a legit film critic - who did not do any WSWS reviews since ever. In short the WSWS claim is non-existent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes has a list of critics and where they write, including Toto in the Washington Times and several other media columns[14] and Joanne Laurier and Prairie Miller in WSWS.[15] As you can see that pick up every single column and use them to determine their score, which is basically the percentage of "fresh" reviews out of the total of all reviews in the columns they monitor. They do not include "reviews" that Toto writes in Breitbart. Obviously they allow both right-wing sources like the Washington Times and left-wing sources like WSWS. Are you arguing that because Toto was a recognized reviewer that his writings for Breitbart should be considered of the same quality, even though no organization recognizes them? TFD (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Then how the hell do they miss the New York Times? Sheesh -- "Prairie Miller" has ZERO reviews from WSWS as the publisher on RT (I checked her reviews published on WSWS :) ). Zero. Laurier has 15. And you think you can say that is precisely the the same as a person with 665 reviews on RT? Really? Really??? And please stop the straw man of saying Breitbart publishing a film review by a professional film critic is merely a "right wing blogger"! LOL - this is past risible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think Andy Webster did review the film. The link you provided was to his review of D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America and it was included in the Tomatometer. See his page August 13, 2012.[16] And however many reviews Toto had included on RT, the fact is that he has not been used to calculate the RT score since May 9, 2014, while Miller was last used August 22, 2014. Prairie Miller's reviews have been included in the RT calculation 1597 times;[17] Joanne Laurier, 15 times;[18] Christian Toto 665 times.[19] So for whatever reason, RT has decided to ignore his recent postings. TFD (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Big Hollywood is a part of Breitbart.com, is listed on Toto's bio, and Rotten Tomatoes has used it hundreds of times for reviews by Toto and another Breitbart critic named John Hanlon. Clicking on the "Big Hollywood" quotes RT lists takes you directly to Breitbart. That RT has "only" used Toto as recently as a couple of months ago is meaningless. Not every noteworthy critic's review is cited by RT for each movie, as Collect quickly proved to you. What's relevant regarding RT is that the site has cited Toto several hundred times over the years (including direct links to his Breitbart reviews in recent years), along with another Breitbart critic to boot, and will likely continue to do so. That's beside the fact that this particular Toto review has been cited in other media, as I gave you extra spoonfeeding on earlier. You're spinning your wheels. VictorD7 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RT in fact does use every noteworthy critic's review for each movie. That is the point of the website. It tells us what percentage of critics like or dislike a movie. Collect proved nothing. He said that Andy Webster's review of the film was not used. The reason it was not used was that he did not review the film - few critics did. Had he reviewed the film, he would have been included. For whatever reason, they have decided to drop Big Hollywood reviews. While that does not mean that Big Hollywood reviews are not significant, it does mean that RT cannot be used as evidence of their significance. TFD (talk)

At least you've reversed your earlier claim and now concede that Big Hollywood (Breitbart.com) is mentioned and cited on RT. You've provided absolutely no evidence that Toto has been dropped as a critic, or that approved critics have every review they publish quoted. In fact he's still listed as a "Tomatometer Approved" critic. RT has a small editor team choose what they deem to be a representative sample of critical opinion for each movie. Here are just some of the film reviews Toto wrote in the weeks before your May 9 cut off date that weren't featured on RT either: [20] May 5, [21] May 5, [22] May 1, [23] March 28. A critic might publish dozens of reviews a year but only have a few of those quoted by RT. And you're still dodging the subject of this RFC, which is simply whether or not Breitbart (aka Big Hollywood) is an RS source for Toto's words. Again, unless you have some argument to counter all we've posted proving it is, your answer should be "yes". VictorD7 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you care so much what his answer is? Accept the disagreement and move on. Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Because I want an honest, clear survey. VictorD7 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Acceptable per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Furthermore, Brietbart.com meets WP:IRS, just as much as HuffPo does. Just because an editor may or may not agree with a political leaning of a RS (for instance both NYT and WSJ have noticable political bias in their non-opinion news articles), that does not make them any less of a reliable source. Regardless, this is about whether a verified opinion can be attributed to brietbart.com, to which the answer IMHO is yes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unless you can demonstrate Brietbart's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by that policy, the comparisons to Huffington Post or the New York Times are fallacious. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not Acceptable Breitbart.com is a questionable source on multiple accounts as identified by WP:QS policy. It has an apparent conflict of interest with it's relationship with it's parent affiliate and competitors, is heavily reliant on opinion pieces for content and is referred to as an opinion website on WP, is seen as extremist by other news organizations, and publishes content based on rumor. Only one of these would be sufficient in labeling something as a questionable source, but Breitbart fits all of them. None of the pages mentioned by other editors overrides WP:RS which specifically states "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" This review is not being placed on an article about breitbart.com or the author, nor is it being used on a topic about breitbart.com or the author. Therefore, by WP:QS policy, it should not be used...period. Quoting and attributing material to the author doesn't allow editors to bypass the policies in WP:RS. All other articles/essays regarding attribution are for sources that are already deemed reliable, they do not apply to sources that are not reliable, like questionable sources or napkin scribblings.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• comment Is Breitbart.com a "reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight"? oh fergawdsakes, NO. Is it "reliable" in the sense that there is any question that their posted review by Toto is actually a review by Toto? I have not seen anything to question the legitimacy of that aspect of "reliability". The question then falls to 1) Is Toto an acknowledged and previously published "expert on the subject" so that his views could be considered under the WP:SPS and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response and 2) if his expertise is established, does including his opinion appropriately reflect the mainstream views of the subject or is it a fringe minority view? Skipping to 2) if Toto were among a significant portion of reviewers that hold similar views, there would be examples of other reviewers with similar reviews - those have not been provided and so there does not seem to be a basis for inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging that Breitbart is a reliable source for Toto's review. As for the rest, it's not vital to this RFC but I'll point out that there have been other positive reviewers (e.g. [24], [25], [26]), though Toto is the most prominent (at least as a critic; Klavan is a notable author, screenplay writer, and occasional reviewer). Regarding weight I'll note that we aren't discussing only having a positive quote, or even having one negative and one positive quote, but merely adding one positive quote to a section that already includes several negative ones. The positive side should be represented with at least one quote, and past discussion on this page reached a bipartisan consensus supporting the addition of such a quote. VictorD7 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• the blaze is another wing of brietbart's media empire Glenn Beck and of no better reputation than breitbart.com. the other two are bloggers and so no, you have not established that Toto is representative of a significant mainstream viewpoint. all that we have is that the thing posted on brietbart is very likely Toto's work.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Actually one of those "bloggers" (Offer) is counted and quoted in the Rotten Tomatoes aggregation, while the other, Andrew Klavan, is a notable novelist/screenwriter (blogs aren't prohibited in cases like this), and as far as I know The Blaze has nothing to do with Breitbart (both have better reputations as news sources than The Onion or rogerebert.com, which both currently appear in the section), but I was just refuting your claim that no positive reviews existed. The weight question has already been decided. The relevant question here is whether Breitbart is RS in this case, and fortunately your answer seems to be yes. VictorD7 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry, blaze is Glenn Beck's. but that is, if anything, worse than breitbart!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinions vary.VictorD7 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but no opinions of any consequence see beck/blaze as anything other than a hot steaming pile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately the above exchange just established your level of expertise on the topic.VictorD7 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG the extraordinary claim that Beck has any credibility would require extraordinary sources. Got any evidence that anyone considers Beck reliable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I would ask "reliable for what?" (he's certainly reliable for his own opinion), or ask if you feel Ted Turner or Pinch Sulzberger are "reliable", or point out that Beck didn't write the review in question, or ask why you're continuing to post about this when you just proved above that you know virtually nothing about The Blaze (which employs a large staff that includes some impressive people), claiming it was part of "breitbart's media empire" until you googled it and saw Beck's name after my reply correcting your error, but this is getting really off topic. This section has enough spammed up clutter as it is. VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Roger Ebert was the most respected movie critic in the world. TFD (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That was nice and random.VictorD7 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

* Yes. Acceptable. While Breitbart may not be RS for objective facts, a film review is - by its nature - not objective, but subjective. Everything is RS for opinion statements. BlueSalix (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. For starters, napkin scriblings, questionable twitter accounts, and questionable sources in general are not automatically reliable for subjective opinions. It is often impossible to verify if the author actually wrote it or if the piece was tampered/altered by the questionable publisher. This is precisely why WP:QS doesn't have an expert exception, while WP:selfpublish does. Furthermore, that doesn't mean that the source merits inclusion in the article and just because it's a subjective opinion, doesn't mean that it overrides policies established in WP:RS, specifically in the form of WP:QS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course none of that pertains to this situation, where there's no doubt Toto wrote what Breitbart ascribes to him, and BlueSalix is essentially correct in observing that the standards for simply covering properly attributed subjective opinions are quite different from those involved in reporting facts in Wikipedia's voice. Also, your interpretation of QS policy is hotly disputed and, if consistently applied here, would force the removal of every film critic quote currently in this article.VictorD7 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Acceptable / Reliable Breitbart is not an anonymous blog, but it's also not the Washington Post. It has enough of a real-world presence to establish its authenticity for the purposes of reliably publishing opinion statements of its own writers, which is the only question being asked. It may not be a reliable secondary source for reporting the opinion statements of others, or even factual observations. DocumentError (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still a questionable source my multiple standards of WP:QS and therefore can only be reliably used on an article/topic about itself. If an author writes an opinion piece on Global Warming that gets published by Breitbart.com, it doesn't merit inclusion of that author's opinion in an WP article about Global Warming. Other articles/subjects aren't treated differently regardless if the piece is suppose to be objective or subjective. The fact is questionable sources have very restricted reliable usage and a Breitbart.com article would only have appropriate use on an article about Breitbart.com itself or it's editors.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's not two categories of sources: RS and non-RS. From a RS perspective, the only question that should matter in this discussion is Do we believe Breitbart accurately published statements written by Toto? Sources like Breitbart and ThinkProgress can't be used to report objective facts but they can be used to report statements attributed to people whom general knowledge tell us are their own writers. This is one level above a source like freakzilla-123.blogspot.com which can't even be used to report statements attributed to their own writers, but one level below the Washington Post whose reports can be used to note objective facts. This doesn't meet a legal standard for proof that Toto wrote this, in which we should need an affidavit sworn and attested by a notary public, but the standards on WP are less than the standards required to convict someone in a court. DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There aren't two categories of sources, there are varying degrees of sources and so we have policies to determine when those sources can and can't be used. If a source falls into the category of being a "questionable source" then we have specific guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that source. WP:QS is the policy that limits questionable sources like breitbart.com from being used on anything but articles/topics about breitbart or the author itself. WP:QS doesn't make any determination or specification about "objective" versus "subjective" opinions/facts, it applies evenly to all content from a questionable source. Furthermore, being a questionable source is not just a matter of a source being unverifiable. WP:QS also pertains to sources that have an apparent conflict of interest, repeatedly attacks competitors, seen as extremist, etc. So it's not a matter of verifiability, but of conduct as well. WP:Questionable also specifically includes sources that are largely derived from "personal opinions" and limits where those sources can be reliably used. So a breitbart.com article from Toto is still an opinion from a questionable source, and therefore can only be used on articles/topics about itself as explained by WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. Again, being an opinion doesn't allow it to bypass WP policies and these policies specifically address opinions from questionable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'll again point out that Scoobydunk's interpretation of QS policy and his assessment of Breitbart are disputed and fringe (including the bizarre "conflict of interest" claim). Even Scoobydunk doesn't apply his professed policy interpretation to the other sources in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Scoobydunk with all due respect, your response was just way too long to digest. I'll just say this - this looks like an absolutely terrible film so I can understand it is necessary to proceed carefully in attaching any reviewer's name to a positive review for this beast as it would instantly discredit the reviewer. Still, I believe a standard of caution and prudence has been met. DocumentError (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My response is but mere fraction of the length of WP policies regarding the appropriate use of sources. So I'd take this opportunity to familiarize yourself with my response which will save you the trouble having to "digest" pages upon pages of policies surrounding reliability and verifiability.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing

It seems clear to me there's a consensus that Breitbart is RS in this context, based on 8 explicit "yes"/"acceptable"/"reliable" votes to 3 explicit "no"/"unacceptable" votes and the argument weights, but I'll post a request to have an uninvolved party close. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 , I saw your request for closure at the request for closure noticeboard and came here to initiate the close. By my count, after a one-month discussion in which all points and counter-points have been answered by each side, 8 editors either ambiguously or unambiguously support inclusion, 4 either ambiguously or unambiguously oppose inclusion. I believe that is close, but not quite, a consensus, so don't feel I can initiate the closure. That said, I will make a !vote of my own to help steer toward consensus. This may, or may not, push it over the edge. DocumentError (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)'

Voting does not equal consensus. The arguments, policies, and evidence must be evaluated and addressed in full to reach a consensus. Merely asserting that WP:QS doesn't apply to opinion pieces doesn't make it true.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, voting does not equal consensus. That's why I didn't close it. But consensus is also not judged by the opinion of the closer. Consensus is determined by an evaluation of the sum of opinions expressed juxtaposed against the relative acceptability the participants have expressed in the topic. At this time I do believe there is a consensus, but since I've now opined in the discussion, can't close it. DocumentError (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

additional comments

Imho the survey above misses the point. Movie reviews are primarily included not for factual reporting but to describe "reputable"/"established"/"influential"/"relevant" opinions on a movie. So the question that need to be answered here is not whether a breitbart article is reliable but whether it is relevant from a movie review/criticism point of view. For example the opinions of (regular) of critics of large mainstream newspapers, mainstrean news, moview review shows on TV, film journals and film scholars would be considered relevant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly the review is a reliable source for what the reviewer said. That does not mean we should present this writer's opinions in articles about the hundreds of articles that he has reviewed. The real issue is weight. TFD (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Toto's credentials as a well established professional critic are outlined in the above discussion, so his view is "relevant" by any reasonable, honest measure. Since the argument used to oppose his review's inclusion was a sourcing policy one, the above RFC establishing a consensus rejecting that argument was very much on point. VictorD7 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There were 24 reviews posted to Rotten Tomatoes (22 rotten, 2 fresh).[27] Of these 9 were "top critics" and all rated it as rotten. Christian Toto, who is not considered a top critic wrote a review that was not posted. AFAIK there could be dozens of other reviewers who wrote about this film. Why do you think we should include Toto's review? WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Just saying that the film had an 8% fresh rating gives sufficient weight to the tiny minority of people who bothered to review the film and actually said they liked it. TFD (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The mentioned/cited critics should be representative for reviews overall and the most important in doubt. Toto is neither hence there is no requirement to mention him. At best there is a weak argument to include him as notable differing opinion, but imho that is rather weak argument and up to editorial discretion (allowing to use or not to use him).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Kmhkmh's initial post, consensus has determined that Breitbart and Toto are RS in this context. Period. Despite TFD's confused opening agreement above, his "weight comment" has almost nothing to do with the post it replied to. As a professional critic Toto is part of the weight we're supposed to assess. The weight issue wouldn't focus on Breitbart or Toto per se, but on whether this particular opinion is widely held enough to merit coverage. The weight issue has already been decided. There is a talk page consensus that a positive review quote is warranted. Indeed for a long time the section only had one quote, a negative one. The addition of several other negative quotes were allowed as part of the compromise consensus supporting the inclusion of a positive one, but the positive end of the consensus had yet to be fulfilled until now. Toto is the most prominent reviewer to positively review the film, which is why his review belongs in the article. The claims in TFD's latest post have mostly already been dealt with in discussions on this page. I'll add that film article guidelines explicitly state there is a consensus against using "Top Critics" scores. While basic RT or MC aggregations are allowed (and included at the beginning of the section), we aren't bound by them. As was explained to TFD already, RT doesn't count every significant review for every movie. That the site does see Toto as significant is demonstrated by the fact that they have cited over 600 of his reviews. Most of the other critics quoted in the section aren't "top critics" either, and have been quoted fewer times than Toto. This particular review was quoted in other media outlets, however (e.g. one of the positive reviews quoted by the New Orleans Times Picayune). Such citations aren't necessary given Breitbart and Toto's general prominence, but they underscore the basis for us covering his view.

Since this is a conservative documentary and the reactions have broken down along party lines, including a conservative reviewer is even more vital than usual to attain the "reasonable balance" called for by guidelines, and there's no good reason to censor out the conservative perspective here.VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

When you say "consensus has determined that Breitbart and Toto are RS in this context", you are correct. However, this consensus is not a mandate that this particular source must be used despite all other concerns and objections to inclusion. The sentence you cite about "reasonable balance" is followed by one which states "This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned)". This is precisely the scenario we have here since this is a film that has been almost universally panned. Gamaliel (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Except it clearly is possible here, since multiple positive reviews have been produced, this one being the most prominent, and you're conveniently ignoring the unusual political dynamic involved with this film and the reaction to it that makes covering the other side even more vital than usual. I'll add that the historically rare A+ CinemaScore grade shows that the vast majority of people to watch the film thought it was great (and I don't know of any other political documentaries to receive such a score, conservative or liberal), so there would be something wrong with devoting a bloated paragraph stuffed only with negative quotes from the couple of dozen or so people who didn't like it while only giving the positive reaction a sentence. VictorD7 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the most prominent is Toto's is not bolstering your position that it represents a portion of the viewpoints that should be presented. In fact, quite the opposite. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Toto is extremely prominent, as the facts laid out all over this page show.VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to opposing views but giving weight according to how it is given in rs, such as RT. That would mean in this case that if we were to include 1 fresh review, we should include 9 rotten ones. TFD (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We were never giving "equal weight" to opposing ideas, as the skew was always very heavily in favor of negative quotes (all from leftists), so your comment is a non sequitur, but some coverage of the other side was necessary for the "reasonable balance" mandated by guidelines. And no, contrary to a recent edit summary (which was also incorrect for confusing sourcing concerns with non critics not belonging in the critic section), there's no policy or guideline mandating that quotes precisely have any ratio, much less binding us to whatever an RT aggregation says (RT and MT have different numbers anyway). The point is to not give the impression of false equivalence among pro critics, and there was never any danger of that. Citing the aggregation itself avoids the false equivalence even if were to use one negative and one positive quote. The point is moot for now, since some leftist editors here would rather delete all the quotes than include a single positive one. Regardless, this discussion was worthwhile, if for no other reason than it produced a community consensus that Breitbart is RS in at least situations like this. Editors should feel free to cite its pro critic reviews where appropriate in other articles (and have probably already been doing so). VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You've produced zero evidence that the film critics or their publications were all "leftists", nor have you demonstrated that the editor who removed the entire section with his or her second ever edit to this article a "leftist editor". These baseless charges are only evidence of a battleground mentality. The only overtly political critic and publication that you advocated for inclusion was a conservative one, so per NPOV those views should be presented alongside those of overtly liberal critics and publications, otherwise the article violates NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to you, since you were the one who suggested the other editor "delete the entire quote soup" rather than just your laughably POV, childish, tit for tat attempted edit. You also falsely accused the other editor of making a "POV edit" in deleting your partisan bloggers who weren't film critics from the film critic section (Hint - remember that Toto is a pro film critic). Contrary to your false claim here, I actually quoted and sourced Peter S. calling himself an "avowed left-wing liberal", and have pointed out how every negative review I've read (and certainly every one posted here) attacks D'Souza's politics, often in insipid and sophomoric ways. None of them actually refute anything he says, and many misharacterize what the film says, either because they're outright lying or they totally missed his point (that also applies to that young Salon.com girl and other partisan bloggers you and scooby quoted; e.g. I didn't notice the film mentioning D'Souza's "affair", despite one of the snarky HuffPo bloggers' claims). Hopefully you aren't going to deny being a leftist editor. Don't get me wrong, that would be pretty funny, but it's probably an unnecessary rabbit hole for us to get started down at this point, especially if the article stabilizes somewhat around its current form, the tags can be removed, and people can move on. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The openness of the hostility in your response is a refreshing change from your farcical insistence that you have been engaging in "patient, reasoned argumentation". Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's exactly what I've done. Since your posting here has brimmed with hostility since you arrived, however, your hilarious hypocrisy is noted. VictorD7 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

For added hilarity and accuracy, I imagined you saying this stamping your feet. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like projection. VictorD7 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your anger is largely because other editors are enforcing policy. For example, you are demanding the ability to WP:SYN info together to create an argument about a reviewer being a "liberal". That is WP:OR rather you like it or not. Casprings (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not angry, I just described what happened. In fact I was happy because I thought maybe we had finally found a workable long term compromise solution here - eliminating all quotes. And no, Casprings, SYN and OR don't apply to evaluations done on Talk Pages. We're supposed to assess sources. You're the one still confused about policy. On that note, since you were the one who initiated much of this by claiming that Breitbart is not RS, linking to a couple of past discussions on other pages with only a few participants that established no consensus (and if anything leaned toward contradicting you), and starting multiple inconclusive noticeboard discussions, you might be interested to note that the heavily participated in RFC above establishes that Breitbart is RS for at least its own attributed opinion, particularly in regard to its pro film critics' reviews in movie articles. Being an honest, neutral editor, I'm sure you'll remember to cite and link back to this community consensus if the issue comes up again elsewhere. VictorD7 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic critics

For all this heated discussion about the relative importance Rotten Tomatoes does or does not place on Christian Toto, note that Toto's review of America does not appear on Rotten Tomatoes. Here are the critics whose reviews of America actually do appear on RT and on Metacritic. If you are to argue that RT's metrics make Toto important, then you also have to justify why you want to include Toto instead of all these other critics, some of whom have similar or better metrics. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Gabe Toro The Playlist

Joe McGovern Entertainment Weekly Top Critic

James Rocchi TheWrap Top Critic

Kam Williams Baret News

Renee Schonfeld Common Sense Media

Teddy Durgin Screen It!

Matt Prigge Metro

Louis Black Austin Chronicle

Christopher Campbell Nonfics

Dan Lybarger Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Sean Means Salt Lake Tribune

Rafer Guzman Newsday Top Critic

David Ehrlich AV Club Top Critic

Alan Scherstuhl Village Voice Top Critic

Martin Tsai Los Angeles Times Top Critic

Bill Goodykoontz Arizona Republic Top Critic

Jonathan W. Hickman Daily Film Fix

Peter Sobczynski RogerEbert.com

Duane Dudek Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Roger Moore McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Mark Jenkins Washington Post Top Critic

Rob Humanick Slant Magazine

Avi Offer NYC Movie Guru

Joe Leydon Variety Top Critic IconTop Critic

---

Variety Joe Leydon

Arizona Republic Bill Goodykoontz

Movieline Christopher Campbell

Philadelphia Inquirer Steven Rea

The New York Times Andy Webster

McClatchy-Tribune News Service Roger Moore

Washington Post Michael O'Sullivan

Time Richard Corliss

Boxoffice Magazine Phil Contrino

The Hollywood Reporter Stephen Farber

Boston Globe Mark Feeney

Salon.com Andrew O'Hehir

Village Voice Alan Scherstuhl

Entertainment Weekly Owen Gleiberman

Since you've already rejected Offer's review (listed above), adding in a later section that you "don't believe the inclusion of Offer's review in RT confers on it any particular notability or significance", you're really the wrong person to start this section. RT is only being cited regarding Toto as a small part of the mountain of evidence establishing his credentials as a noteworthy critic, and more importantly establishing that multiple media outlets see Breitbart is an RS for Toto's words. RT doesn't cite every noteworthy review for every film, so its absence for this particular movie proves nothing, but Toto's review for this film has been cited in other media (as posted above). Your Offer section started by saying, "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?" You went on to conclude he isn't based on your opinion that his website looked amateurish. Well, Toto undeniably is an established critic who has worked for multiple major media outlets with national reach. Of course the RFC above isn't about weight, but simply whether Breitbart (or the Big Hollywood subsection of Breitbart) is an RS in this context, and on that score your comment on Offer is appropriate here: "Obviously he doesn't need to be a reliable source, since this is just an opinion we're talking about." - Gamaliel Obviously indeed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't believe RT's metrics should override Wikipedia's. But if editors are going to discuss RT's metrics in depth, then they should also consider the fact that Toto's review was not included in RT while all these others were. Toto may be an established critic, and certainly appears to be more established than Offer. If Toto's review, or for that matter Offer's review, appeared in a reputable, mainstream publication I would have no objection to inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument was that Toto's review was notable because his reviews were carried in RT. But RT no longer carries them, so the argument fails. TFD (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

False on multiple levels. RT does still "carry" Toto's reviews (certainly no proof otherwise has been presented), and still lists him as a "Tomatometer Approved" critic. Regardless, the argument is that Breitbart is an RS for its own attributed opinions, which your earlier quote on Offer I provided above shows you don't dispute. Also, your new RT based argument against Toto contradicts your earlier argument against RT's relevance when you were trying to justify excluding Offer, whose review of this film RT does cite. And Toto's review of this film is cited (not published, but cited and quoted) by the New Orleans Times Picayune, a reputable news source, as I've shown (not that such coverage is necessary).

The bottom line is that Toto is a well established professional film critic writing for a very popular, high traffic news/opinion site. Your anti-Offer section only said you wanted to include a quote from an "established" critic, and you outright said even reviews posted on the personal blogs of such critics would be acceptable: "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." - Gamaliel Clearly Toto is at least as "notable" as the guys currently quoted in the section. VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Can" does not mean "should", and in this particular case, we should not, for reasons we've gone over at length. Even if I accept that Toto is more notable than every single person on the above list, that doesn't change the Breitbart issue. We can choose from any number of established critics writing for established outlets. You want me to change my opinion, give me a reason that we should pick that one in particular. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The only pertinent "Breitbart issue" is whether we can consider the site an authentic source for Toto's words, which clearly we can. The review quote was allegedly deleted on sourcing grounds, not because of the quote's content or any weight issue. VictorD7 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In the overly narrow RFC, perhaps that is the only pertinent issue, but in editing the article we are obligated to consider all issues. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That allegedly "overly narrow" topic was the only rationale given for deleting the quote, so it merited the above discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Although they list him as an approved critic, the fact is they have not used his columns since May 9, 2014, or 4 months ago, since shortly after he joined Breitbart. He remains on the list because his columns were used in the past for calculating RT scores. Similarly, Roger Ebert, who died April 4, 2013, is still on the list. The important issue is weight - we do not want to imply that critics say any merit in this film which was universally panned. I would hate to have readers pay to watch this film based on a misleading portrayal of critical reaction in this article, Even people who agreed with D'Souza would likely be disappointed. TFD (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

More factual falsehoods from you. Toto joined Breitbart years ago, and RT cites and links to about 70 of his Breitbart ("Big Hollywood") reviews stretching to at least mid 2012. It also cites some self published Toto reviews from his personal blog "What Would Toto Watch?". Sometimes several published the same day are counted, and at other times there are gaps of several months. You've provided absolutely no evidence to support your assumption that they've somehow dropped him. I proved above that RT doesn't count every review from its approved critics. RT has cited Breitbart at least hundreds of times for various critics though. You're also wrong about the reception. The largely negative pro critic reception is already well covered by this article, but the overall response by viewers has been overwhelmingly positive, as the historically rare A+ Cinemscore grade shows. America beat Michael Moore's most recent documentary to become the #6 highest grossing political documentary of all time. Every negative review I've seen has been written by a leftist, often spending more time attacking D'Souza personally or conservativism, Christianity, and/or the USA generally than commenting specifically on the movie, but that the pro critic response has been largely negative doesn't mean we shouldn't provide any positive quote, since there are pro critics who reviewed the film positively. Your concern here shouldn't be to dissuade people from watching the movie, and it's unfortunate that you just expressed such an agenda. The film MOS guidelines state that, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." Past weight discussion here determined that adding a positive review, given the several negative ones already quoted, would be reasonable balance, and it's certainly possible to find positive reviews, as Toto demonstrates. Even Gamaliel said he doesn't oppose adding a positive review. While you're certainly free to challenge consensus by initiating a new weight discussion, that would seem superfluous until the simpler and completely different question of Breitbart's RS in this context is settled, a discussion above that you plunged headfirst into.VictorD7 (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A positive review from a reputable source, which was already added to the article by SRich. Given the lack of positive reviews from mainstream outlets, I'm beginning to think that including a positive review at all might be an UNDUE violation, just as over-representing climate deniers in science articles gives a skewed picture of the 97% scientific consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That 97% consensus claim has been debunked. Your arguments against Breitbart are unconvincing. Your primary argument is that you don't like it because it is a conservative site. I'll weigh against your long history of defending liberal sites. Seriously, I cannot believe that liberals are so against this movie that this issue has become such a contentious one. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start calling you Scarecrow because you love the straw man so much. My primary argument is "unconvincing" because you have no idea what it is. I have to keep repeating it for you so much I should just create a template for it. For the umpteenth time, it has zero to do with its political orientation and everything to do with its lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by policy, the same reason I also oppose including reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos. Gamaliel (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And the personal attacks continue. Clearly the argument of a person that has no logical response. Considering your false analogy of the 97% climate myth and the double straw men of Rush and DK, I find it humorous to see you level that attack against me. You should really stop though, it is unbecoming of your position as an admin. Arzel (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, you are providing an opinion piece by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. Here's a link to an article by Mark Hoofnagle that debunks the debunking. I can find sources that debunk the moon-landing. The problem is we cannot dismiss a meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal based on what a columnist, even one who minored in atmospheric studies, says. TFD (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. That "positive" quote was warped into a mostly negative one, much to the frustration of Srich and other good faith editors here. Again, your own words: "Obviously he doesn't need to be a reliable source, since this is just an opinion we're talking about." -Gamaliel, (29 July) Guidelines state that "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics". You earlier supported adding a positive quote in principle. Perhaps you felt you could do so while finding case by case excuses for deleting all the truly positive ones proposed, and are now finding that more difficult. Regardless, the question of which sources are RS logically precedes the evaluation of RS weight, and the Toto review was deleted on pure sourcing grounds. Toto is undeniably a professional critic, making him RS here per film guidelines. The next question is whether Breitbart can be considered an authentic source for his reviews. If that answer is "yes" (which it clearly should be), then would come the issue of due weight, which has already been decided but could be revisited. Of course, since Toto is the most prominent pro critic to positively review the film, opposing his review would essentially mean that one opposes adding any positive reviews, which would require some position reversals and would violate the spirit of the "reasonable balance" that guidelines call for to construct a neutral article. Using a conservative reviewer is even more important than usual given the film's political nature, and the overt, one sided political bias of the liberal reviewers already quoted. But first thing's first, the Breitbart/Toto sourcing issue must be cleared up. 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you felt you could do so while finding case by case excuses for deleting all the truly positive ones proposed. This shit is exactly why dealing with you is so unpleasant, because any attempt to collaborate or engage with you is met with a punch in the dick. When I said I would support a positive quote, I thought it was obvious to any sentient being that it also meant from a reasonably significant, mainstream, notable source. Instead I'm on the receiving end of months-long harangues about someone's low traffic blog and a partisan shit sewer. Fuck this noise, go argue with your mirror. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's far more unpleasant to deal with a poster who refuses to address the glaring contradictions in his comments from section to section. A genuine collaboration would have seen this issue cordially resolved weeks ago. There's no policy prohibiting the properly attributed, subjective opinions of an alleged "partisan shit sewer" from being covered in a section dedicated to subjective opinions (as your own earlier quote agreed with), which is why I don't oppose The Huffington Post, rogerebert.com, THR, or The A.V. Club from being quoted on sourcing grounds. Of course, as one of the highest trafficked news sites in the world (per Alexa rankings), Breitbart is certainly a significant, notable source (and mainstream conservative), not that it needs to be for Toto's review to be quoted, since being a pro critic makes him RS per guidelines, as long as Breitbart can be considered RS for relaying his words. VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, I've addressed the issue over and over and over again. Your response has been consistently WP:IDHT. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my response has been patient, reasoned argumentation against a blatantly invalid argument and has now progressed to the next step of an RFC for wider community input. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your statements' inconsistency, and whether your position amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. VictorD7 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I just laughed outloud at the idea that you actually believe you have engaged in "patient, reasoned arugmentation", and it's extra hilarious because you just posted it above TFD's response to you accusing him of lying. I'm beginning to think you are some sort of performance art project. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

More that we disagree on, but readers can decide for themselves. I'll only add here that I did not accuse TFD of "lying". I pointed out that he made factually false claims, which I corrected. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, In the British Parliament MPs are routinely expelled for accusing their colleagues of lying. It would be pleasant if you maintain the same degree of decorum, and keep in mind that verbal abuse is no substitute for facts and well-reasoned arguments.

Most people would not consider 2012 to be "years ago", although one might say "2 years ago." Your link shows that RT picked up Toto's Big Hollywood reviews from May 16, 2012 to May 9, 2014. Can you explain why they are no longer counting his reviews, other than that they have dropped him?

The film is not the 6th highest grossing documentary of all time, it stands about 16, just ahead of Moore's Capitalism. But so what?

It's easy to say that everyone who panned the movie was "left-wing" by defining the Left as anyone who did not like the movie. D'Souza's brand of "conservatism" reflects a fringe view that is ignored in reliable sources except by scholar who write about the fringes of the political views.

TFD (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of "lying", TFD, but of posting factual falsehoods, and I proceeded to prove my claim. There's more to clean up from your latest post. I said America is the 6th highest ranking political documentary (reread my post), and it is. I never defined "the left" as anyone who didn't like this film. I said I hadn't seen a negative review from anyone who wasn't a leftist. Read the reviews yourself. The negative ones all attack D'Souza's politics. And those politics are very mainstream conservative, not "fringe". Two years ago is "years" by definition, which is certainly more accurate than your misleading claim that RT hadn't used him since "shortly after he joined Breitbart". I already showed you above that RT doesn't count every review from its approved critics, and indeed can go several months between citations, so that doesn't prove anything. RT isn't the end all be all anyway, and we certainly aren't restricted to only quoting critics they do. That RT has cited Toto 665 times and Breitbart at least 287 times is only relevant in helping to establish that Toto is a professional critic and that other media outlets take Breitbart at face value as an authentic source for his (and others') reviews. You have yet to post a single argument on that score, which is the actual topic of the RFC you chose to participate in above.VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying, "I already showed you above that RT doesn't count every review from its approved critics," Well no you have not. You stated that they did not carry Andy Webster's review, but the reason they did not include it was that he did not write a review of the film - few critics did. And D'Souza's politics are not "mainstream conservative." They are never mentioned approvingly in mainstream academic writing and are most often mentioned in books and articles about fringe views. TFD (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned Andy Webster. Above I linked to several Toto reviews from before your cutoff date of May 9 that weren't quoted by RT either. That demonstrably didn't mean they had dropped him, since they proceeded to quote him on May 9. Your claims about D'Souza's politics are wrong and irrelevant. You keep dodging the actual issue of Breitbart's reliability in this context. VictorD7 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they phased his columns out. I don't know. But their methodology is to use every column of every reviewer they use. Imagine a film got a 100% "fresh" because RT decided only to inlcude positive reviews. Also, it makes no sense to rail against the liberal media and the left-wing academic world, then claim that people like D'Souza are in the mainstream. If mainstream is a Marxist-Alinsky-anticolonialist conspiracy that D'Souza opposes, he is obviously not part of it. TFD (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe they didn't; at least now you admit you don't know. You've posted nothing supporting your claim about their methodology, which, btw, is certainly not scientific. D'Souza's views are firmly in the American mainstream (which isn't defined by the liberal media), and I don't know of any specific factual claims his film makes that have been disputed. That's all irrelevant though. You're still dodging the actual issue of Breitbart's reliability as a source for Toto's review.VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you are the one who brought up RT as evidence of Toto's notability, you need to provide the methology they use, not me. If you do not know it, then you cannot use them as evidence of Toto's importance.

D'Souza's views are well outside the mainstream. You refer to the "liberal media" - that is the mainstream. Notice on page 145 of Obama's rage, D'Souza distinguishes between the "mainstream media" and the "conservative media." His example of the latter is Sean Hannity.[28] That show does even meet rs standards, except for the opinions expressed on it.

Asking whether Breitbart is rs for Toto's column is begging the question. As I worte above, "Any editor could write a review and post it on facebook and it would be a reliable source for what they said. The real issue is whether is notability."

TFD (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep ignoring what's been posted, causing people to repeat themselves. Again, RT was cited as one piece of a mountain of evidence proving that Toto is a professional film critic. While your various claims about RT's methodology are completely unsupported and in some cases have been proved false, in the above section Dr Fleischman did copy paste RT's methodology and review process regarding critic approval (what's relevant here). Other evidence, like Toto working as a critic for the Washington Times for years, being cited by other media sources, and belonging to major professional critic organizations was also cited. There should be no doubt whatsoever among good faith editors that Toto is an established, professional critic. That alone makes him RS per film guidelines as I quoted a few paragraphs above. As to his "notability", by which here you presumably mean his prominence, being the feature film critic for widely read publications like the Washington Times and Breitbart (both publications themselves are extremely notable) make him at least as notable as the critics already quoted in the section, and probably more so. Your comments on D'Souza are both incorrect and irrelevant. The "media" doesn't determine which political views are mainstream. If they did, a Republican would never win a national election. Getting back on topic, does your next to last sentence mean that you do accept Breitbart as an RS for Toto's words? VictorD7 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not being Republican or Democrat that makes one mainstream, it is one's opinions. For example, birtherism, 9/11 truth, death panels, young earth creationism, and climate change denial are all views popular with some Republicans but that does not elevate them to mainstream views. You still have not explained the irony of someone claiming that mainstream views are lies, yet your claiming that is a mainstream view. It is a logical impossibility: TFD (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You're still dodging the central issue here. Do you accept that Breitbart is RS for Toto's review? As for your post, leaving aside the fact that some things (like 9/11 conspiracy theories) are far more popular with Democrats, you haven't pointed to anything D'Souza states in the film (or even happens to believe) that's supposedly "fringe", or explained the relevance to this conversation even if you could. You're also conflating certain mainstream views, like anthropogenic climate change skepticism, espoused by many scientists, with the truly fringe. Your final two sentences continue to mistakenly conflate the "mainstream" (or "old", or "liberal") media with political views that are societally mainstream, so your "logical" claim is based on a false premise. D'Souza criticizes the "mainstream" political bias of certain niches, and his views are certainly mainstream on the political spectrum. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to argue that "anthropogenic climate change skepticism, espoused by many scientists" is a mainstream view, then we are not going to get anywhere. Your view of what is mainstream differs from what policy says and how it is interpreted. Instead of arguing across numerous articles that fringe views are mainstream, you should take your arguments to discussions of policies. (The 9/11 truth movement is mostly extreme right Republicans.) TFD (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The 9/11 "truth" movement was mostly liberal Democrats (with a few libertarians), and who defines the "mainstream" varies from topic to topic. For example, for general political views the mainstream is not defined by the media's own political preferences. None of that is relevant to this discussion though. Your posting here has been almost entirely obfuscatory and diversionary. If you continue to refuse to address the topic actually under discussion then your comments will merit no further response.VictorD7 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this will finally be the blissful silence we have all been looking forward to. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews - starting from scratch

Per WP:RTMC: "The "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes and the critics at Metacritic are generally considered reliable and authoritative sources and are ideal for sampling." I took the lists of the RT "Top Critics" and the Metacritic critics for this film and found six critics who were cited in both places. I selected four of the six and used only the pull quotes that were used by RT and Metacritic (in some cases, by both) and excerpted no other material from their reviews. I thought six was too many, and all six were unfavorable reviews anyway. I can't think of a way to make the selection process any more objective than this. It leaves out Christian Toto, but it also leaves out that evil liberal plotter Peter Sobczynski that Victor has such a seething hatred for, so it's a wash. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotemining makes terrible articles. POV quotemining makes bad articles worse. Section was cut down to simple facts without quotes or ideological POVs. Every quote you chose seemed to be based on the critics ideological review rather than a critical assessment of the film itself. Are critics "fact-checkers" such that they can make sweeping statements about truthiness and be considered a reliable source? --DHeyward (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if you can summarize critical assessment of the film itself. "Reliance on dramatizations over interviews" was a criticism of the style and is valid film critic area of expertise. It's harder to make them into content experts, though, so facile and strawman are harder to stick. As an example, whether a film critic believed "Life of Pi" was true or not based on his personal experience with tigers might be in his review but it's not ripe for the WP article on the film. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cherry picked"? "POV quotemining"? These accusations make no sense given the methodology I used to include the quotes, which removed almost all human intervention and made the most representative selection possible of the "critical assessment". Your objections lie with the selections and decisions made by RT and Metacritic. When we had eight quotes, I can understand the objection of "quotesoup", but half that number is reasonable to include, which is why I only used four instead the six I could have. None is unreasonable. Including review excerpts is standard in film articles, and of all the editors who have discussed the matter here, so far you are the only editor to favor the opposite approach. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Overkill in quotes to show just how horrid the fake-umentary is is not really needed, and when people engage in making absolutely sure every reader knows how evil the film is simply negates the primary rules of Wikipedia - including the non-negotiable principle of "neutral point of view." At this point, we have the neat position where the only remotely positive review suggested for inclusion, which was specifically found to be reliably sourced in the RfC above, is not mentioned at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV requires fair and proportional representation. The overall critical assessment is poor, and the article should reflect that. Claiming that quotes which reflect the critical assessment violate NPOV turns NPOV on its head. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Um -- since I edited without a single favourable review in the edit, that would seem a reasonable percentage. Might you tell me how I could get to over 100% negative with a straight face? I would rather think 100% is an upper bound mathematically - can you get higher? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I could just as easily say you violated NPOV by reducing the negative representation by 50%. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I trust you will read the Joseph Widney article which I reduced in size by 160,000 bytes, or about 80%, thus making it a "Good Article". Having a hundred negative reviews against zero positive reviews is not "more neutral" than having two negative major reviews and zero positive reviews. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In hopes of finding common ground regarding your concerns while keeping this article in line with other film articles, I'm going to try to reduce the length of the quotes instead of their number. Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the unusual circumstances surrounding this film and the politicized reception, it's clear that linking directly to any review will be a poison pill inviting further expansion. If you add negative quotes I will restore a positive one, probably the Breitbart review, since among all reviews it has by far the most endorsement on this page. There is no policy mandating a certain ratio of positive to negative quotes. That most pro critics panned the film (not to be confused with the total reception, which was more positive than negative) is made clear by the section leading off with the aggregation scores, avoiding any danger of a false equivalence. The purpose of the quotes would not be to precisely represent weight in character space, but provide coverage of the salient, differing points of view. We don't need several quotes essentially repeating themselves.

Your op here links to a non binding essay someone wrote, and even it says "Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are considered reliable sources, but information from them should be used in proper context and have some limitations"....and "critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources". The actual film guidelines only really mention Top Critics to say "There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes based on several concerns:". By contrast, total RT and MC aggregations are listed as "citable", but there's nothing mandating we use them, much less restrict ourselves to the sample of critics they happen to choose for a particular movie. Guidelines do say that "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." Nothing about them having to come from RT, much less RT's "Top Critics". We're also instructed to provide a "reasonable balance" of quotes, but we aren't required to provide quotes at all, especially given the unusual issues at play here. Guidelines call on us to use "best judgment", flexible instruction implying adaptability to differing circumstances. Any honest editor will admit that critical reception to this movie has at least largely broken down along political lines, so best judgment cautions us to be wary about only quoting from one side. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel. Again with the Daily Kos source? really? You know better than that. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem with this source? If this is a political documentary, it makes sense to include and attribute political commentary. The key is to structure that commentary per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC established that fringe political websites like Brietbart and Daily Kos are allowable sources to reference their own reviews. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, actually the RFC established that the news/opinion site Breitbart and its pro film reviewer Christian Toto are RS here. It said nothing about non pro film critics on truly fringe liberal group blogs. That said, I agree with Erik that expanded political commentary is appropriate for an explicitly political film, including commentary about the reception itself (which is common, as I've shown before), as long as we fully cover both sides, and you don't try to engage in one sided censorship. VictorD7 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

One-sided censorship? Like when you deleted only the liberal reviews? I do so enjoy patient reasoned argumentation like this from you, it reminds me of visiting the monkey cage. Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that never happened, lol. You seem particularly upset today, Gamaliel. What's the matter? VictorD7 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess we have always been at war with Eastasia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I only deleted the quotes from non-critics; all such quotes from non-liberals had already been dropped down the memory hole (deleted), so there were only liberal ones left to delete (you left out what a late great radio host might call the rest of the story). Now that there's sentiment for expanding the Reception section beyond pro film critics, both perspectives are represented. VictorD7 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we all please focus on the content? I agree with the conclusion of the RFC because we are dealing with statements of opinion here (see WP:RSOPINION), and the conclusion should extend to similar sources on the other end of the political spectrum. If sources are notable (Wikipedia's notability standards can be one rule of thumb), then opinions published by them can be noteworthy. I am fine with including and attributing both conservative and liberal statements in this article, though I would prefer to paraphrase where possible to get away from any slang that may be used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds acceptable to me, Erik, but you see with this revert by Gamaliel the kind of intractable, one sided, POV censorship I'm talking about having to deal with. He deleted almost all the conservative commentary while leaving the liberal pundit attacks. Gamaliel even violated 3RR to do it, his edit summary containing nothing but what I surmise is his family photo album (set to some touching audio). Maybe he miscounted his reverts, so I politely notified him on his talk page. Regardless, clearly the current page grossly violates NPOV. I'll add that the two commentators he completely deleted, John Fund and Ben Shapiro, are both notable (along with their publications, of course), while none of the leftist pundits he put into the article are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and it looks like only one pro film critic is. VictorD7 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

After all that you've put up with, and yet you still manage to engage in patient reasoned argumentation. Your talents are wasted on Wikipedia, truly. Have you considered bringing your brand of patient reasoned argumentation to a struggling inner city school? Within six months they will all be getting 5s on the AP Calculus exam. Gamaliel (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, sometimes my patience astonishes even me. I don't spend that much time on Wikipedia though.VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

New tags

One is supposed to post talk page rationales when they add things like NPOV tags, as I did. For the record, since there seems to be some confusion, the conservative perspective is not a "minority political view" as it was erroneously called in a recent edit summary. RT style aggregations are only meaningful from a weight standpoint when assessing pro film critics' views. When the scope of coverage is expanded beyond that narrow set, as it appropriately has been here given the film's political nature, the negative skew goes out the window. There is a lot of positive material about this movie, especially from conservative commentators.VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do not find the tags necessary. I think that there could be more copy-editing, especially not to quote directly so much, but otherwise, the grouping of content is fine. However, I think at least in the "Political commentary" section, we should attribute the political stances of the sources attributed. If these sources' Wikipedia articles open with the political slant, we should state them here so readers unfamiliar with the sources don't have to go to the articles to find that out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose tagging the pundits "conservative" and "liberal", as long as we're even handed, though I'm not sure how necessary it is. Regarding the quotes, I think allowing full coverage of a thought is more important than worrying too much about character length. Sometimes that can be done easily with a sentence fragment, especially when one is essentially just name calling, but other times it might require a sentence or a sentence and a half. I think right now the combined negative quotes sufficiently cover that perspective, which is given more space, number of reviews, and emphasis (especially leading off with the aggregations) in the pro critic section, with the positive quote being slightly longer than the average negative quote (much smaller than the combined liberal quote paragraph) but needing more space to fully cover that view since it's the only positive quote used. VictorD7 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You've been taking here about this for months, you are well aware of the rationale. The section gives the longest quote to a conservative review, included solely because of its political viewpoint, because it would obviously be excluded by any objective methodology for selecting quotes based on the critical consensus. All the reviews from liberal publications were removed to another section. This is a biased presentation which gives undue weight to Toto's minority viewpoint. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. The Daily Kos and Salon passages both state that the pieces are film reviews. These should be in the same camp as Breitbart. Media Matters for America, on the other hand, is not labeled a review and can stay in the "Political commentary" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, being an established pro film critic is more than having one piece labeled "review" on a group blog. Toto's extensive credentials are laid out all over this page. So far I've seen no evidence that the Kos and Salon bloggers are critics. They don't even seem like major members of those blogs, much less people who have had reviews published by various outlets, have had their reviews cited and quoted by mainstream media, are members of professional critics organizations, etc., like Toto. If there's evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your premises. The Toto quote is only slightly the longest, because it's making a more complex point than tossing out a bunch of invective, and far shorter than the combined negative quotes. The pro critic weight skews negative, and our coverage clearly reflects that, especially with the extended RT/MC segment. There's no false equivalence. But, ideology aside, the positive view merits some coverage to achieve reasonable balance. Toto happens to be conservative, but all of the other publications and negative critics in the pro critic section are liberal. Everyone has their political views. What makes the liberal and conservative pundits in the other section different is that they aren't pro film critics. VictorD7 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wrap, Variety, and The A.V. Club are all entertainment publications, not political ones. Brietbart is an explicitly political publication so it should be coupled with reviews from explicitly political publications of different perspectives per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no policy, guideline, or good reason to disregard the writers and only categorize by publication. Toto is an established pro film critic who used to write reviews for the Washington Times, and he'd be RS as a film critic even if we were using his personal blog as a source. Besides, Breitbart is a major news/opinion site and not the equivalent of group blogs like Kos and Salon. It happens to be conservative. So? The NY Times, The Wrap, and CNN all happen to be liberal. Policy explicitly states that bias doesn't disqualify sources from being used, and Breitbart's political leanings don't change the fact that Toto is a pro film critic who usually reviews non political movies. If you want to group all the critics and pundits together that would be one thing, but if we're making a distinction then Toto belongs with the pro critics. VictorD7 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are singling out Toto because of his political orientation and the political orientation of his publication. You can't do that without presenting other political viewpoints, and you can't claim that every single one of dozens of non-political entertainment and general news publications and critics mentioned on this page as meeting the criteria for inclusion in that section are all "liberal". The reception section should be representative of the non-political consensus of film critics. if you want to introduce politics into that through Toto, then NPOV requires representing all political points of view. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. I pushed for Toto's inclusion (assuming that's what you meant by "singling out") because it was a positive review, and that side needed at least some coverage for reasonable balance, per an earlier talk page agreement. First I supported other editors' attempts to include the RT cited positive review of Offer, who may be a liberal for all I know, but you rejected him because you didn't like the way his blog looked, saying you'd accept a positive review but that it should be from an "established critic" (I believe those were your exact words). Toto is a very established pro critic. Sure, having at least one conservative perspective when all the other pro critics quoted are attacking D'Souza's politics and conservatism in general (of course they're liberal, like most of the entertainment industry) is especially important in an article covering a political film, but that just strengthens the case. I'd support a positive quote anyway. Of course the liberal perspective, both critic and pundit, is well represented, and the mostly negative state of pro critic opinion has been covered all along. VictorD7 (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Months ago, I stated that I was willing to consider including Avi Offer if any editor could substantiate that he or his publication had any sort of audience or positive reputation or anything at all besides being on RT. You keep mentioning him, but you are unwilling to provide any of that evidence. I'm not singlehandedly keeping Offer out, I just raised my concerns on the talk page, and for that you've been sniping at me for months. You want Offer in? Provide evidence or develop a consensus for inclusion, otherwise WP:DROPTHESTICK. In regards to critics in general, "of course they're liberal, like most of the entertainment industry" is your personal opinion, not substantiated by policy or evidence or supported by consensus (and irrelevant anyway since they are writing for non-political general entertainment and news publications), so that personal opinion should not be guiding article content. Gamaliel (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get Offer in now. I only mentioned him to refute the notion that I'm only supporting Toto because he leans conservative. I support Toto's inclusion because he's the most prominent pro critic to positively review the film, and therefore the best choice to represent the positive critic sentiment. That he represents an ideological perspective otherwise lacking in the section is just a bonus. Those other outlets may be narrower in focus, but they're no more "non-political" than Breitbart is. Regardless, our respective assessments of their politics is secondary. The bottom line is that they could all be conservative, liberal, or non-political, and it wouldn't change the fact that Toto is an "established", well credentialed, pro film critic, so if we're creating a pro critic section he belongs in it. Speaking of WP:DROPTHESTICK, we just had months of debate culminating in an RFC that didn't go your way. At some point maybe you should step back and let this Toto/Breitbart thing go. Including that one quote can't possibly cause you this much pain. VictorD7 (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here I was thinking you were finally trying to be mature about this, but you just couldn't stop yourself from including more of that patient reasoned argumentation that we all enjoy. Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I really hope you're not complaining about me commenting on the WP:DROPTHESTICK concept you raised.VictorD7 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, do you think your parting shot is really an example of patient reasoned argumentation? Do you think that it furthers this discussion and gets us towards resolution? Have you considered that this discussion has gone on for months not because of everyone else's behavior, but because of yours? Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand why this is such a big deal to you. It's a big deal to me because it represents the section's only positive quote, and because the sourcing rationale used to exclude it just because it came from Breitbart was, as another editor put it, "odious". It was important to establish a consensus that Breitbart is RS in situations like this; perfectly fine to use. That consensus being established, I'm obviously not going to walk away if that means the quote gets purged from a section still filled with negative quotes. But why is this so important to you? The quote itself is fairly innocuous, and all the section's other quotes are still negative. That said, you're obviously under no obligation to answer a personal question; you can tell me to screw off or just ignore it if you want to. But you can't ignore the fact that Toto is an established professional critic, while Kos's Falcone and Salon's Bruenig aren't.VictorD7 (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to understand why this is such a big deal to you." is not a response to the guestion of "Why are you acting like a jackass?" Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I rejected your premise. VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The film has an 8% rating on RT amongst professional critics. That is an almost universally panned film. It would be inaccurate that a "well-balanced" article would include positive and negative review of the film, you would have to deliberately cherry pick good reviews because there appear to be so few of them. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could expand on quoting the negative reviews? We could quote The Washington Post since it is a very well-known periodical, as well as The Hollywood Reporter, which with Variety makes up the major film-related trade journals. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there are enough positive reviews that even an article that only focused on pro film critics should include at least one to cover that perspective. But, of course, this being a political documentary, the set of views has been expanded beyond pro film critics, and the broader reception was far more positive.VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(od) Four negative reviews along with the RT and MetaCritic cites stating that the reviews were overwhelmingly negative would appear to be quite sufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Most well-developed film articles have a good number of reviews. I understand that we don't want to repeat "it's bad" over and over, but the point of referencing individual critics is to expand on the particulars of the consensus. Basically answering the question of what elements worked or didn't work for the critic. I find it very shotgun-editing to just have a quoted sentence from each critic (and I admit I do that sometimes). Something like American Beauty (1999 film)#Critical reception weaves the critics appropriately. I don't know if we'd get to that FA level, but we should strive for it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the ideal, but we can't even get to the point where we can agree what critics to include, much less figure out how to weave them together without accusations of cherry picking. Hell, all I did was cut and paste only the quotes used by both Metacritic and RT and I was accused of cherrypicking. I think first we have to get a stable article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Four seems like a reasonable number if we limit the section to non-political reviews. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)